Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
through
THELMA
M.
ARANAS, Petitioner, v. TERESITA
V.
MERCADO, FELIMON V. MERCADO, CARMENCITA M.
SUTHERLAND, RICHARD V. MERCADO, MA. TERESITA
M.
ANDERSON,
AND
FRANKLIN
L.
MERCADO, Respondents.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
the
order
of
January
8,
1993.
Antecedents
Page 1
Page 2
Issue
Did the CA properly determine that the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in directing the inclusion of certain properties
in the inventory notwithstanding that such properties had
been either transferred by sale or exchanged for corporate
shares in Mervir Realty by the decedent during his
lifetime?
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
I
Was certiorari the
proper
to assail the questioned orders of the RTC?
recourse
contention
cannot
be
sustained.
Page 3
Allows
or
disallows
will;
the
CA
correct
in
its
conclusion?
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
July 8, 2013
On July 27, 2011, the RTC issued the assailed July 27, 2011
Order,11 finding that the subject complaint failed to state a
cause of action against Gaudioso. It observed that while the
plaintiffs therein had established their relationship with
Magdaleno in a previous special proceeding for the
issuance of letters of administration,12 this did not mean
that they could already be considered as the decedents
compulsory heirs. Quite the contrary, Gaudioso
satisfactorily established the fact that he is Magdalenos
son and hence, his compulsory heir through the
documentary evidence he submitted which consisted of:
(a) a marriage contract between Magdaleno and Epegenia
Evangelista; (b) a Certificate of Live Birth; (c) a Letter
dated February 19, 1960; and (d) a passport.13
The plaintiffs therein filed a motion for reconsideration
which was, however, denied on August 31, 2011 due to the
counsels failure to state the date on which his Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education Certificate of Compliance was
issued.14
Aggrieved, petitioners, who were among the plaintiffs in
Civil Case No. T-2246,15 sought direct recourse to the Court
through the instant petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The core of the present controversy revolves around the
issue of whether or not the RTCs dismissal of the case on
the ground that the subject complaint failed to state a
cause of action was proper.
The Courts Ruling
The petition has no merit.
Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a
party violates a right of another.16 It is well-settled that the
existence of a cause of action is determined by the
allegations in the complaint.17 In this relation, a complaint
is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if, admitting
what appears solely on its face to be correct, the plaintiff
would be entitled to the relief prayed for.18Accordingly, if
the allegations furnish sufficient basis by which the
complaint can be maintained, the same should not be
dismissed, regardless of the defenses that may be averred
by the defendants.19
As stated in the subject complaint, petitioners, who were
among the plaintiffs therein, alleged that they are the
lawful heirs of Magdaleno and based on the same, prayed
that the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by
Gaudioso be declared null and void and that the transfer
certificates of title issued in the latters favor be cancelled.
While the foregoing allegations, if admitted to be true,
would consequently warrant the reliefs sought for in the
said complaint, the rule that the determination of a
decedents lawful heirs should be made in the
corresponding special proceeding20 precludes the RTC, in
Page 7
June 4, 2014
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
RODOLFO
V.
JAO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PERICO V. JAO, respondents.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Rodolfo and Perico Jao were the only sons of the spouses
Ignacio Jao Tayag and Andrea V. Jao, who died intestate in
Page 11
OF
THE
DECEDENTS
RATHER
THAN
THE
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE SHOWING THE CLEAR
INTENTION OF THE DECEDENTS TO ESTABLISH THEIR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN ANGELES CITY.
VI
SO ORDERED.10
VII
SO ORDERED.11
I
RESPONDENT COURT HAD DECIDED A QUESTION OF
SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE LAW
AND IS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY TO THE APPLICABLE
DECISION ALREADY RENDERED BY THIS HONORABLE
COURT.
II
RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE
RULING OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN THE CASE
OF EUSEBIO VS. EUSEBIO, 100 PHILS. 593, WHICH
CLEARLY INTERPRETED WHAT IS MEANT BY RESIDENCE
IN SEC. 1 OF RULE 73 OF THE RULES OF COURT.
III
RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN A PLACE AT THE TIME OF
DEATH IS DETERMINATIVE OF DECEDENTS RESIDENCE
RATHER THAN THE INTENTION OF THE DECEDENTS TO
ESTABLISH THEIR PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN ANOTHER
PLACE.
