Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
found
the
petition
Ratio:
Under the circumstances of this case,
respondent Japitana has no cause of
action against petitioner Nacar.
A cause of action is an act or omission of
one party in violation of the legal right of
the other. Its essential elements are,
namely: (1) the existence of a legal right in
the plaintiff, (2) a correlative legal duty in
the defendant, and (3) an act or omission
of the defendant in violation of plaintiff's
right with consequential injury or damage
to the plaintiff for which he may maintain
an action for the recovery of damages or
other appropriate relief.
although respondent Japitana may have a
legal right to recover an indebtedness due
him, petitioner Nicanor Nacar has no
correlative legal duty to pay the debt for
the simple reason that there is nothing in
the complaint to show that he incurred the
debt or had anything to do with the
creation of the liability. As far as the debt
is concerned, there is no allegation or
showing that the petitioner had acted in
violation of Mr. Japitana's rights with
consequential injury or damage to the
latter as would create a cause of action
against the former.
This matter, however, is only ancillary to
the main action.
even assuming that respondent Japitana
had a legal right to the carabaos which
were in the possession of petitioner Nacar,
the proper procedure would not be to file
an action for the recovery of the
outstanding debts of the late Isabelo
Nacar against his stepfather, the petitioner
Nacar as defendant
Appropriate actions for the enforcement or
defense of rights must be taken in
accordance with procedural rules and
cannot be left to the whims or caprices of
litigants. It cannot even be left to the
untrammeled discretion of the courts of
justice without sacrificing uniformity and
equality in the application and effectivity
thereof.
G.R.No.4724
GREGORIAMONTAANO,plaintiff
appellant,
vs.
SILVESTRESUESA,defendantappellee.
MarianoLimforappellant.
BenitoGimenezZboliforappellee.
MAPA,J.:
Contrarytotheclaimsoftheappellantasargued
atlengthinherbrief,theevidencepresentedin
thiscasecannotbereviewedbythiscourt.She
intervenedandfiledacomplaintallegingthatshe
wastheowneroftwoparcelsoflandthathad
beenattachedasbeingthepropertyofCatalino
Montaano,byvirtueofanorderofexecution
issuedinanactionbroughtagainsthimbythe
defendanthereininanactionbroughtagainst
himbythedefendantherein,SilvestreSuesa.
Theappellantwasdefeatedinthefirstinstance,
andexceptedtothejudgment,movinglateron
foranewtrialonthegroundthatthesaid
judgmentwascontrarytotheweightofthe
evidenceadducedinthecase.Hermotionfora
newtrialwaspresentedonJanuary20,1908,and
onthe31stofthesamemonththebillof
exceptionswhichhasbeensubmittedtothis
courtwasfiled.Norulingwhateverappearsto
havebeenmadeonsaidmotion,consequentlyno
provisionwasmadetoexcepttheretointhe
eventitwereoverruled.Themotionnotbeing
overruledanddulyexceptedto,thiscourtcan
notreviewtheevidenceinthecase;itcanonly
baseitsdecisiononthefactsfoundtohavebeen
proveninthejudgmentappealedfrom,and
admittedbythepartiesintheirrespectivebriefs.
(Sec.497,CodeofCivilProcedure,asamended
byActNo.1596;HijosdeI.dela
Ramavs.RoblesandRobles,8Phil.Rep.,712.)
Accordingtothejudgmentthefollowingfacts
havebeenproven:
Thatthepropertydescribedinthecomplaintwas
ownedbythelateCatalinoMontaano,fatherof
theplaintiffGregoriaMontaano;thatpriorto
thisdeaththesaidCatalinoMontaanoexecuted
hislastwillandtestament,bywhichhedeclares
hischildrenGregoria,Catalino,andManuel
Montaano,tobeheirstothepropertyleftby
himinthesharesorportionsrespectively
designatedinthesaidwill;thatthesaidwillwas
dulyauthenticatedonthe2dofFebruary,1906,
andthedefendantherein,SilvestreSuesa,being
appointedadministratoroftheestate,presented
aninventoryofthepropertyleftbyCatalino
Montaanosr.,deceased;thatinnumbers8and
38ofthesaidinventorythetwoparcelsofland
incontroversyaredescribed;thattheplaintiff
hasendeavoredtoprovethattheparcelsofland
claimedinhercomplaintwerecededtoherasa
giftbyherfather,CatalinoMontaano,during
hislifetime,andthatshehadneversincebeenin
possessionthereof,butwhilethesefactshavenot
beenfullydemonstrated,ontheotherhandit
appearsbytheevidenceandthewillexecutedby
CatalinoMontaano,sr.,thatthepersonwhom
hedesignatedtoinherittheparcelsofland
referredtowashissonCatalino,parcelsofland
situatedinotherbarriosbeinglefttotheplaintiff
GregoriaMontaano.
