G.R. No. L-4860 - Hinlo vs. De Leon

Esteban Hinlo and his wife, Nicasia Jamandre, owed Rufino Tongoy the sum of ₱2,300.30.
To secure the debt, the Hinlos mortgaged a 30-hectare rural property.
Neither creditor nor debtors initiated suit for recovery of the debt prior to the deaths of the spouses.

Esteban Hinlo died on May 15, 1890, and Nicasia Jamandre died on June 17, 1897.
The spouses left five legitimate children: Agapito, Honorato, Perfecto, Guagerico, and Encarnacion.
At the time of his mother’s death, Agapito was 19 years 3 months and 1 day old.
The mortgaged agricultural land remained in the possession of all the children.

On July 20, 1906, Rufino Tongoy filed a suit for payment against the children.
The suit was filed in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros.
During the proceedings, only the minor Encarnacion appeared (assisted by a curator ad litem) while the other four children appeared by default.
Judgment was rendered on May 1, 1907, directing the children to pay the debt with interest and costs.
On November 4, 1907, the sheriff sold the mortgaged property at public auction, adjudicating it to the plaintiff’s lawyer, Jose Felix Martinez.

Saturnina de Leon, as judicial administratrix of Rufino Tongoy’s estate, later attached additional property – work animals.
Agapito Hinlo protested the attachment and provided notice of his intervention.
The attached animals were claimed by Agapito as his exclusive and personal property, separate from the estate of his deceased parents.
On October 21, 1907, Agapito Hinlo filed suit to have the animals declared his exclusive property or, alternatively, to recover their value plus indemnity for loss and damage.
The sheriff sold some of the animals at auction on November 6, 1907, and in the return it was noted that the sale proceeds exceeded the amount attached, with surplus funds eventually returned to Agapito.

Agapito Hinlo’s complaint was directed against Saturnina de Leon (administratrix) and the sheriff for the wrongful attachment and sale of the animals.
The defendant, Saturnina de Leon, contested by claiming:

The children, including Agapito, had consented to the judgment in the earlier suit (Case No. 168) and its execution.
The sheriff acted under the bond provided by her in connection with the execution of the mortgage.

Agapito presented ownership titles and documentary evidence proving that the animals were acquired by him after his parents’ death.
The trial court rendered findings that:

The animals were proven to be the exclusive, private property of Agapito, acquired subsequent to his parents’ death.
There was no evidence that the animals ever belonged to (or were inherited from) his deceased parents.
The attachment and sale of these animals were made arbitrarily and were therefore unlawful.

A sum of ₱2,119.26, with interest at 6% per annum from July 16, 1907, until the sum was fully reimbursed.
Payment of the costs of the trial.

The admissibility of evidence regarding whether Agapito inherited any property from his parents.
The effect (or lack thereof) of the previous default judgment in Case No. 168 on the present proceeding.

Additional arguments questioned the extension of the mortgage action to personal property allegedly not part of the deceased parents’ estate.
The case background also highlighted that the matter of the mortgage was to be governed by the Civil Code and relevant procedural provisions, particularly on the acceptance of inheritance.

Whether the work animals attached and sold by the sheriff rightfully belonged to Agapito Hinlo as his personal property.
Whether the animals had ever belonged to the deceased parents (and thus the estate) or were acquired solely by Agapito subsequent to their deaths.

Whether the children, especially Agapito, technically accepted the inheritance of their parents’ estate.
Whether mere acts of administration and preservation of the mortgaged property imply acceptance of the inheritance.
The effect of acceptance (or non-acceptance) on personal liability for the debts incurred by the deceased parents.

Whether the execution of judgment for the debt should have extended to personal property not constituting part of the inheritance.
Whether the proceeding to attach and sell the work animals was proper, given that these were not subject to the mortgage secured by the estate.
Whether the earlier default judgment in Case No. 168 should bind Agapito in the present suit.

Validity of the Consent/Agreement Raised by Agapito in the Previous Proceedings

Whether Agapito’s conduct manifested tacit acceptance of the judgment in the prior mortgage case.
If such consent influenced his rights or waived his claim to the exclusive ownership of the animals.