The plaintiff-appellee,  as  administrator  of the  intestate estate of the deceased Gregorio Amboy, brought this action against the widow and children of the latter and Cayetano Panopio  to annul  a mortgage executed by  the  said widow and children in  favor of Cayetano Panopio on a parcel of land of which the deceased and one Anastacio Amboy were co-owners pro indiviso.  Said mortgage was executed by the heirs of the deceased after the latter's death and before the institution  of the intestate proceeding,  to  secure  the payment of the sum of P900.  It turned out that the  deceased was indebted in the sum of P964.79 to one Isabel  Cordero, whose claim for said amount was  duly presented  and admitted in the intestate proceeding.   To pay said claim the administrator seeks to annul said mortgage and to recover the property from the heirs, alleging that said mortgage was simulated, the mortgagee being a brother of the widow and an uncle of the children of the deceased.   The mortgage, which was executed  on January 5, 1935, was recorded and annotated on the back of the corresponding certificate  of title on November 17, 1938, that is to say, subsequent  to the commencement of this action.

The trial court deemed it unnecessary to annul the mortgage in question but declared that the claim of Isabel Cordero was preferred or superior to said mortgage,  and ordered the widow and heirs to deliver the possession of the land to the plaintiff  in his capacity as judicial administrator of the intestacy of the deceased.   From that decision the defendants appealed.

Appellants contend  that the  mortgage in question was valid because it was executed  by all the heirs of the deceased who  succeeded to the rights  of the latter from the moment of his  death in accordance with article 657 of the Civil Code and who as owners had the absolute right to dispose of the property they had inherited according to article 348 of the same Code.  Appellants further contend that said mortgage is superior to the claim of  Isabel  Cordero because the latter's claim was not presented and approved until after the mortgage had been constituted.   Both contentions are untenable.   While it is true that under article 657 of the Civil  Code the  rights to the succession  of a  person are transmitted from the moment  of his death,  nevertheless, the property of the deceased comes to the heir charged with the debts of the deceased,  so  that  he cannot  alienate  or charge  it free  of such debts until and  unless they are extinguished either by payment, prescription, or satisfaction in one or the other of the modes recognized by law; the death of the owner of the property creates a statutory lien thereon for the payment of his just debts and obligations, upon the terms and conditions set out in the Code of Civil Procedure. (Suiliong & Co. vs. Chio-Taysan, 12 Phil.,  13.)   Hence,  all that the heirs of Gregorio Amboy  could  mortgage to the defendant Cayetano Panopio was their equity in the property of the decedent consisting  of  the residue thereof, if any, after his debts and the expenses of administration are paid.

Appellants also contend that the trial court had no jurisdiction to pass  upon the preference of the claim  of  Isabel Cordero because that was not the issue raised by the  pleadings but whether or not the mortgage was  simulated.   Such contention is also  devoid of merit because even assuming that the mortgage was genuine it could not prevail over the statutory  liens  created by the death  of the  owner of the property that was subsequently  mortgaged by his heirs.

The judgment of the trial court' is correct, it being understood that not only the,claim of Isabel Cordero but also the expenses of administration and any  other claim against the estate that may have been approved by the probate court are superior  to the mortgage in question; and with that clarification said judgment is affirmed, with  costs against the appellants.  So ordered.

Yulo, C. J., Moran, Paras, and Bocobo, JJ., concur.