IN RE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED MARIANO LOPEZ. NATALIA AREVALO, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARIANO LOPEZ, DECEASED, PETITIONER, VS. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF…

This is an application for a writ of
certiorari. In her verified petition filed March 13, 1934, the
petitioner prayed this court:

“(a) That a writ of certiorari issue ex parte
directing the respondent Judge Leopoldo Rovira to certify to this Hon.
Supreme Court a transcript of the proceedings in the testamentary
estate of Mariano Lopez, civil case No. 41309.

“(b)
That pending the final hearing and determination of this proceeding an
order of preliminary injunction be granted directing the respondent
Judge Leopoldo Rovira to desist and refrain from, until further orders
from this court, continuing to enforce his order of February 13, 1934,
and to order the sheriff of Manila to desist from making any payment
whatsoever to Carmen Adriano out of any amount or money which has
accrued or will accrue to the said estate, and to deliver to the
administratrix Natalia Arevalo immediately all the properties, money or
whatever sum which has accrued or will accrue to the said estate and
which are now under his possession and control by virtue of the order
of the respondent judge of February 13, 1934.

” (c) That the petitioner recover her costs.”

The questioned order of the Honorable Leopoldo Rovira reads:

“Se ha registrado una mocion de reconsideration a
la decision de este Juzgado de fecha 19 de diciembre de 1933
resolviendo las cuentas y ciertos incidentes. Dicha mocion de
reconsideracion es denegada y el que no este conforme debe apelar de
esta decision.

“En ausencia del infrascrito, que es Juez de
otro distrito, el Hon. Pedro Concepcion nombro administradora, en lugar
de Natalia Arevalo, a Carmen Adriano, madre del finado Mariano Lopez.
La representation de Carmen Adriano pidio que fuera nombrado Antonia de
Besa, hija de Carmen Adriano. La representacion de Natalia Arevalo se
opone al nombramiento de Antonia de Besa y propone que se nombre al
Banco de las Islas Filipinas o a cualquiera persona extrafia.

“Resulta que Carmen Adriano ha prestado ya la fianza en virtud de
aquella orden y ahora esta pendiente una mocion de reconsideracion a la
orden del Juez Concepcion, que dejo en suspenso la orden nombrando
administradora a Carmen Adriano.

“El Juzgado esta cansado de
tantos incidentes proyenientes de las relaciones entre suegra y nuera,
imposibles de compaginar, y es necesario que estos bienes esten
realmente en custodia legis bajo el control del Juzgado, de lo contrario pereceran todos estos bienes con cuentas y mas cuentas.

“El Juzgado no comprende como esta testamentaria, no teniendo bienes y,
sin embargo, los abogados no hacen mas que llenar de papeles el
expediente, que se supone no trabajan gratuitamente, y, por lo tanto,
algo se oculta a los ojos del Juzgado.

“El Juzgado ordena al
Sheriff de la Ciudad de Manila tome inmediatamente, dentro del termino
de veinte cuatro horas, posesion de todos los bienes de esta
testamentaria, con la advertencia a cualquiera persona que desobedezca
esta orden, sea la solicitante, sea la opositora o cualquiera persona
colateral, se ordenara su arresto inmediato en prision, hasta que deje
de obstaculizar esta orden.

“Se ordena al Sheriff que todas
las cantidades que recaude, sean aplicadas, en primer termino, al pago
de la pension de P100 a Carmen Adriano, con cargo a la hijuela que a
esta pueda corresponder en su dia.

“Se deja sin efecto cualquiera orden en contradiction con la presente. Asi se ordena.

“Dada en corte abierta, Manila, 13 de febrero, 1934.”

The record before this court discloses the following:

On January 2, 1934, respondent Carmen Adriano filed a motion in
civil ease No. 41309 of the Court of First Instance of the City of
Manila, entitled “Estate of Mariano Lopez”, to remove the petitioner as
administratrix of the estate.

On January 19, 1934, the court ruling upon said motion issued an
order removing the petitioner from office and appointed the respondent
Carmen Adriano as administratrix of said estate, to which office, the
said respondent, on January 23, 1934, duly qualified, and assumed
office on the same date.

On January 24, 1934, the petitioner filed a motion ex parte
for the reconsideration of the order of January 19, 1934, appointing
Carmen Adriano as administratrix and at the same time moved that the
force and effect of said order be stayed during the pendency of the
resolution of said motion for reconsideration.

On the same day, January 24, 1934, Judge Pedro Concepcion issued the following order:

“Por la presente, se ordena a Carmen Adriano, sus
agentes y demas empleados que desistan por ahora de ej ecu tar
cualquier acto tendente a tomar posesion de los bienes relictos de esta
testamentaria y abandonen la oficina y casa residencia de Natalia
Arevalo hasta nueva orden de este Juzgado.”

