Facts:

In the case of Toribio Atilano, Administrator vs. Julian Inclan et al., G.R. No. 20956, decided on October 13, 1923, the central figure was Francisco Atilano, who, during his life, owned three parcels of land, designated as Lots Nos. 209-A, 209-B, and 214, in the cadastral plan of Zamboanga. On June 1, 1920, Francisco Atilano executed a mortgage on these properties in favor of Lim Jua, for the amount of P9,662.20. This mortgage also included stipulations regarding the delivery of copra as partial payment and consequences in case of default. Upon Francisco's death on September 4, 1920, his son Toribio Atilano was appointed as the administrator of the estate.

On August 26, 1921, Lim Jua's claim of P9,439.70 was formally presented and accepted by the estate's commissioners, with no appeals or objections raised against this claim at that time. Subsequently, on March 3, 1922, Toribio sought permission from the court to sell the estate's remaining lands to settle Lim

...

Facts:

Ownership and Mortgage Execution

• Francisco Atilano, during his lifetime, owned Lots Nos. 209-A, 209-B, and 214 as described in the cadastral plan of the municipality and Province of Zamboanga.
• As a widower, on June 1, 1920, Francisco Atilano executed a mortgage to secure a debt, in which his relatives, Toribio Atilano and Pio Atilano (as married persons), joined him. The mortgage was in favor of Lim Jua, also a married person.
• The instrument recited specific payment terms, including:

- Delivery of forty (40) piculs on the 15th day of September, 1920. - Delivery of forty (40) piculs of copra after each quarter until full payment of the sum.

Death and Administration of the Estate

• Francisco Atilano died on September 4, 1920.
• A petition was filed in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga for the appointment of an administrator for his estate.
• On August 7, 1921, Toribio Atilano was appointed as administrator of the deceased’s estate and duly qualified to discharge his duties.
• In the ordinary course of estate administration, commissioners on claims and appraisal were appointed.

Submission and Allowance of the Claim

• Acting through its attorney-in-fact, Yap Seng, Lim Jua & Co. presented a claim against the estate on August 26, 1921.
• The presented claim was in the amount of P9,439.70, originating from an indebtedness of P9,662.20, and was accepted, approved, and allowed by the commissioners.
• No objections were filed nor was any appeal made against this allowance of claim by any party.

Petition for Sale and Objections Raised

• On March 3, 1922, Toribio Atilano, as the administrator, filed a petition for the sale of the estate’s real property to satisfy the full claim of Lim Jua & Co. and to cover other small claims (amounting to about P1,000).
• Appellants (the heirs of Francisco Atilano) filed objections on March 30, 1922, arguing:

- The indebtedness against the estate arose through fraud, falsification, and connivance by Toribio Atilano and Lim Jua. - The claim should be contested on such grounds. - The indebtedness was not a joint and several debt of the deceased. - The estate was liable for only one-third of the total indebtedness. - On August 18, 1922, with similar objections filed on August 23, 1922. - On January 15, 1923, after which the objections were again raised by the appellants.

Assignments of Error and Arguments on Appeal

• The appellants raised multiple assignments of error on appeal, including:

- The failure to allow the appellants to question the validity of the claim of P9,439.70 (originally P9,662.20) at any stage. - The erroneous imputation that the claim was a joint and several obligation of the deceased along with Toribio and Pio Atilano. - The alleged error in ordering the sale of property belonging to the dissolved conjugal partnership of Francisco Atilano and Maria Acevedo. - The abuse of discretion by not dismissing the administrator despite the appellant’s requests.

Issue:

Procedural Bar on Objecting to the Allowed Claim

• Whether the appellants, as heirs, are barred from questioning the allowed claim because they did not file objections or an appeal when the commissioners approved the claim.
• Whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Sections 773-776) preclude later contestation on grounds of fraud if no timely objection was made.

Liability for the Mortgage Debt

• Whether the claim presented by Lim Jua & Co. should be regarded as the joint and several obligation of the deceased, Toribio Atilano, and Pio Atilano, given that all were parties to the mortgage.
• Whether the mortgage, which expressly designated Francisco Atilano as the owner of the land, supports a presumption that he was the sole beneficiary of the transaction.

Validity and Sale of the Mortgaged Property

• Whether the court erred in ordering the sale of Lots Nos. 209-A, 209-B, and 214—properties considered to be part of the dissolved conjugal partnership of Francisco Atilano and Maria Acevedo.
• Whether the sale order affects the rights of the other parties who, as alleged by the appellants, had no claim to share in the proceeds of the mortgage.

Allegations of Fraud and Collusion

• Whether the appellants’ allegations of fraud, falsification, and collusion by the administrator and creditor are sufficient to overcome the presumption of the validity of the mortgage.
• Whether, in the absence of evidence showing that Pio or Toribio Atilano received any part of the mortgage money, the fraud allegations can sustain an objection to the allowed claim.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)