IV
RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN APPLYING BY ANALOGY
THE RESIDENCE CONTEMPLATED IN SEC. 2 OF RULE 4
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING SUMMONS TO A
DEFENDANT IN A PERSONAL ACTION TO THE RESIDENCE
CONTEMPLATED IN SEC. 1 OF RULE 73 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING VENUE IN THE SETTLEMENT
OF THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED.
V
RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN GIVING MORE WEIGHT
TO THE ENTRY OF PETITIONER AND PRIVATE
RESPONDENT IN THE RESPECTIVE DEATH CERTIFICATES
Page 12
Page 13
PADILLA, J.:
This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
assailing an order dated 24 January 1991 issued by herein
respondent presiding judge-designate Bethel KatalbasMoscardon of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City,
Branch 51 which considered the supplemental action for
partition (after annulment of the marriage) as terminated
due to the death of one of the spouses (husband) and the
pendency of intestate proceedings over his estate.
Petitioner Angelica Ledesma's marriage to Cipriano
Pedrosa was declared a nullity by the Regional Trial Court
of Negros Occidental, Branch 51 on 8 February 1984 in
Civil Case No. 1446. 1 The dispositive portion of the order
annulling the marriage also provided thus:
. . . that the properties acquired by plaintiff Cipriano
Pedrosa and defendant Angelica Ledesma at the time they
were living together as common-law husband and wife is
(sic) owned by them as co-owners to be governed by the
provisions on co-ownership of the civil code; that the
properties acquired by plaintiff and defendant after their
marriage was solemnized on March 25, 1965, which was
annulled by this Court in the above-entitled proceeding,
forms (sic) part of the conjugal partnership and upon
dissolution of the marriage, to be liquidated in accordance
with the provision of the civil code. 2
Surprisingly it took some time before the next order
implementing the above disposition was issued on 4 May
1989, the pertinent part of which reads:
. . . . It appearing from the records that the court has to
verify and determine the correct inventory of the
properties of Cipriano Pedrosa and Angelica Ledesma, the
parties, including the receiver, through their respective
attorneys, are ordered to submit their respective
inventory, if one has not been submitted yet, before June 1,
1989. . . . . 3
Pending receipt by the court of the ordered inventory,
Cipriano Pedrosa died. A separate petition for the probate
of
his
last
will
and
testament
was
filed. 4 Nelson Jimena was named executor and substituted
Pedrosa in the partition proceedings (Civil Case No. 1446).
Due to disagreement of the parties on the characterization
of the properties, the court in the partition proceedings
ordered (30 March 1990) the submission of comments,
objections and manifestations on the project of partition
submitted by the parties. During a lull in the proceedings,
the presiding judge also passed away. On 24 January 1991
the following now-questioned order was issued by the
herein respondent presiding-judge designate who took
over:
It is informed by Atty. Pio Villoso that insofar as the status
of this case is concerned, the plaintiff who has long been
dead, was substituted by the administrator, now the
plaintiff Nelson Jimena, and Atty. Vicente Sabornay, as the
receiver. Furthermore, the judgment as to the annulment
of the marriage had already been rendered partially by
then Presiding Judge Quirino Abad Santos, Jr., on February
8, 1984. What is being litigated here by the parties affects
Page 14
No.
L-6622.
July
31,
1957.]
V.
Filamor
for Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1.
PLEADING
AND
PRACTICE;
NATURE
OF
COUNTERCLAIM. A counterclaim is a relief available to
a party-defendant against the adverse party which may or
may not be independent from the main issue.
2. ID.; PARTIES; COUNSEL FOR A PARTY SHOULD NOT BE
INCLUDED AS DEFENDANT IN COUNTERCLAIM. The
appearance of a lawyer as Counsel for a party and his
participation in a case as such counsel does not make him
a party to the action. The fact that he represents the
interests of his client or that he acts in their behalf will not
hold him liable for or make him entitled to any award that
the Court may adjudicate to the parties, other than his
professional fees. The principle that a counterclaim cannot
be filed against persons who are acting in representation
of another such as trustees in their individual capacities
(Chambers v. Cameron 2 Fed. Rules Service 155; 29 of
Supp. 742), could be applied with more force and effect in
the case of a counsel whose participation in the action is
merely confined to the preparation of the defense of the
client.