On January 25, 1934, respondent Carmen Adriano filed a motion ex parte
and by way of reply to the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner
filed on January 24, 1934, urging the reconsideration of the above
order, but Judge Concepcion abstained from taking any action thereon
stating in open court that said motion as well as the motion filed by
petitioner on January 24 would be taken up by Judge Leopoldo Rovira
when he resumed his seat in the Court of First Instance of the City of
Manila. However, the court issued an order maintaining its order of
January 24, 1934, until final resolution of the motion for
reconsideration of the herein petitioner.

Under date of February 10, 1934, Carmen Adriano filed another
motion to set aside the order of Judge Pedro Concepcion dated January
24, 1934, which motion was set for hearing on February 13, 1934. At the
hearing of this motion, the respondent judge, in the order copied
above, ordered the sheriff of the City of Manila, to take possession cf
the property of the estate immediately, within twenty-four hours, and
make his report to the court. It was likewise expressly ordered that
all orders which were inconsistent with or repugnant to that order be
set aside.

We conclude that the order of January 19, 1934, in so far as it
orders the removal of the petitioner as administratrix, is final since
the petitioner did not appeal therefrom after her motion for
reconsideration was overruled. This court held that an order of the
Court of First Instance appointing an administrator of the estate of a
deceased, pursuant to section 783 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
constitutes a final determination of the rights of the parties
thereunder and is appealable (Johannes vs. Harvey, 43 Phil., 175). Certiorari proceedings to annul such appointment are therefore improper.

It furthermore appears that under date of January 5, 1934, the
petitioner presented a motion for the reconsideration of certain orders
of the court in its decision of December 19,1933. Among said orders is
that which refers to the payment of the monthly pension of P100 to the
respondent Carmen Adriano. In the questioned order copied above, this
motion for reconsideration was denied by the court and a notice of this
denial of reconsideration was served upon the petitioner on the same
day, February 13, 1934. On February 16, 1934, the petitioner filed an
exception to the decision of December 19, 1933, and to the order of
February 13, 1934, and gave notice of her intention to perfect the
record of appeal. This exception and notice of appeal is attached to
the answer of the respondent judge marked Exhibit 11. The record also
shows that on September 25, 1933, the court ordered the petitioner, as
administratrix of the estate of Mariano Lopez to pay Carmen Adriano, a
monthly pension of P100 from the date of the death of Mariano Lopez,
said pension to be charged against the share of Carmen Adriano in the
estate of the decedent. A notice of this order was received by the
petitioner on September 27,1933. On October 17, 1933, the petitioner
filed a motion for the reconsideration of the order dated September 25,
1933. No resolution of this motion for reconsideration was taken by the
court until it rendered its decision on December 19,1933. Said decision
of the court among other things again ordered as follows:

“Se ordena a la administradora proceda al pago de
las deudas y reclamaciones ya admitidas por la Comision de Avaltio y
Reclamaciones y que tiene caracter firme; asi mismo se le ordena que
pague a Carmen Adriano la pension de P100 mensual en concepto de
alimentos segun orden de este Juzgado de fecha 25 de septiembre de 1933
a contar desde el fallecimiento del finado Mariano Lopez con cargo a la
hijuela de la referida Carmen Adriano.”

It will be seen that from September 27, 1933, the date on which the
petitioner received a copy of the order of September 25, 1933, in which
the administratrix was first ordered to pay the pension of P100 to
Carmen Adriano, to February 16, 1934, when the petitioner gave notice
of her intention to perfect the record of appeal, deducting the number
of days employed by the court in passing upon the motions for
reconsideration, thirty-nine days have elapsed. Consequently the right
of the respondent Carmen Adriano to receive this monthly pension from
the estate of Mariano Lopez as ordered by the court on September 25,
1933, has become final.

The petitioner claims that she has filed an appeal bond but admits
that the record of appeal is still pending approval by the lower court.
It follows that the court may approve or disapprove said record of
appeal. It results therefore that whether we consider the order of
September 25, 1933, as final or if we accept the theory of the
petitioner that the record of appeal is still pending approval, we must
conclude that a writ of certiorari is not a proper remedy in this case.

The action of the court in ordering the sheriff of the City of
Manila to take possession of the property of the estate is in keeping
with the order of the court of January 19, 1934, removing the
petitioner from office, which order as we have seen has become final.
It will be remembered that the Hon. Pedro Concepcion in his order of
January 25, 1934, prohibited the respondent Carmen Adriano, who had
been appointed and qualified as administratrix in lieu of the
petitioner, from taking possession of the property of the estate until
further orders of the court. The result of these two orders was that
there was no one with authority from the court to protect the property
of the estate from loss, destruction and material injury. It is evident
that the order in question was a temporary measure and as the court
stated it was necessary “que estos bienes esten realmente en custodia legis bajo el control
del Juzgado”. We conclude that this order was clearly within the
probate jurisdiction of the court. It was held in the case of Pimentel vs.
Palanca (5 Phil., 436), that “* * * The theory of the present system is
that the property is all in the hands of the court, and must stay there
until the affairs of the deceased are adjusted and liquidated, * * *.”

The preliminary injunction issued, upon the filing of this
petition, is hereby dissolved and the writ is denied with costs against
the petitioner.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.