G.R. No. L-4681 - JULY 1951 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-4681July 31, 1951 Marcela de Borja vda. de Torres, et al. vs. Demetrio B. Encarnacion, et al. G.R. Nos. L-4517 and 4520July 31, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Godofredo Romero G.R. No. L-4019July 31, 1951 Tomas Villanueva, et al. vs. Tenancy Law Enforcement Division, et al. G.R. No. L-3822July 31, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Feliciano G.R. No. L-3775July 31, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Hospicio Labata G.R. No. L-3766July 31, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Elicerio Tan, et al. G.R. No. L-3601July 31, 1951 Uy Hoo and Company vs. Joaquin C. Yuseco G.R. No. L-3597July 31, 1951 Teodoro Landig vs. U.S. Commercial Company, et al. G.R. No. L-3519July 31, 1951 Tomasa Arevalo vs. Roberto A. Barreto G.R. No. L-3455July 31, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Sotero Ulip, et al. G.R. No. L-3439July 31, 1951 Alejandro Samson vs. Agapito B. Andal, et al. G.R. No. L-2611July 31, 1951 Alejandro Keyser Tan vs. Republic G.R. No. L-2578July 31, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Ladislao Bacolod G.R. No. L-2432July 31, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Filomeno Daligdig, et al. G.R. Nos. L-2152 and 2153July 31, 1951 Simeona N. de Castro, et al. vs. Jose G. Longa Paz Diago de Castro, et al. vs. Jose G. Longa G.R. No. L-4583July 30, 1951 Conchita Coinco vs. Ramon R. San Jose, et al. G.R. No. L-3981July 30, 1951 Philippine Alien Property Administration vs. Oscar Castelo, et al. G.R. No. L-3733July 30, 1951 Standard Coconut Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-3540July 30, 1951 Filomeno B. Cassion, et al. vs. Banco Nacional Filipino, et al. G.R. No. L-3479July 30, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Eufracio Irinco G.R. No. L-3467July 30, 1951 Basilia Valdez, et al. vs. Marcelo Pineda, et al. G.R. No. L-4205July 27, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Ruperto Metran G.R. No. L-3928July 27, 1951 Republic vs. Bonifacio Ysip, et al. G.R. No. L-3397July 27, 1951 Basilio Aquino vs. Jose G. Sanvictores, et al. G.R. Nos. L-2953 and 4033May 27, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo J. Asesor, et al. G.R. No. L-3647July 26, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Anastasio Escarro, et al. G.R. No. L-3622July 26, 1951 Interprovincial Autobus Company, Inc. vs. Felipe C. Lubaton G.R. No. L-4706July 24, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Pascasio Villasco, et al. G.R. No. L-3400July 24, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Cipriano Camay G.R. No. L-2654July 24, 1951 Eugenio Lirio, Jr., et al. vs. Philippine Power and Development Co. G.R. No. L-3278July 23, 1951 Teodoro Tanda vs. Narciso N. Aldaya G.R. No. L-3233July 23, 1951 in re: Uy Chiong. Uy Chiong vs. Republic G.R. No. L-3900July 18, 1951 Republic vs. Leon Samia, et al. G.R. No. L-3323July 18, 1951 in re: Jack J. Bermont. Jack J. Bermont vs. Republic G.R. No. L-3018July 18, 1951 in re: Robert Cu. Robert Cu vs. Republic G.R. No. L-4403July 17, 1951 Wise and Company, Inc. vs. Price Stabilization Corporation G.R. No. L-3433July 16, 1951 Leon Borlaza, et al. vs. Gregorio Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-4465July 12, 1951 Chinese Flour Importers Association, Manila, Phil. vs. Price Stabilization Board, et al. G.R. No. L-3757July 12, 1951 Carlos A. Montilla vs. Francisco Arellano G.R. No. L-3885July 9, 1951 Felisa Basa vda. de Concepcion, et al. vs. Jose R. Santos G.R. No. L-3084July 6, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio Sanchez, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Marcela de Borja vda. de Torres, et al. vs. Demetrio B. Encarnacion, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Godofredo Romero Tomas Villanueva, et al. vs. Tenancy Law Enforcement Division, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Feliciano People of the Philippines vs. Hospicio Labata People of the Philippines vs. Elicerio Tan, et al. Uy Hoo and Company vs. Joaquin C. Yuseco Teodoro Landig vs. U.S. Commercial Company, et al. Tomasa Arevalo vs. Roberto A. Barreto People of the Philippines vs. Sotero Ulip, et al. Alejandro Samson vs. Agapito B. Andal, et al. Alejandro Keyser Tan vs. Republic People of the Philippines vs. Ladislao Bacolod People of the Philippines vs. Filomeno Daligdig, et al. Simeona N. de Castro, et al. vs. Jose G. Longa Paz Diago de Castro, et al. vs. Jose G. Longa Conchita Coinco vs. Ramon R. San Jose, et al. Philippine Alien Property Administration vs. Oscar Castelo, et al. Standard Coconut Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Filomeno B. Cassion, et al. vs. Banco Nacional Filipino, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Eufracio Irinco Basilia Valdez, et al. vs. Marcelo Pineda, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ruperto Metran Republic vs. Bonifacio Ysip, et al. Basilio Aquino vs. Jose G. Sanvictores, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo J. Asesor, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Anastasio Escarro, et al. Interprovincial Autobus Company, Inc. vs. Felipe C. Lubaton People of the Philippines vs. Pascasio Villasco, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Cipriano Camay Eugenio Lirio, Jr., et al. vs. Philippine Power and Development Co. Teodoro Tanda vs. Narciso N. Aldaya in re: Uy Chiong. Uy Chiong vs. Republic Republic vs. Leon Samia, et al. in re: Jack J. Bermont. Jack J. Bermont vs. Republic in re: Robert Cu. Robert Cu vs. Republic Wise and Company, Inc. vs. Price Stabilization Corporation Leon Borlaza, et al. vs. Gregorio Ramos, et al. Chinese Flour Importers Association, Manila, Phil. vs. Price Stabilization Board, et al. Carlos A. Montilla vs. Francisco Arellano Felisa Basa vda. de Concepcion, et al. vs. Jose R. Santos People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio Sanchez, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4681             July 31, 1951

