Case Summary (G.R. No. L-14851)
Factual Background
In July 1957 the Court in G.R. No. L-6622 affirmed a judgment of the Rizal Court of First Instance requiring Crisanto de Borja to pay his coheirs Juan, Marcela, Saturnina, Eufracia, Jacoba and Olimpia the sum of P46,210.78 with legal interest. Pursuant to that final judgment, the clerk of court issued a writ of execution. In April 1958 the sheriff levied upon the rights, interest or participation of Crisanto de Borja as a prospective heir of the deceased spouses Josefa Tangco and Francisco de Borja in certain real estate in Rizal.
Third-Party Claim and Sheriff’s Action
Thereafter Jose de Borja, acting as administrator of the estate of Josefa Tangco, filed with the sheriff a third-party claim asserting that the levied properties belonged to the estate then under liquidation in special proceedings No. 7866 and were therefore in custodia legis. Acting on that opposition, the sheriff required the judgment-creditors to post a bond of P2,500,000.00 before proceeding.
Proceedings Below
The judgment-creditors opposed the sheriff’s bond requirement and petitioned the court for relief, contending the bond was unnecessary. The administrator maintained that the levy was improper because the properties were in the custody of the court. After argument, the trial court found that the levy was proper. The court further held that the sheriff had exceeded his authority in demanding a bond because the oppositors had not submitted a copy of their third-party claim, and it ordered the sheriff to proceed with execution without requiring a bond. The administrator appealed that order.
Issues Presented
The principal questions were whether the interest of an heir in an estate under judicial administration could be attached and levied upon execution, and whether the sheriff properly required the judgment-creditors to post a bond in response to the administrator’s third-party opposition asserting that the properties were in custodia legis.
Parties’ Contentions
The oppositors and appellees argued that no bond was necessary and that the levy upon Crisanto de Borja’s participation as a prospective heir was proper. The third-party claimant-oppositor and appellant, Jose de Borja as administrator, contended that the levy was improper because the properties belonged to the estate under liquidation and were in custodia legis, thus precluding execution.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Court recognized that the interest of an heir in the estate of a deceased person was attachable for execution even while the estate was being settled judicially. The Court relied on section 14, Rule 39 in connection with section 7(f), Rule 59, which expressly permits the attachment of “the interest of the defendant in property belonging to the estate of a decedent, whether as heir, legatee, etc.” The Court cited Cook vs. Escobar to the effect that during judicial administration the right, title and interest which heirs or legatees may have in the properties may be attached subject to the administration of the estate, and it cited Gotauco & Co. vs. Register of Deeds of Tayabas for the proposition that a participation in an estate, though indeterminable before liquidation, may nevertheless be attached and sold. The Court found that the sheriff’s levy described Crisanto de Borja as a “prospective heir,” and that there was no dispute that he was a son of the deceased spouses; accordingly his prospective heirship sufficed as the subject of attachment. With respect to the bond, the Court held that the requirement was unwarranted because the administrator’s opposition did not constitute a genuine third-party conflict over Crisanto’s interest; the oppositors had not submitted a copy of a third-party claim, and there was in truth no antagonism between Crisanto’s attached interest and the estate’s interest since any attachment remained subject to the estate’s administration.
Ruling of the Supreme C
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-14851)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- DR. CRISANTO DE BORJA, ADMINISTRATOR was the prospective heir whose interest was levied upon in execution.
- JUAN DE BORJA, et al. were the judgment-creditors and oppositors and appellees who sought execution on Crisanto's interest.
- JOSE DE BORJA appeared as third-party claimant-oppositor and appellant in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Josefa Tangco.
- The clerk of court issued a writ of execution at the request of the judgment-creditors after a final judgment was rendered in favor of the oppositors.
- The sheriff levied on Crisanto's rights and participation as a prospective heir in specified real estate in the Province of Rizal.
- The administrator filed a third-party claim asserting that the properties belonged to the estate of Josefa Tangco under liquidation in Special Proceedings No. 7866 and that the properties were in custodia legis.
- The sheriff required the judgment-creditors to post a bond of P2,500,000.00 pending resolution of the third-party claim.
- The judgment-creditors contested the bond requirement in court and the lower court ordered the sheriff to proceed with execution without requiring a bond; the administrator appealed.
Key Factual Allegations
- The judgment-creditors obtained a final judgment in G. R. No. L-6622 that reduced the award to P46,210.78 plus legal interest.
- The writ of execution was issued and levied in April 1958 on the interest of Crisanto as prospective heir of Josefa Tangco and Francisco de Borja in certain real properties.
- The administrator asserted that the levied properties were part of the estate under liquidation in Special Proceedings No. 7866 and were therefore under custodia legis.
- The sheriff conditioned further proceedings on the posting of a bond in the amount of P2,500,000.00 by the oppositors.
- The oppositors did not submit to the court a copy of the third-party claim when contesting the bond requirement.
Issues
- Whether the interest of an heir in property belonging to a decedent and under judicial administration is subject to attachment and execution.
- Whether the sheri