MARTINIANO BENIGNO, PETITIONER, VS. BERNARDO DE LA PENA, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOCOS NORTE, AND GASPAR ACACIO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari. The case was submitted on the
petition and the verified answer of the respondents. It appears from an
examination of the record that on February 21, 1924 the respondent Gaspar Acacio
applied to the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte fpr the summary
settlement of the estate of the spousest Lorenzo Acacio and Norberta Benigno,
alleging that Norberta Benigno and Lorenzo Acacio died intestate in the
municipality of Vintar, Ilocos Norte, in 1921 and 1923, respectively; that they
left no ascendants or descendants; that they had acquired during their marriage
certain property, described in the petition, which did not exceed P3,000 in
value; that they left no debts; that the heirs of Lorenzo Acacio were his
brothers and sisters or their children, and that the heirs of Norberta Benigno
were her brothers or their children; and praying that if there should be any
necessity for the appointment of an administrator of the estate of said spouses
he be appointed as such administrator. The court set the petition for hearing on
December 11, 1924, and ordered that personal notice be given to the interested
parties, and that further notice be given by publication of the order in the
manner provided by law. The present petitioner Martiniano Benigno, filed an
amended opposition in said summary settlement proceedings, civil case No. 2472,
on December 11, 1924 on the ground that some of the properties described in the
petition had been sold to him by the deceased spouses. The case was heard by
Judge C. Carballo, and on December 17, 1924 he dictated an order, in which he
found that Norberta Benigno died in 1919 in the municipality of Vintar, Province
of Ilocos Norte, and Lorenzo Acacio in the month of September, 1923; that they
were husband and wife, and that they died intestate, without leaving descendants
or ascendants ; that their nearest relatives and therefore their heirs were the
persons named in the petition; that they left real properties having a value of
P2,000, more or less; that they left no debts, and that all their properties
were conjugal properties that some or all of said properties were in the
possession of Martiniano Benigno, son of Clemente Benigno, one of the brothers
of the deceased Norberta Benigno, and that he was the only one that opposed the
petition. The court ordered the estate to be divided into two equal parts;
one-half was to be divided into five equal parts among the heirs of Lorenzo
Acacio, and the other half to be divided into three equal parts among the heirs
of Norberta Benigno. In view of the fact duly proved by the evidence that some
of the properties belonging to the estate were in the possession of third
persons, the court appointed Gaspar Acacio as administrator, conditioned upon
his filing a bond in the sum of P500, and authorized him to file the
corresponding action to recover the properties of the estate.

The petitioner, Martiniano Benigno, was notified of said order on December
17, 1924. On May 18, 1925, Gaspar Acacio as administrator filed civil action No.
2633 in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte against the petitioner
herein to recover certain properties belonging to the deceased spouses. That
case has been tried, and is now pending decision.

It appears that on March 25, 1929 and July 16, 1932, the present petitioner
attempted to have the order of December 17, 1924 set aside, but his motions of
reconsideration were overruled.

The petitioner now prays that the respondent “Judge be ordered to refrain
from further proceedings in the tration case and in civil case No. 2633 for the
recovery of the real properties, and that in due course the order of December
17, 1924 as well as the appointment of the administrator Gaspar Acacio be
declared null and void.

The mere statement of the foregoing facts is sufficient to show that the
petition is without merit. The ground on which the petitioner principally relies
is that the settlement of the estates of two persons cannot be lawfully had in
the same proceeding, and in support of his contention he cites the case of Sy
Hong Eng vs. Sy Lioc Suy (10 Phil., 209). The decision of this court in that
case is not in point. It was there held that one administrator cannot be
appointed in one single proceeding for the estates of three different persons,
in the case at bar the only property involved was the conjugal property of the
deceased spouses, and in our opinion the settlement of their estates.and the
disposition of their property, in the single proceeding was perfectly proper.
Equally without merit is the contention of the petitioner that the appointment
of an administrator to recover the property in the possession of third persons
was unauthorized by law. Furthermore, it does riot appear that’ the petitioner
is an heir of either of the deceased spouses or that he has any right to
complain of the order in question. The order which the petitioner seeks to set
aside was issued more than seven years ago, and in pursuance thereof the
administrator filed an action against the petitioner herein to recover certain
real properties in the possession of the petitioner, and that case has been
tried and is now pending decision. We see no reason whatever for setting aside
the order in the administration proceedings or for suspending the action of
ejectment. The petition for a writ of certiorari is therefore denied, with the
costs against the petitioner.

Avancena, C. J., Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Abad Santos, Hull, Imperial, and
Butte, JJ., concur.