MARCELA DE BORJA VDA. DE TORRES, SATURNINA DE BORJA VDA. DE ORTEGA, EUFRACIA DE BORJA VDA. DE LIMACO, JACOBO DE BORJA, OLIMPIA DE BORJA, AND JUAN DE BORJA,petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and CRISANTO DE BORJA, Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Marcelo de Borja,respondents.

Amador E. Gomez for petitioners.
E. V. Filamor for respondents.

TUASON,J.:

The petitioners contest the jurisdiction of the respondent Judge to issue the order herein sought to be reviewed directing them to deliver to the administrator of the intestate estate of Marcelo de Borja, (Special Proceeding No. R-2414 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal) a certain parcel of land which is in petitioners' possession and to which they assert exclusive ownership. They contend that the administrator's remedy to recover that property is an action at law and not by motion in the intestate proceeding.

It appears that in the above-entitled intestate estate, the commissioners appointed by the court submitted on February 8, 1944, a project of partition, in which the land in question, which is and was then in the possession of the herein petitioners, was included as property of the estate and assigned to one Miguel B. Dayco, one of Marcelo de Borja's heirs. Over the objection of the petitioners, surviving children of Quintin de Borja who was one of Marcelo's children, the proposed partition was approved in February, 1946, and the order of approval on appeal was affirmed by this Court in 1949. Although the administratrix of Quintin de Borja's estate was the party named in the partition in behalf of the estate, the proceeding for the reason that they had been declared their father's sole heirs in the settlement of their father's estate. Moreover, one of these children was herself the duly appointed administratrix of the last named intestate estate.

Pertinent to the question posed by the petitioners is section 1 of Rule 91 which provides as follows:

Applying this Rule in the case ofDe Jesus vs. Daza,^*43 Off. Gaz., (No. 6), 2055, the facts of which were in all essential particulars analogous to those of the present case, this Court said: ". . . the probate court, having the custody and control of the entire estate, is the most logical authority to effectuate this provision within the same estate proceeding, said proceeding being the most convenient one in which this power and function of the court can be exercised and performed without the necessity if requiring the parties to undergo the inconvenience, delay and expense of having to commence and litigate an entirely different action. There can be no question of the share to be delivered the probate court would have jurisdiction within the same estate proceeding to order him to deliver that possession to the person entitled thereto, and we see no reason, legal or equitable, for denying the same power to the probate court to be exercised within the same estate proceeding if the share to be delivered happens to be in the possession of 'any other person,' especially when 'such other person' is one of the heirs themselves who are already under the jurisdiction of the probate court in the same estate proceeding."

There are factors present in the case at bar but not in theDe Jesus vs. Dazacase which greatly reinforce the probate court's authority to make the order under review: The partition here had not only been approved and thus become a judgment of the court, but distribution of the petitioners had received the property assigned to them or their father's estate. And this was not all. As the administrator had refused, on technical grounds, to turn over to them their or their father's share, they moved for and secured from the probate court an order for the execution of the partition. And when the administrator elevated the case to this Court on certiorari, they as respondents in that petition vigorously defended the probate court's action. They complained bitterly that execution of the partition was long overdue and that the administrator was unduly delaying the closing of the estate.

The order now before this Court has to be sustained if for no other reason than that the petitioners are in estoppel. In the face of what they have done, they are precluded from attacking the validity of the partition or any part of it. A party can not, in law and in good conscience, be allowed to reap the fruits of a partition, agreement or judgment and repudiate what does not suit him.

There is not much to the complaint that the respondent Judge issued the order under consideration without affording the petitioners a hearing on the merits of their pretended title to the land in their possession. The question of the petitioners' title and possession has been concluded by the partition and become a closed matter. All they could prove if allowed to call witnesses would be that the aforesaid property belonged to them or to their father's estate and that they are in possession of it to the exclusion of Marcelo de Borja's personal representative. Granting all such proofs to be true, as indeed we may for the purpose of this decision, yet they would not detract from the authority of the court to make the order under consideration. The court had only the partition to examine, to see if the questioned land was included therein. The inclusion being shown, and there being no allegation that the inclusion was effected through improper means or without the petitioners' knowledge, the partition barred any further litigation on said title and operated to bring the property under the control and jurisdiction of the court for proper disposition according to the tenor of the partition. To all intents and purposes, the property was incustodia legis. What the petitioners could have done was to ask for a reconsideration or modification of the partition on the grounds of fraud, excusable mistake, inadvertence, etc. if they could substantiate such allegations. They can not attack the partition collaterally, as they are trying to do in this case.

The petition is denied with costs against the petitioners.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ.,concur.

Footnotes