BONDS OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATOR
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
LSPU College of Law
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE, ESTATE OF THOMAS FALLON, and ANNE FALLON MURPHY, deceased.
IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ET AL., petitioners.
MARTINIANO O. DE LA CRUZ, administrator-appellant,
vs.
EMILIO CAMON, oppositor-appellee.
G.R. No. L-21034 April 30, 1966
SANCHEZ, J.:
FACTS:
Thomas Fallon and Anne Fallon Murphy are the owners of 2/4 share pro-indiviso of hacienda Rosario. The whole hacienda was held in lease by Emilio Camon long before the present intestate proceedings commenced. On October 23, 1962, the administrator of the estate (Fallon) moved the court to order Emilio Camon to pay the estate’s 2/4 share of the rentals on Hacienda for crop year 1948-1949 through 1960-1961 as well as the sugar land in the amount of 62,065PHP and the rice land 2,100 PHP. On December 3, 1962 challenged the jurisdiction of the court over him stating that the demand for rentals cannot be made by mere motion by the administrator but by independent action.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the in a probate proceedings, a motion is enough to order a mortgagee to pay rentals.
HELD:
NO, Camon cannot be ordered by mere motion,
The court being a probate court and not a demand, It is concerned with the administration, liquidation and distribution of the estate. For these purposes, property under the administrator comes within the power of the probate
court.
Looking into the claims of the administrator for rentals allegedly due the amount demanded is not by any means, liquidated. Since such is the case, the lessee may interpose defenses such as compromise, payment, statute of limitations, lack of cause of action and the like maybe interposed to defeat the administrators claim.
In this case, the administrator, as attorney-in-fact (as well) had sold the estate’s 2/4 share in Hacienda Rosario together with all the rights, title and interest (including all accrued rents that the heir had inherited from the deceased. In the administrator’s answer, he admitted of the sale but not the rentals due. Such that the right to collect the rentals is in a fluid state.
Because of these, the rental money is not within the effective control of the probate court. Neither does that fact that the money is concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away which would confer upon the court prerogative to get it back. At best the money is a debt to the estate and not against the estate.