Respondent Justina S. Vda. de Manglapus, on the other hand, purchased from
Sixto de Jesus and Natalia Alfonga, co-heirs of the petitioners, the rights, interest, and
participation of the said Sixto de Jesus and Natalia Alfonga, in the said testate estate,
particularly, the two parcels of land subject of this controversy, which parcels of land
were assigned to the said Sixto de Jesus and Natalia Alfonga as their shares in the
same testate estate in the project of partition which was already submitted to the
probate court for approval. September 4, 1945, the partition was approved, respondent
Justina S. Vda. de Manglapus, presented within the special proceeding a petition for
approval by the probate court of said sale to her of the rights, interest, and participation
of Sixto de Jesus and Natalia Alfonga, particularly, of the said two parcels of land; that
the probate court approved said sale; that on September 9, 1945, “after learning of the
aforesaid sale on September 4, 1945,” petitioners instituted an action in the Court of
First Instance against respondent Justina S. Vda. de Manglapus for legal redemption
under article 1067 of the Civil Code.
The trial court rendered a decision ordering the delivery of the possession of the
aforesaid parcels of land to respondent Justina S. Vda. de Manglapus.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge, presiding the probate court, had
jurisdiction to order the delivery of the possession of the aforesaid parcels of land to
respondent Justina S. Vda. de Manglapus within the same estate proceeding and not in
an independent ordinary action.
Yes. The fact that petitioners lodged an action for legal redemption carries with it
an implied but necessary admission on the part of said petitioners that the sale to
respondent Justina S. Vda. de Manglapus of the shares of Sixto de Jesus and Natalia
Alfonga in the oft-repeated estate, particularly, the two parcels of land in question, was
valid. The sale was duly approved by the probate court. By the effects of that sale and
its approval by the probate court the purchaser stepped into the shoes of the sellers for
the purposes of the distribution of the estate, confers upon such purchaser, among
other rights, the right to demand and recover the share purchased by her not only from
the executor or administrator, but also from any other person having the same in his
possession. It is evident that 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 of
requiring the parties to undergo the inconvenience, delay and expense of having to
commence and litigate an entirely different action.
