ANGELES TAPIA VIUDA DE JONES, JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED, WALTER E. JONES, PETITIONER, VS. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RI…

In this original petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner
Herein, in her capacity as judicial administratrix of the intestate
estate of the deceased, Walter E. Jones, seeks to annul and set aside
the order of the respondent judge, reading as follows:

“After
considering the plaintiff’s motion dated June 7, 1933, and in view of
the reasons therein stated, the administratrix is hereby ordered to pay
to the plaintiff 17.7 per cent of the amount of the judgment rendered
in his favor on September 8, 1932, within the non-extendible period of
three (3) days from date of receipt of a copy of this order; otherwise
she shall be declared in contempt of court. So ordered.

“Pasig, Rizal, June 30, 1933.

“(Sgd.)		Francisco Zandueta
			“Judge”

In
the aforementioned intestate proceedings, docketed as case No. 4339 in
the Court of First Instance of Rizal, a committee on claims was
appointed before which the herein respondent, E. E. Elser, presented
his claim amounting to P23,444.76. Inasmuch as his claim was
disallowed, he appealed and instituted civil case No. 4876. In the
latter case, judgment was rendered in favor of the respondent and
against the intestate estate for the sum of P8,348.26, with interest
thereon and the costs. The judgment became final. In the intestate
proceedings, many creditors presented claims, aggregating about
P174,000. Some claims have already been allowed while others were
either pending resolution by the committee on claims, or on appeal
pending decision by the court. The respondent’s claim was among those
last mentioned. Inasmuch as the petitioner in her capacity as
administratrix had not sufficient funds to pay all the claims allowed
and contingent, the court appointed a commission composed of Attorneys
Escudero, O’Brien, McFie, jr., and Alikpala, to determine the amount of
the funds under administration, the amount of all the claims of every
nature, and the dividend to be paid out of said funds. The committee
thus appointed submitted its report wherein it was stated that the
administratrix had in her hands available funds amounting to
P32,924.19; that, of this amount, P13,170.15 should be distributed
among the creditors whose claims have been allowed and that the sum of
P18,589.46 should be held by the administratrix to be paid at the
proper time to the creditors whose claims were still pending before the
committee on claims or on appeal before the court. These sums
represented a distributable dividend of 17.7 per cent. The court
approved the report and ordered the administratrix to act in accordance
therewith. Sometime later, three preferred creditors whose claims
amounted to P11,300 appeared in the intestate proceedings and asked
that their preferred claims be paid. The administratrix, by order of
the court, paid the said preferred claims out of the funds reserved for
the payment of the other contingent claims. After making these last
payments, there still remained in the hands of the
administratrix-petitioner, for the same purpose, the sum of P8,454.04
to be distributed on the basis of a 17.7 per cent dividend among the
creditors with contingent claims. At this juncture, the respondent
creditor filed several motions urging payment by the petitioner of his
claim which had already been determined, in the proportion mentioned
above, and inasmuch as the petitioner herein resorted to subterfuges to
avoid payment thereof, he finally filed another motion praying that the
aforesaid petitioner be declared in contempt of court for refusing to
pay him the aforementioned dividend. Accordingly, the court issued the
order appealed from compelling the petitioner herein to pay the
dividend in question within three days, otherwise she would be punished
for contempt.

The petitioner herein contends that the order
in question, dated June 30, 1933, is null and void on the ground that
it was entered in civil case No. 4876 and that the respondent judge who
issued it was not sitting as a probate judge. Consequently, she argues
that such order could only be entered by the probate judge who took
cognizance of special proceedings No. 4339. We hold that such
contention is unfounded and untenable inasmuch as the dividend
distributable among the creditors, one of whom is the respondent Elser,
had already been fixed by the probate court within the intestate
proceedings and, under such circumstances, the respondent judge in an
independent civil case had jurisdiction and could properly compel the
petitioner to comply with what had been ordered in the course of the
said special proceedings. It is obvious that the respondent judge has
done nothing more than to enforce the judgment rendered by the probate
court relative to the distribution of funds, instead of issuing a writ
of execution in the civil case decided in favor of the other respondent
herein.

The petitioner alleges that after paying the three
preferred claims, the balance she had on hand was not sufficient to pay
the dividend corresponding to the respondent’s claim, and she also
claims that she was under no obligation to comply with the order in
question on the ground that she has filed a new motion in the intestate
proceedings praying that a readjustment be made for the purpose of
determining the dividend to be paid to the remaining creditors. These
allegations are likewise unfounded, first, because the last petition
filed by her has not yet been favorably acted upon in the intestate
proceedings and, second, because it is an undisputed fact that even
after the payment of the three preferred claims, there still remain in
her possession funds of the administration amounting to P8,454.04,
which sum is more than sufficient to pay the 17.7 per cent dividend of
the respondent’s claim or credit.

Wherefore, the petition for a writ of certiorari is hereby denied, with the costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, and Hull, JJ., concur.