Lastly,itwasheldinthejudgmentthatthe
evidenceadducedbytheplaintiff,both
documentaryandoral,doesnotestablishher
pretendedownershiptothepropertyinquestion.
Accordinglytotheforegoingconsiderationsof
thelowercourtnotonlyhastheplaintifffailedto
provethatsheistheownerofthelandsin
controversy,butthereispositiveevidencethat
theybelongtoherbrotherCatalino,against
whomtheywereattached.Intheopinionofthe
courtbelowthisevidenceconsistsoftheduly
authenticatedwillofthelateCatalinoMontano,
theirancestor,inwhichitissetforththatsaid
landswerewilledbythetestatortohisson
Catalino,entirelydifferentparcelsbeing
assignedtotheplaintiffherein.Withreferenceto
thispointthejudgebelowexpresseshimselfin
thefollowingterms:
AsthewillexecutedbyCatalinoMontaano,sr.,
wasdulyauthenticated,andtheportionofthe
propertyleftbythetestatorcorrespondingto
eachoneofhisheirsbeingstatedtherein,one
mustnecessarilyconcludethatthelatterare
entitledtomaketheirownthoseproperties
indicatedinthesaidwillinthemannerprovided
bythetestatorhimself.If,therefore,Catalino
Montaanowasinstitutedheirundersaidwillof
thetwoparcelsoflanddescribeinparagraph1
ofthecomplaint,itisunquestionablethatnoone
buthimcanberecognizedastheownerthereof,
bytitleofinheritancefromhisfatherCatalino
Montaano.
Theappellantmaintainsthatthetrialerredin
attributingsuchprobatoryforcetothe
testamentaryprovisionsofthelateCatalino
Montaanofromthemerefactthathiswillhad
beenauthenticated,becauseasshestates,
althoughitistruethatitisconclusivewith
respecttotheproperexecutionofthesame,and
astothecapacityofthetestator,yet,according
tothedoctrinesetupinthemattersofCastaeda
vs.Alemany(3PhilRep.,426)andPimentelvs.
Palanca(5Phil.Rep.,436),itisnotsowith
regardtothevalidityoftheprovisionstherein
contained.
Thetrueimportandmeaningofthisdoctrineis
byitsowntermssoclearandprecisethatany
furtherexplanationseemsunnecessary.The
authenticationofawilldecidesnoother
questionsthansuchastouchuponthecapacityof
thetestatorandthecompliancewiththose
requisitesorsolemnitieswhichthelaw
prescribesforthevalidityofwills.Itdoesnot
determinenorevenbyimplicationprejudgethe
validityofefficiencyoftheprovisions;these
maybeimpugnedasbeingviciousornull,
notwithstandingitsauthentication.Thequestions
relatingtothesepointsremainentirely
unaffected,andmayberaisedevenafterthewill
hasbeenauthenticated.Thisisnotthecase,
however,withregardtotheproperexecution
thereof,asinviewofthefactthatitconstitutes
theproperandspecialsubjectmatterthereof,it
acquiresbyvirtuethereof,thecharacterofres
adjudicata,andjudicialquestioninconnection
therewithbeingforonceandforeverclosed.
Suchisthereasonofthedoctrineinvokedbythe
appellant,whichevidentlyisnotsusceptibleof
theinterpretationwhichsheseemstohave
attributedinherbrief.
Fromthefactthatthelegalizationofawilldoes
notvalidatetheprovisionsthereincontained,it
doesnotfollowthatsuchprovisionslackthe
efficiency,orfailtoproducetheeffectswhich
thelawrecognizeswhentheyarenotimpugned
byanyone.Inmatterofwillsitisafundamental
doctrinethatthewillofthetestatoristhelaw
governingtheinterestedparties,andmustbe
punctuallycompliedwithinsofarasitisnot
contrarytothelawortopublicmorals.With
respecttothepartitionoftheinheritance,thereis
thedefiniteprovisionoflawthatwhenthe
testatormakessuchpartitionbyanactinter
vivosorbyalastwill,itshallbeacceptedinso
farasitdoesnotprejudicethelegalportionof
theheirsbyforceoflaw.(Art.1056,Civil
Code.)
Fromthisfollowsthat,asthetestator,
Montaano,hadbyhiswillpartitionedhis
propertyandassignedtohissonCatalino,ashis
portion,thelandsinquestionherein,thesaid
testamentaryprovision,beingbindingonthe
heirs,constitutesprimafacieevidencethatthe
saidlandswereactuallyinheritedbyCatalino,
andnotbytheplaintiffherein;otherproperty
wasassignedtoherinpaymentofherlegal
portion.Therefore,thetrialjudgecommittedno
erroroflawwhenheconsideredsaidevidencein
thesensethathehasdone,inasmuchasithasnot
beenproven,norhasanyattemptbeenmadeto
provethatthesaidtestamentaryprovisionswas
impugnedorannulled,orthatithasceasedtobe
effectiveforanyreasonwhatever.
