Limjuco vs Pedro Fragante

TITLE: Limjuco vs. The Estate of Pedro Fragante CITATION: 45 OG No. 9, p.397 FACTS: Pedro Fragante, a Filipino citizen at the time of his death, applied for a certificate of public convenience to install and maintain an ice plant in San Juan Rizal. His intestate estate is financially capable of maintaining the proposed service. The Public Service Commission issued a certificate of public convenience to Intestate Estate of the deceased, authorizing said Intestate Estate through its special or Judicial Administrator, appointed by the proper court of competent jurisdiction, to maintain and operate the said plant. Petitioner claims that the granting of certificate applied to the estate is a contravention of law. ISSUE: Whether or not the estate of Fragante may be extended an artificial judicial personality. HELD: The estate of Fragante could be extended an artificial judicial personality because under the Civil Code, estate of a dead person could be considered as artificial juridical person for the purpose of the settlement and distribution of his properties. It should be noted that the exercise of juridical administration includes those rights and fulfillment of obligation of Fragante which survived after his death. One of those surviving rights involved the pending application for public convenience before the Public Service Commission. Supreme Court is of the opinion that for the purposes of the prosecution of said case No. 4572 of the Public Service Commission to its final conclusion, both the personality and citizenship of Pedro O. Fragrante must be deemed extended, within the meaning and intent of the Public Service Act, as amended, in harmony with the constitution: it is so adjudged and decreed.

Lorenzo vs. Posadas (digest)

Lorenzo vs. Posadas 64 Phil 353 Facts: On 27 May 1922, Thomas Hanley died in Zamboanga, leaving a will and considerable amount of real and personal properties. Hanleys will provides the following: his money will be given to his nephew, Matthew Hanley, as well as the real estate owned by him. It further provided that the property will only be given ten years after Thomas Hanleys death. Thus, in the testamentary proceedings, the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga appointed P.J.M. Moore as trustee of the estate. Moore took oath of office on March 10, 1924, and resigned on Feb. 29, 1932. Pablo Lorenzo was appointed in his stead. Juan Posadas, Collector of Internal Revenue, assessed inheritance tax against the estate amounting to P2,057.74 which includes penalty and surcharge. He filed a motion in the testamentary proceedings so that Lorenzo will be ordered to pay the amount due. Lorenzo paid the amount in protest after CFI granted Posadas motion. He claimed that the inheritance tax should have been assessed after 10 years. He asked for a refund but Posadas declined to do so. The latter counterclaimed for the additional amount of P1,191.27 which represents interest due on the tax and which was not included in the original assessment. However, CFI dismissed this counterclaim. It also denied Lorenzos claim for refund against Posadas. Hence, both appealed. Issue: Whether the estate was delinquent in paying the inheritance tax and therefore liable for the P1,191.27 that Posadas is asking for? Held: Yes. It was delinquent because according to Sec. 1544 (b) of the Revised Administrative Code, payment of the inheritance tax shall be made before delivering to each beneficiary his share. This payment should have been made before March 10, 1924, the date when P.J.M. Moore formally assumed the function of trustee.

Although the property was only to be given after 10 years from the death of Hanley, the court considered that delivery to the trustee is delivery to cestui que trust, the beneficiary within the meaning of Sec. 1544 (b). Even though there was no express mention of the word trust in the will, the court of first instance was correct in appointing a trustee because no particular or technical words are required to create a testamentary trust (69 C.J.,p. 711). The requisites of a valid testamentary trust are: 1) sufficient words to raise a trust, 2) a definite subject, 3) a certain or ascertained object. There is no doubt that Hanley intended to create a trust since he ordered in his will that certain of his properties be kept together undisposed during a fixed period or for a stated purpose.

case: Osorio v. Osorio and Ynchausti Steamship Co. Facts: Case regarding shares of stock of Ynchausti Steamship owned by Antonio Osorio when he was still alive. When he died, a project of partition was executed by his heirs and included in this project was the share of the estate in Ynchausti. Ruling: The properties of an existing inheritance, as those of the case at bar, cannot be considered as anothers property with r e l a t i o n t o t h e h e i r s w h o t h r o u g h f i c t io n o f l a w c o n t i n u e t h e personality of the owner. Nor do they have the character of future property because the predecessor in interest having according to t h e e v i d e n c e , d ie d b e f o r e 1 9 1 2 , h is h e i r s a c q u i r e d a r i g h t t o succeed him from the moment of his death.