G.R. No. L-353; August 31, 1946
PACIENCIA DE JESUS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. IÑIGO S. DAZA, Judge of First Instance of Batangas, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are testamentary heirs of the late Gavino de Jesus, whose estate is under special proceeding No. 3174. Respondent Justina S. Vda. de Manglapus purchased the shares of co-heirs Sixto de Jesus and Natalia Alfonga in the estate, specifically two parcels of land assigned to them in a project of partition already approved by the probate court. The probate court also approved this sale. On September 9, 1945, petitioners filed an action for legal redemption (civil case No. 3960) against Manglapus under Article 1067 of the Civil Code. While this redemption action was pending appeal, Manglapus filed a petition in the estate proceeding asking the court to order the provincial sheriff to take possession of the lands and deliver them to her. Respondent Judge Daza issued an order dated January 29, 1946, directing the sheriff to make physical delivery of the lands to Manglapus’s representative, Gregorio Leynes. The sheriff complied on February 15, 1946. Petitioners seek to annul this order via certiorari and mandamus, arguing the probate court lacked jurisdiction to issue such a delivery order within the estate proceeding.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge, presiding as a probate court, had jurisdiction to order the delivery of possession of the disputed parcels of land to the purchaser of a co-heir’s share within the same estate proceeding, rather than requiring an independent ordinary action.

RULING

Yes, the probate court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied the petition. Rule 91, Section 1 provides that after payment of estate obligations, the court shall assign the residue to the persons entitled, and “such persons may demand and recover their respective shares from the executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in his possession.” Since the project of partition had been approved, the estate was ready for distribution. The sale to Manglapus was approved by the probate court, making her the person entitled to the purchased shares. The probate court, having custody and control of the entire estate and the proceeding being in rem, is the most logical and convenient forum to effectuate the delivery of possession under Rule 91, Section 1, without requiring a separate action. This power extends to ordering delivery not only from an executor/administrator but also from “any other person” in possession, especially when, as here, that person is an heir already under the court’s jurisdiction in the same proceeding. The pending action for legal redemption, being an admission of the sale’s validity, does not divest the probate court of this authority.