On December 21, 1951, this Court  rendered a decision in G. R. No. L-3846 ordering the Testate Estate of Margarita  David to pay the claim  of the  Testate Estate  of Crispulo Sideeo  in the  sum  of P17,010.43,  with legal interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from March 11, 1945,  until the same is  fully paid.   To  falicitate  the payment of this  claim,  Pr,iscilla F.  Sison,  an. heiress  of the estate, delivered to its administrator the amount  of P12,128.44 to cover the  payment  of  her one half share in the  Sideco claim.  The other heiress, herein appellant Narcisa F.  Teodoro, was unwilling to  do the  same, contending that the Estate  has real properties which could be sold and  with  its proceeds pay the Sideeo claim hence, on  January 23,  1952, the  administrator filed a  petition with the  lower court to compel Narcisa  F. Teodoro  to deliver to him  her share  in the payment  of the  afore-mentioned Sideco claim.   While this motion was  pending hearing because of the opposition  thereto filed by appellant, on  March 5,  1952, the  Co-Administratrix  of  the Estate of Crispulo  Sideco filed  a  petition  in the Court of First Instance of  Manila to secure an order directing  the  Administrator  of the Testate  Estate of Margarita David  to , pay the aforementioned claim of  P 17,010.43 plus the legal interest accrued thereon.  Both the petition of the Administrator of  the Testate  Estate of  Margarita  fervid  and that  of the  Administratrix of  the  Sideco  Testate Estate were heard  and, on April 5, 1952, the lower court entered an order,  the pertinent portion  of which reads  as follows:

"With respect to the  petition of  the Administrator filed  on January  23,  1S52,  it appears  that -in the decision  of  the  Court of Appeals  in CA-G. B. No.  3921-R, promulgated on June SO, 1950, the  amount of  P272.000  was  hold  to be  residuary  cash  within this  testate proceeding and that 'the same was equally  divided between the two heiresses herein, Narcisa de la Fuente and Priscilla de la Fuente.

"In the light of all the foregoing, this Court hereby directs  the heiresses Narcisa de la  Fuente  and Priscilla  de la Fuente  to deposit with  the Philippine National  Bank, in  the name  of  the Estate of Crispulo Sideco,  the amount  of P17,010.43, with legal interest thereon  at the rate  of  6 per cent per annum from March 11,  1945 until  fully paid,  which  amount  and  interest shall  be paid by said heiresses, share and  share alike, out of the  residuary cash  belonging  to this estate which has been  equally  divided between them, submitting proof of  such deposit  within  ten  (10) days from  receipt of this order.

"No withdrawal shall be made from  said deposit without previous judicial authority and the same  shall be subject to the further orders in Special Proceeding No. E-121 of this  Court."

On  May 22, 1952, heiress Narcisa  F. de Teodoro filed a motion  for reconsideration  of the aforequoted  order on the  ground  that (1)  it  is  against  section  1  of Rule  89, Rules of Court;  (2) that thereunder  the executor of the testate estate,  and not  the heiresses, should  be ordered to pay the claim  of Sideco  (3)  that although the sum of P272,000 was held by the  lower court and, on  appeal, by the Court  of Appeals to be residuary cash "within this estate, the  same was divided and has been in the possession of the universal heiresses since 1941 and therefore, not  liable  to  pay any claim against the  estate so  long as there are sufficient assets in the hands  of the Judicial Administrator to  pay  them; and  (4) that  it would  be more  beneficial to the heiresses  that the  real properties in the hands of the Judicial Administrator  be sold  by him and  out  of  its  proceeds the Sideco  claim be paid, because such  sale would hasten the  early  termination of these  testate   proceedings.   Acting   on  this  motion,  on February 5, 1953, the lower court entered  the  following orders:

"In  the order of  April 23, 1952, the  heiresses Nareisa de  la Fuente and Priscila de la Fuente were  directed to deposit with the Philippine National Bank, in the name of the Estate of Crispulo Sideco,  the  amount  of P17,010.43,  with,  interest  thereon at  the rate of 6 per cent per annum from  March 11, 1945,  until fully paid, representing  the  approved  claim  of  said estate against this estate,  which amount and interest shall he paid  by said heiresses, share and share alike,  out of the residuary cash belonging to this estate  which has been  equally divided between  them.