Thejudgmentappealedfromisherebyaffirmed
withthecostsofthisinstanceagainstthe
appellant.Soordered.
Arellano,C.J.,Torres,andCarson,JJ.,concur.
ofsection618isveryplain.Themistakesin
translationfoundinthefirstSpanisheditionof
thecodehavebeencorrectedinthesecond.
G.R.No.1439
ANTONIOCASTAEDA,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
JOSEE.ALEMANY,defendantappellant.
Ledesma,SumulongandQuintosforappellant.
Thecourterredinholdingthatalllegal
formalitieshadbeencompliedwithinthe
executionofthewillofDoaJuanaMoreno,as
theproofshowsthatthesaidwillwasnotwritten
inthepresenceofundertheexpressdirectionof
thetestratrixasrequiredbysection618ofthe
CodeofCivilProcedure.
AntonioV.Herreroforappellee.
Thegroundsuponwhichawillmaybe
disallowedarelimitedtothosementionedin
section634oftheCodeofCivilProcedure.
WILLARD,J.:
(1)Theevidenceinthiscaseshowstoour
satisfactionthatthewillofDoaJuanaMoreno
wasdulysignedbyherselfinthepresenceof
threewitnesses,whosigneditaswitnessesinthe
presenceofthetestratrixandofeachother.It
wasthereforeexecutedinconformitywithlaw.
Thereisnothinginthelanguageofsection618
oftheCodeofCivilProcedurewhichsupports
theclaimoftheappellantsthatthewillmustbe
writtenbythetestatorhimselforbysomeone
elseinhispresenceandunderhisexpress
direction.Thatsectionrequires(1)thatthewill
beinwritingand(2)eitherthatthetestatorsign
ithimselfor,ifhedoessignit,thatitbesigned
bysomeoneinhispresenceandbyhisexpress
direction.Whodoesthemechanicalworkof
writingthewillisamatterofindifference.The
fact,therefore,thatinthiscasethewillwas
typewrittenintheofficeofthelawyerforthe
testratrixisofnoconsequence.TheEnglishtext
(2)Toestablishconclusivelyasagainst
everyone,andonceforall,thefactsthatawill
wasexecutedwiththeformalitiesrequiredby
lawandthatthetestatorwasinaconditionto
makeawill,istheonlypurposeofthe
proceedingsunderthenewcodefortheprobate
ofawill.(Sec.625.)Thejudgmentinsuch
proceedingsdeterminesandcandetermine
nothingmore.Inthemthecourthasnopowerto
passuponthevalidityofanyprovisionsmadein
thewill.Itcannotdecide,forexample,thata
certainlegacyisvoidandanotheronevalid.It
couldnotinthiscasemakeanydecisionupon
thequestionwhetherthetestratrixhadthepower
toappointbywillaguardianforthepropertyof
herchildrenbyherfirsthusband,orwhetherthe
personsoappointedwasorwasnotasuitable
persontodischargesuchtrust.
Allsuchquestionsmustbedecidedinsome
otherproceeding.Thegroundsonwhichawill
maybedisallowedarestatedthesection634.
Unlessoneofthosegroundsappearsthewill
mustbeallowed.Theyallhavetodowiththe
personalconditionofthetestatoratthetimeof
itsexecutionandtheformalitiesconnected
therewith.Itfollowsthatneitherthiscourtnor
thecourtbelowhasanyjurisdictioninhis
proceedingstopassuponthequestionsraisedby
theappellantsbytheassignmentoferrorrelating
totheappointmentofaguardianforthechildren
ofthedeceased.
Itisclaimedbytheappellantsthattherewasno
testimonyinthecourtbelowtoshowthatthe
willexecutedbythedeceasedwasthesamewill
presentedtothecourtandconcerningwhichthis
hearingwashad.Itistruethattheevidencedoes
notshowthatthedocumentincourtwas
presentedtothewitnessesandidentifiedby
them,asshouldhavebeendone.Butwethink
thatwearejustifiedinsayingthatitwas
assumedbyallthepartiesduringthetrialinthe
courtbelowthatthewillaboutwhichthe
witnessesweretestifyingwasthedocumentthen
incourt.Nosuggestionofanykindwasthen
madebythecounselfortheappellantsthatitwas
notthesameinstrument.Inthelastquestionput
tothewitnessGonzalesthephrase"thiswill"is
usedbythecounselfortheappellants.Intheir
argumentinthatcourt,foundonpage15ofthe
record,theytreatthetestimonyofthewitnesses
asreferringtothewillprobatetheywerethen
opposing.