3. COURTS; JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURT LIMITED
AND SPECIAL. In taking cognizance of a special
proceedings for the purpose of settling the estate of a
deceased person, the Court of First Instance in its capacity
as a probate Court is clothed with a limited jurisdiction
which cannot expand to Collateral matters not arising out
of or in anyway related to the settlement and adjudication
of the properties of the deceased for it is a settled rule that
the jurisdiction of a probate Court is limited and special.
Although there is a tendency now to relax this rule and
extend the jurisdiction of the probate Court in respect to
matters incidental and collateral to the exercise of its
recognized powers, this should be understood to
comprehend only cases related to those powers
specifically
allowed
by
the
statutes.
4. DAMAGES; COUNTERCLAIM; TESTATE OF INTESTATE
PROCEEDINGS: MORAL DAMAGES IS EXTRANEOUS
MATTER From whatever angle it may be looked at, a
Page 15
DECISION
FELIX, J.:
Page 16
obligation
amounting
to
P35,415.
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
of
Time
Total
rentals
Unnual
monthly
March
rental
to
December,
1945
1946
P3,085.00
4,980.00
P51.42
January
to
December,
January
to
December,
1947
8,330.00
115.70
January
to
December,
1948
9,000.00
125.00
January
to
December,
1949
8,840.00
122.77
January
to
December,
1950
6,060.00
184.16
TOTAL
69.17
P40,295.00
No.
1541
February
P20.00
Door
(basement)
No.
1543
March
April
20.00
For
60.00
months
month
at
P300
P2,100.00
May-December
800.00
Total
P900.00
1946
January-December
P4,080.00
P1,200.00
January-December
1947
January
February
March
P100.00
100.00
180.00
January
February
March
P380.00
380
1-15
00
190.00
P5,035.00
1948
January-December
P5,150.00
P1,920.00
January-December
1949
January-November
P4,315.00
15
P1,680.00
January-December
Page 20
including
Page 21
administrations
Year
Income
fees.
1945
P625.00
P1,310.42
1946
1,800.00
3,471.00
1947
2,550.00
2,912.91
1948
1,828.00
3,311.88
1949
3,204.50
4,792.09
1950
2,082.00
2,940.91
P12,089.50
P18,739.21
Page 22
Unauthorized
expenditures
L-59
P500.00
Yek
Wing
Exhibit
L-60
616.00
Yek
Wing
Exhibit
L-61
600.00
Yek
Wing
Exhibit
L-62
840.00
Yek
Wing
Exhibit
L-63
180.00
Yek
Wing
Exhibit
Total
Q-2
323.00
scale
"Howe"
P3,059.00
Page 23
belongs
to
the
oppositors.
de
viaje
del
administrador
"From
Pateros
"To
Pasig
"To
Manila
"To
Cainta
"To
Jalajala
50
50
8
P
x
x
5
P
x
4.00
P200.00
P10.00
P500.00
8.00
P35.00
P
=
64.00
P175.00
P939.00"
(Exhibit
W-54)
Other
expenses:chanrob1es
virtual
1aw
library
Page 24
of P13,294
virtual
for administrators
1aw
library
Page 25
(a)
P7,084.27
(b)
12,175.00
(c)
16,113.95
(d)
3,352.75
(e)
341.74
(f)
3,750.00
(g)
1.
532.50
2.
377.25
4.
366.28
5.
869.92
6.
505.87
7.
500.00
8-a.
b.
93.75
c.
10.00
d.
137.50
P46,210.78
In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is
modified by reducing the amount that the administrator
was sentenced to pay the oppositors to the sum of
P46,210.78 (instead of P83,337.31), plus legal interests on
this amount from the date of the decision appealed from,
which is hereby affirmed in all other respects. Without
pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
G.R. No. 188921
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
xxx
xxx
ANGEL
T.
vs.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF
deceased, respondent.
LIMJOCO, petitioner,
PEDRO
O. FRAGRANTE,
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
for
petitioners.
