Tamisin vs. Odejar

Properties of a deceased person do not come into custodia legis upon the mere filing of estate settlement proceedings; they must be placed under the control of the court through the qualification of an administrator or executor.

The dispute stems from an interpleader suit filed by the Judge Advocate General regarding the estate of Lt. Roberto Tamisin, involving Cecilio Tamisin and his children, and the spouses Ambrocio Odejar and Gliceria Gibas. Odejar filed a cross-claim against the Tamisins. After Cecilio Tamisin died during the pendency of the interpleader, Odejar initiated special proceedings for the settlement of Cecilio's estate, though no administrator qualified for several years. Meanwhile, a judgment was rendered against the Tamisin children, leading to the levy and execution sale of Cecilio's properties to satisfy the debt.

On February 18, 1951, the Judge Advocate General filed an interpleader suit to determine the legal heirs entitled to P500.00 left by the deceased Lt. Roberto Tamisin, naming Cecilio Tamisin and his children, as well as the spouses Ambrocio Odejar and Gliceria Gibas, as parties. In response, the Odejar spouses filed a cross-claim against the Tamisins for one-half of P11,363.42, claiming it as arrears in pay due to the estate of Lt. Roberto Tamisin, who was allegedly married to their daughter Paula Odejar. The Tamisins denied the marriage, but while the case was pending, Cecilio Tamisin died. The court denied the Tamisin children's motion to dismiss the cross-claim against their father and suggested initiating estate settlement proceedings for Cecilio's estate. Due to the heirs' refusal, Ambrocio Odejar filed Special Proceedings No. 4492 on March 1, 1952, for the settlement of Cecilio's estate. A special administrator was appointed but failed to qualify.

The cross-claim against Cecilio was eliminated, and on March 23, 1953, the court rendered judgment ordering Rufino, Eufrocina, and Teresa Tamisin to jointly and severally pay the Odejar spouses P5,688.71, plus interest and costs. The Tamisins' motion for new trial was denied, and upon Odejar's motion, a writ of execution was issued. To enjoin the sheriff from selling the properties, the Tamisins filed a petition for preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals, which initially issued the writ but later dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The provincial sheriff then levied upon five parcels of land. The Tamisins attempted to block the sale by filing a motion in the estate proceedings, arguing the properties were in custodia legis, but the probate court denied the motion. On March 28, 1956, the sheriff sold the lands to the Odejar spouses for P7,798.01.

On June 15, 1956, Eufrocina Tamisin was appointed administratrix of her father's estate. She demanded the reconveyance of the properties, which the Odejar spouses refused. Eufrocina, in her capacity as administratrix, filed the present action seeking the annulment of the auction sale. The defendants argued that the properties were not in custodia legis and that the plaintiff was estopped by res judicata due to the prior Court of Appeals ruling. The lower court dismissed the complaint, finding the properties were not in custodia legis, and ordered Eufrocina to pay attorney's fees, prompting the present appeal.

• Validity of the Judgment: Petitioner argued that the judgment in the interpleader suit was invalid because it pertained to a money claim against a deceased person and should have been dismissed and prosecuted in the intestate proceedings.
• Custodia Legis: Petitioner contended that the filing of the estate settlement proceedings vested jurisdiction over the properties in the probate court, placing them in custodia legis and protecting them from execution sale.

• Custodia Legis: Respondents argued that the properties were not in custodia legis at the time of the levy and execution sale.
• Res Judicata: Respondents maintained that the plaintiff was estopped by res judicata, as the issues had been squarely decided by the Court of Appeals in the prior injunction petition.

• Validity of the Underlying Judgment: Whether the judgment in the interpleader suit was invalid for failing to dismiss the money claim against the deceased Cecilio Tamisin and prosecute it in the intestate proceedings.
• Custodia Legis: Whether the properties in question were in custodia legis at the time of the levy and execution sale.

• Validity of the Underlying Judgment: No. The judgment had become final, and its validity had already been raised and dismissed by the Court of Appeals, making it binding and conclusive.
• Custodia Legis: No. The properties were not in custodia legis because no administrator had qualified and taken custody of the assets prior to the levy and execution sale.

• Validity of the Underlying Judgment: The money claim was not solely against Cecilio Tamisin; after his death, the claim against him was eliminated and prosecuted only against his children. Furthermore, the judgment had already become final. The validity of the judgment was previously raised before the Court of Appeals in a petition for annulment, which was dismissed for lack of merit, rendering that judgment binding and conclusive. Additionally, the probate court later issued an order stating there was no need to continue the intestate proceedings because the heirs were of legal age, in possession of their shares, and the decedent had no outstanding obligations.
• Custodia Legis: A thing is in custodia legis when subjected to the official custody of a judicial executive officer pursuant to a legal writ. While estate settlement proceedings were commenced in 1952, the assets had not been placed under the court's control because no administrator had qualified. The properties remained as they were until Eufrocina qualified as administratrix in 1956, several months after the levy and execution sale. The mere filing of special proceedings does not automatically place a decedent's property in custodia legis; an inventory must be made by an administrator or executor. Without a qualified custodian or court officer, the property is not under the court's custody.

• Custodia Legis — A thing is in custodia legis when it is shown that it has been and is subjected to the official custody of a judicial executive officer in pursuance of his execution of a legal writ. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the mere filing of estate settlement proceedings does not place a decedent's property in custodia legis. Actual or constructive possession by a properly appointed custodian or court officer, such as a qualified administrator, is required for the property to be considered in the custody of the court.

• "A thing is in custodia legis when it is shown that it has been and is subjected to the official custody of a judicial executive officer in pursuance of his execution of a legal writ." — This defines the controlling doctrine for custodia legis and forms the basis for the Court's ruling that the properties were not under court custody.
• "It does not necessarily follow that a decedent's property takes the character of property in custodia legis upon the mere filing or institution of the special proceedings for its settlement." — This clarifies that the jurisdiction of the probate court over estate properties is not automatic upon filing but requires the qualification of an administrator to take custody.

• Saturnino vs. Paulino et al., 97 Phil., 50; 51 Off. Gaz. [9] 2899 — Distinguished. Petitioner cited this case to argue that filing probate proceedings vests jurisdiction over the properties. The Court distinguished it, noting the case merely held that properties sold before the institution of special proceedings were not in custodia legis, and did not support the contention that filing automatically confers such status.
• McFarland Carriage Co. vs. Solanes, 108 F. 532 — Cited as authority for the definition of custodia legis.
• In Re Tax Service Ass'n. of Illinois, 95 F. 2d. 373 — Cited to explain that jurisdiction over property in custodia legis requires actual or constructive possession by a custodian or court officer.

• Section 1, Rule 84, Rules of Court — Cited to support the requirement that an inventory of the estate must be made by an administrator or executor, demonstrating that without a qualified administrator, the property cannot be subjected to the court's jurisdiction.

• Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Barrera, JJ., concur.
• Concepcion, J., concurs in the result.