Thejudgmentofthecourtbelowisaffirmed,
eliminatingtherefrom,however,theclause"el
cualdeberaejecutarsefielyexactamenteen
todassuspartes."Thecostsofthisinstancewill
bechargedagainsttheappellants.
HONESTOALVAREZ,ETAL.,plaintiffs
appellants,
vs.
PEDROK.ESPIRITU,defendantappellee.
ArturoAgustinesforplaintiffsappellants.
AlbertoAguilarfordefendantappellee.
REGALA,J.:
ThisisanappealfromthedecisionoftheCourt
ofFirstInstanceofRizal.Theresolutionofthe
issuespresenteddependsonadeterminationof
whetherLotNo.292oftheTalaEstatewasthe
paraphernalpropertyofthelateConsolacion
Evangelista,orwhetheritwaspropertyofher
conjugalpartnershipwithPedroK.Espiritu.
Thelotinquestion,withanareaof2hectares,76
acresand2hectares,islocatedinCaloocan,
Rizal(nowCaloocanCity).Itoriginallyformed
partoftheFriarLandsadministeredunderAct
No.1120.
OnJune29,1910,theDirectorofLandsissued
SalesCertificateNo.479infavorofConsolacion
Evangelista,byvirtueofwhichthegovernment
agreedtosellthelotforP242.04.Underthe
termsofthiscertificate,theamountofP60.04,
whichhadbeenpaidasrentals,wascreditedin
favorofConsolacionEvangelistaandthe
balanceofP182wastobepaidin18annual
installments,thefirstinstallmentofP12tobe
paidonJuly1,1910andtheresttobepaidevery
yearthereafterin17equalinstallmentsofP10
each.
OnJune13,1923,ConsolacionEvangelista
marriedPedroK.Espiritu.Duringtheir
marriage,theinstallmentsonthepriceofthelot
werepaidwithconjugalfundsandby1927
paymentonalltheinstallmentswascompleted.
OnNovember18,ofthatyear,Consolacion
Evangelistasignedadeedentitled"Assignment
ofSalesCertificateNo.279"whichrecitesas
follows:
Thisagreement,madeinduplicatebetween
ConsolacionEvangelista,asASSIGNOR,and
PedroK.EspirituasASSIGNEE.
WITNESSETH:thatthesaid
ASSIGNOR,forandinconsiderationof
thesumofP_______, 1 receipt whereof is
acknowledged, hereby sells, assigns, and
transfers to the said ASSIGNEE all right, and
interest in and to lot 292 of the said Estate,
acquired under and by the terms of sales
certificate numbered 479 dated June 29, 1910,
together with all buildings and improvements on
the said lot belonging to the said ASSIGNOR.
The said ASSIGNEE hereby accepts the said
assignment and transfer and expressly agrees
to be bound by and to keep and perform all the
covenants and condition expressed in the said
sale certificate to be kept and performed by the
VENDEE therein.
Following the approval of this assignment by the Director of
Lands, the lot was registered in the name of the spouses
and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14527 was issued to
them.
On February 7, 1946, the spouses sold a half portion of the
lot to Aniceto Martin for P3,000, reserving to themselves
the right to redeem it within 12 years. However, before they
could exercise their right of redemption, Consolacion
Evangelista died on February 21, 1949, leaving a will in
which she bequeathed to her husband her half interest in
the remaining unsold portion of Lot No. 292. She was
survived by her husband, Pedro K. Espiritu, and by
plaintiffs Nicasio and Asuncion Evangelista (her brother
and sister, respectively), Honesto and Josefina Alvarez
(children of her deceased sister Eduviges) and Arsenio
Evangelista (son of her deceased brother Rufino).
Pedro K. Espiritu filed Special Proceedings No. 502 in the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan for the settlement of his
wife's estate. The will was allowed and Pedro K. Espiritu
was appointed executor upon the filing of a bond. Instead
of filing a bond and qualifying as executor, Espiritu asked
the court to convert the proceedings into a summary
settlement of the estate on the ground that the value of the
properties did not exceed P3,000. The court granted his
motion, heard the case and on November 15, 1954, issued
an order, the dispositive portion of which reads in part as
follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby distributes
summarily the estate left by the deceased
Consolacion Evangelista and hereby adjudicates
aforesaid estate in accordance with the will,
Exhibit C, of said deceased in the following
manner, to wit:
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
We, therefore, hold that Lot No. 292 was the paraphernal
property of Consolacion Evangelista. Since only one-fourth
(1/4) of this lot had been given by will, there still remains
undisposed three-fourths (3/4) of the same.