Page 37
Page 38
CONCEPCION, J.:
This case instituted on November 16, 1953, when Eugenio
Eusebio filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, a
petition for his appointment as administrator of the estate
of his father, Andres Eusebio, who died on November 28,
1952, residing, according to said petition, in the City of
Quezon. On December 4, 1953, Amanda, Virginia, Juan,
Delfin, Vicente and Carlos, all surnamed Eusebio, objected
to said petition, stating that they are illegitimate children
of the deceased and that the latter was domiciled in San
Fernando, Pampanga, and praying, therefore, that the case
Page 39
Exihibits "1" and "2" are rejecting but the same may be
attached to the records for whatever action oppositors
may want to take later on because until now the
personality of the oppositors has not been established
whether or not they have a right to intervene in this case,
and the Court cannot pass upon this question as the
oppositors refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of this Court
and they maintain that these proceedings should be
dismissed. (P. 10, t. s. n.)
Page 40
February 6, 2007
EDGAR
SAN
vs.
FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent.
LUIS, Petitioner,
x ---------------------------------------------------- x
G.R. No. 134029
February 6, 2007
RODOLFO
SAN
vs.
FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS
LUIS, Respondent.
LUIS, Petitioner,
alias
FELICIDAD
SAN
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Before us are consolidated petitions for review assailing
the February 4, 1998 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 52647, which reversed and set aside the
September 12, 1995 2 and January 31, 1996 3Resolutions of
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 134 in SP.
Proc. No. M-3708; and its May 15, 1998
Resolution 4 denying
petitioners
motion
for
reconsideration.
The instant case involves the settlement of the estate of
Felicisimo T. San Luis (Felicisimo), who was the former
governor of the Province of Laguna. During his lifetime,
Felicisimo contracted three marriages. His first marriage
was with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which
were born six children, namely: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar,
Linda, Emilita and Manuel. On August 11, 1963, Virginia
predeceased Felicisimo.
Five years later, on May 1, 1968, Felicisimo married Merry
Lee Corwin, with whom he had a son, Tobias. However, on
October 15, 1971, Merry Lee, an American citizen, filed a
Complaint for Divorce 5 before the Family Court of the
First Circuit, State of Hawaii, United States of America
(U.S.A.), which issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce
and Awarding Child Custody on December 14, 1973. 6
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Concepcion,
Regala
and
Cruz
for
AQUINO, J.:+.wph!1
The question in this case is whether a petition for
allowance of wills and to annul a partition, approved in
anintestate proceeding by Branch 20 of the Manila Court of
First Instance, can be entertained by its Branch 38 (after a
probate in the Utah district court).
Antecedents. Edward M. Grimm an American resident of
Manila, died at 78 in the Makati Medical Center on
November 27, 1977. He was survived by his second wife,
Maxine Tate Grimm and their two children, named Edward
Miller Grimm II (Pete) and Linda Grimm and by Juanita
Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm Roberts (McFadden), his
two children by a first marriage which ended in divorce
(Sub-Annexes A and B. pp. 36-47, Rollo).
He executed on January 23, 1959 two wills in San
Francisco, California. One will disposed of his Philippine
estate which he described as conjugal property of himself
and his second wife. The second win disposed of his estate
outside the Philippines.
In both wills, the second wife and two children were
favored. The two children of the first marriage were given
their legitimes in the will disposing of the estate situated in
this country. In the will dealing with his property outside
this country, the testator said: t.hqw
I purposely have made no provision in this will for my
daughter, Juanita Grimm Morris, or my daughter, Elsa
Grimm McFadden (Ethel Grimm Roberts), because I have
provided for each of them in a separate will disposing of
my Philippine property. (First clause, pp. 43-47, Rollo).
The two wills and a codicil were presented for probate by
Maxine Tate Grimm and E. LaVar Tate on March 7, 1978 in
Page 46
Page 47
DIZON, J.:
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
TEEHANKEE, J.:
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of respondent
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 34104-R, promulgated 21
November 1964, and its subsequent Resolution
promulgated 8 July 1964 denying petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration.
Page 51
for lack
of
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
xxxxxxxxx
However, the deceased Siy Uy was not the only defendant,
Manuel Co was also named defendant in the
complaint. Obviously, therefore, the order appealed from is
erroneous insofar as it dismissed the case against
Co. (Underlining added)
Moreover, it is noted that all the defendants, including the
deceased, were signatories to the contract of sub-lease.