"Complying with the  said  order,  the  heiress  Priscilla de la fuente deposited  with the Philippine  National  Bank on May 8, 1952, the amount of P12.128.44 as her  share in the payment of  the  Sideco  claim in accordance with  the said order of April 23, 1952. However, the heiress Narciaa de la Fuente filed  a motion seeking the reconsideration of  the  said  order on  the  ground that the estate  has sufficient real  properties which could be sold to pay the Sideco  claim,  invoking the provisions of section 1 of Rule 89 of the  Rules of  Court.  Said section 1 of Rule 89 reads follows:

'SECTION 1. Debts paid in  full if estate sufficient. If, after hearing all  the money claims  against  the estate, and of ascertaining the amount, of such claims, it appears that there sufficient assets  to pay the debts,  the executor or administrator shall pay the same within the time limited:for the purpose.'

"As  stated in  the order of  April 23, i952,  the amount  of P272.000  was held to be  residuary cash,  within the test proceeding in the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G. No. 8921-R, promulgated on June 30,  1950.  The said residuary cash, therefore, is an asset  of  this estate which should  be  applied  to the payment of the,debts mentioned in section 1 of  Rule 89.

"Wherefore, the  heiress Narcisa de la Puente is hereby directed to deposit  with this Court within ten (10)  days from  receipt  of this  order one half of the amount  of  P17,010.43  together with the interest on the said half at the rate  of 6 per cent per annum from March  11, 1945, until such deposit  shall have been made."

Hence  this  appeal.

Appellant's main  contention may  be  reduced  to  the following  propositions:  (1) that  in  deciding the claim in favor  of  the Testate Estate of Crispulo  Sideco the lower  court  as  well as  the Court of Appeals  and this Court  had  ordered  the Judicial Administrator of this Estate, and not  the heiresses thereof,  to pay said claim; (2)  that  said  decision was  final and  executory  and, therefore,  cannot be amended by  the lower  court as  it was being done  in the disputed order; (3) that  in order to pay said  claim,  the real properties in the hands of the administrator should be sold and out  of  its  proceeds pay  the Sideco  claim;  (4)  that the  residuary cash  in the hands of the heiresses, although  part of the  estate, never  reached the hands of  the Judicial Administrator in due course and,  therefore,  it cannot  be used for  the payment of the  Sideco claim.

After a  careful  consideration, we  find  these contentions to be  untenable.  We agree with the view  of  the lower court that the residuary funds in the hands of the heiresses  of this estate  should be applied  to the  payment of the  Sideco claim, for it is  more advantageous  to  use that fund to pay the claim in question than selling the real properties  of the estate  for that purpose.  Besides, section 3 of Rule 89  of the Rules of Court provides:

"The personal estate  of  the  deceased  shall  be first  chargeable with the payment of  debts and  expenses; and  if the personal estate is not sufficient for that purpose, or  its  sale would  redound to the  detriment  of the participants in  the estate,  the whole  of the real estate, or so much thereof as is necessary, may  be sold, mortgaged,  or otherwise  encumbered for  that purpose  by  the executor or. administrator, after obtaining  the authority of  the court therefor."

And according  to  section 6  of Rule 89, the Court has authority to fix the contributive shares of the  devisees, legatees or heirs,for the payment of a claim if they  have entered into possession of portions of the estate before the debts  and expenses  thereof have been settled and  paid. Appellant  argues, however, that  section 3  of  Rule  89, Rules  of  Court, is not applicable to the instant case on the ground that it refers to the  personal and real properties of the deceased which are in the hands of the administrator, and not to the properties of the estate which are already in the hands of the heiresses.  This contention is likewise untenable.  The residuary funds in the  hands of the  appellant are funds of  the estate  and the Court has jurisdiction over them and, therefore, it could compel the appellant to deliver to the administrator of this estate the necessary portion of such fund for the payment of the Sideco claim.

Wherefore,  finding no errors in the order appealed from, the same are  hereby affirmed, with costs against the  appellant.

Parás, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista, Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L,, JJ., concur.