De la Cruz v.

Camon
No. L-21034
April 30, 1966

FACTS:
This case involves the estate of Thomas Fallon and Anne Fallon Murphy who were
owners of 2/4 share pro-indiviso of Hacienda Roasario in Negros Occidental. 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 estates 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: W/N the court may order Camon through a mere motion by an
administrator? NO, INDEPENDENT ACTION

HELD:
The Jurisdiction of the CFI of Negros Occidental over the subject matter includes
all cases in which demand, exclusive of interest, or value of property in controversy
amounts to more than 10,000 pesos pursuant to the organic act creating the CFI.

However, the court sits as a probate court, rather than 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 estates 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 administrators
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 estateNOT AGAINST THE ESTATE. Recovery then should be
in a separate suit commenced by the administrator.

In this case, the appellee unyieldingly refuses to submit his person to the
jurisdiction of the court. Pursuant to the case of Paula v. Escay When the demand
is in favor of the administrator and the party whom it is enforced is a third party, not
under the courts jurisdiction, the demand can not be by mere motion by the
administrator but by an independent action. In this light, the administrator may not
pull him against his will by motion into the administration proceedings. Matters
affecting property under judicial administration may not be taken cognizance of by
the court in the course of intestate proceedings if the interests of third persons are
prejudiced.