The remaining defendants cannot avoid the action by
claiming that the death of one of the parties to the contract
has totally extinguished their obligation as held in Imperial
Insurance, Inc. v. David:
We find no merit in this appeal. Under the law and well
settled jurisprudence, when the obligation is a solidary
one, the creditor may bring his action in toto against any of
the debtors obligated in solidum.Thus, if husband and wife
bound themselves jointly and severally, in case of his
death, her liability is independent of and separate from her
husband's; she may be sued for the whole debt and it
would be error to hold that the claim against her as well as
the claim against her husband should be made in the
decedent's estate. (Agcaoili vs. Vda. de Agcaoili, 90 Phil.
97).[5]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was
denied on June 4, 1998.[6] Hence this petition based on the
following assignment of errors:
A. THE
RESPONDENT
COURT
COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN APPLYING CLIMACO v. SIY UY, 19
SCRA 858, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER
WAS NOT SEEKING THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE
AGAINST REMAINING DEFENDANTS BUT ONLY WITH
RESPECT TO THE CLAIM FOR PAYMENT AGAINST HER
AND HER HUSBAND WHICH SHOULD BE PROSECUTED AS
A MONEY CLAIM.
B. THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN APPLYING IMPERIAL INSURANCE INC. v.
DAVID, 133 SCRA 317, WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE
BECAUSE THE SPOUSES IN THIS CASE DID NOT BIND
THEMSELVES JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY IN FAVOR OF
RESPONDENT JARING.[7]
The petition is meritorious. We hold that a creditor cannot
sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary
proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable
against the conjugal partnership and that the proper
remedy is for him to file a claim in the settlement of estate
of the decedent.
First. Petitioner's husband died on December 1, 1988,
more than ten months before private respondent filed the
collection suit in the trial court on October 13, 1989. This
case thus falls outside of the ambit of Rule 3, 21 which
deals with dismissals of collection suits because of the
death of the defendant during the pendency of the case
Page 57
Page 58
AQUINO, J.:1wph1.t
This is supposedly a case about collation. As factual
background, it should be stated that the spouses, Beatriz
Bautista and Jose M. Valero, did not beget any child during
their marriage In 1951 Beatriz adopted Carmen
(Carmencita) Bautista. Jose wanted also to adopt her but
because, by his first marriage, he had two children named
Flora Valero Vda. de Rodriguez and Rosie Valero Gutierrez.
he was disqualified to adopt Carmen. Jose manifested in
the adoption proceeding that he consented to the use by
Carmen of his surname Valero. (See Civil Case No. 12475,
Manila CFI; Art. 338[1], Civil Code and art. 28, Child and
Youth Welfare Code.)
Page 59
Page 60
PLANA, J.:
I. FACTS:
This is a case of hereditary succession.
Alvaro Pastor, Sr. (PASTOR, SR.), a Spanish subject, died in
Cebu City on June 5, 1966, survived by his Spanish wife
Sofia Bossio (who also died on October 21, 1966), their
two legitimate children Alvaro Pastor, Jr. (PASTOR, JR.)
and Sofia Pastor de Midgely (SOFIA), and an illegitimate
child, not natural, by the name of Lewellyn Barlito
Quemada QUEMADA PASTOR, JR. is a Philippine citizen,
having been naturalized in 1936. SOFIA is a Spanish
subject. QUEMADA is a Filipino by his mother's citizenship.
On November 13, 1970, QUEMADA filed a petition for the
probate and allowance of an alleged holographic will of
PASTOR, SR. with the Court of First Instance of Cebu,
Branch I (PROBATE COURT), docketed as SP No. 3128-R.
The will contained only one testamentary disposition: a
legacy in favor of QUEMADA consisting of 30% of PASTOR,
Page 61
Page 62
III. DISCUSSION:
1. Issue of Ownership
(a) In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the
issue by and large is restricted to the extrinsic validity of
the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound mind,
freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by law. (Rules of Court, Rule 75, Section 1; Rule
76, Section 9.) As a rule, the question of ownership is an
extraneous matter which the Probate Court cannot resolve
with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether
a certain property should or should not be included in the
inventory of estate properties, the Probate Court may pass
upon the title thereto, but such determination is
provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final
decision in a separate action to resolve title. [3 Moran,
Comments on the Rules of Court (1980 ed.), p. 458; Valero
Vda. de Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, 91 SCRA 540.]
(b) The rule is that execution of a judgment must conform
to that decreed in the dispositive part of the decision.
(Philippine-American Insurance Co. vs. Honorable Flores,
97 SCRA 811.) However, in case of ambiguity or
uncertainty, the body of the decision may be scanned for
guidance in construing the judgment. (Heirs of Presto vs.
Galang, 78 SCRA 534; Fabular vs. Court of Appeals, 119
SCRA 329; Robles vs. Timario. 107 Phil. 809.)
The Order sought to be executed by the assailed Order of
execution is the Probate Order of December 5, 1972 which
allegedly resolved the question of ownership of the
disputed mining properties. The said Probate Order
enumerated the issues before the Probate Court, thus:
Unmistakably, there are three aspects in these
proceedings: (1) the probate of the holographic will (2) the
intestate estate aspect; and (3) the administration
Page 63
(c) That the Probate Order did not resolve the question of
ownership of the properties listed in the estate inventory
was appropriate, considering that the issue of ownership
was the very subject of controversy in the reconveyance
suit that was still pending in Branch IX of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu.
Page 64
(d) Nor had the estate tax been determined and paid, or at
least provided for, as of December 5, 1972.
(e) The net assets of the estate not having been
determined, the legitime of the forced heirs in concrete
figures could not be ascertained.
(f) All the foregoing deficiencies considered, it was not
possible to determine whether the legacy of QUEMADA - a
fixed share in a specific property rather than an aliquot
part of the entire net estate of the deceased - would
produce an impairment of the legitime of the compulsory
heirs.
(g) Finally, there actually was no determination of the
intrinsic validity of the will in other respects. It was
obviously for this reason that as late as March 5, 1980 more than 7 years after the Probate Order was issued the
Probate Court scheduled on March 25, 1980 a hearing on
the intrinsic validity of the will.
3. Propriety of certiorari
Private respondent challenges the propriety of certiorari
as a means to assail the validity of the disputed Order of
execution. He contends that the error, if any, is one of
judgment, not jurisdiction, and properly correctible only
by appeal, not certiorari.
Under the circumstances of the case at bar, the challenge
must be rejected. Grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction is much too evident in the actuations of
the probate court to be overlooked or condoned.
(a) Without a final, authoritative adjudication of the issue
as to what properties compose the estate of PASTOR, SR. in
the face of conflicting claims made by heirs and a non-heir
(MA. ELENA ACHAVAL DE PASTOR) involving properties
not in the name of the decedent, and in the absence of a
resolution on the intrinsic validity of the will here in
question, there was no basis for the Probate Court to hold
in its Probate Order of 1972, which it did not, that private
respondent is entitled to the payment of the questioned
legacy. Therefore, the Order of Execution of August 20,
1980 and the subsequent implementing orders for the
payment of QUEMADA's legacy, in alleged implementation
of the dispositive part of the Probate Order of December 5,
1972, must fall for lack of basis.
(b) The ordered payment of legacy would be violative of
the rule requiring prior liquidation of the estate of the
deceased, i.e., the determination of the assets of the estate
and payment of all debts and expenses, before
apportionment and distribution of the residue among the
heirs and legatees. (Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, 7 SCRA
367.)
(c) Neither has the estate tax been paid on the estate of
PASTOR, SR. Payment therefore of the legacy to QUEMADA
would collide with the provision of the National Internal
Revenue Code requiring payment of estate tax before
delivery to any beneficiary of his distributive share of the
estate (Section 107 [c])
(d) The assailed order of execution was unauthorized,
having been issued purportedly under Rule 88, Section 6 of
the Rules of Court which reads:
Sec. 6. Court to fix contributive shares where devisees,
legatees, or heirs have been in possession.
Where devisees, legatees, or heirs have entered into
possession of portions of the estate before the debts and
Page 65
GANCAYCO, J.:
Is a judicial administration proceeding necessary when the
decedent dies intestate without leaving any debts? May the
probate court appoint the surviving sister of the deceased
as the administratrix of the estate of the deceased instead
of the surviving spouse? These are the main questions
which need to be resolved in this case.
Andres de Guzman Pereira, an employee of the Philippine
Air Lines, passed away on January 3, 1983 at Bacoor,
Cavite without a will. He was survived by his legitimate
spouse of ten months, the herein petitioner Victoria
Bringas Pereira, and his sister Rita Pereira Nagac, the
herein private respondent.
On March 1, 1983, private respondent instituted before
Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite,
Special Proceeding No. RTC-BSP-83-4 for the issuance of
letters of administration in her favor pertaining to the
estate of the deceased Andres de Guzman Pereira. 1 In her
verified petition, private respondent alleged the following:
that she and Victoria Bringas Pereira are the only surviving
heirs of the deceased; that the deceased left no will; that
there are no creditors of the deceased; that the deceased
left several properties, namely: death benefits from the
Page 66
the Rules of Court apply and that in this case the parties
are at loggerheads as to the corpus of the hereditary estate
because respondents succeeded in sequestering some
assets of the intestate. The argument is unconvincing,
because, as the respondent judge has indicated, questions
as to what property belonged to the deceased (and
therefore to the heirs) may properly be ventilated in the
partition proceedings, especially where such property is in
the hands of one heir.
In another case, We held that if the reason for seeking an
appointment as administrator is merely to avoid a
multiplicity of suits since the heir seeking such
appointment wants to ask for the annulment of certain
transfers of property, that same objective could be
achieved in an action for partition and the trial court is not
justified in issuing letters of administration. 14 In still
another case, We did not find so powerful a reason the
argument that the appointment of the husband, a
usufructuary forced heir of his deceased wife, as judicial
administrator is necessary in order for him to have legal
capacity to appear in the intestate proceedings of his wife's
deceased mother, since he may just adduce proof of his
being a forced heir in the intestate proceedings of the
latter. 15
We see no reason not to apply this doctrine to the case at
bar. There are only two surviving heirs, a wife of ten
months and a sister, both of age. The parties admit that
there are no debts of the deceased to be paid. What is at
once apparent is that these two heirs are not in good
terms. The only conceivable reason why private
respondent seeks appointment as administratrix is for her
to obtain possession of the alleged properties of the
deceased for her own purposes, since these properties are
presently in the hands of petitioner who supposedly
disposed of them fraudulently. We are of the opinion that
this is not a compelling reason which will necessitate a
judicial administration of the estate of the deceased. To
subject the estate of Andres de Guzman Pereira, which
does not appear to be substantial especially since the only
real property left has been extrajudicially settled, to an
administration proceeding for no useful purpose would
only unnecessarily expose it to the risk of being wasted or
squandered. In most instances of a similar nature, 16 the
claims of both parties as to the properties left by the
deceased may be properly ventilated in simple partition
proceedings where the creditors, should there be any, are
protected in any event.
We, therefore, hold that the court below before which the
administration proceedings are pending was not justified
in issuing letters of administration, there being no good
reason for burdening the estate of the deceased Andres de
Guzman Pereira with the costs and expenses of an
administration proceeding.
With the foregoing ruling, it is unnecessary for us to delve
into the issue of who, as between the surviving spouse
Victoria Bringas Pereira and the sister Rita Pereira Nagac,
should be preferred to be appointed as administratrix.
WHEREFORE, the letters of administration issued by the
Regional Trial Court of Bacoor to Rita Pereira Nagac are
hereby revoked and the administration proceeding
dismissed without prejudice to the right of private
respondent to commence a new action for partition of the
property left by Andres de Guzman Pereira. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. L-27082 January 31, 1978
Page 67
AQUINO, J.:
These two cases involve the question of whether the
ownership of a parcel of land, whether belonging to the
deceased spouses or to their heirs, should be decided in
the intestate proceeding or in a separate action. Also in
issue in these two cases is the liability of the decedents'
estate for the litigation expenses allegedly incurred in a
case regarding that same land.
Being related cases, their adjudication in a single decision
was allowed in this Court's resolution of August 13, 1969.
The spouses Juan Pan and Teresa Magtuba died intestate
in 1943 and 1948, respectively. They possession a
homestead, consisting of two parcels of land, located at
Barrio Bunawan or Mauswagon, Calamba, Misamis
Occidental.
One parcel is Identified as Lot No. 1927. It has an area of
3.9791 hectares. It was covered by Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. 10 of the registry of deeds of Oriental
Misamis in the name of Juan Pangilinan issued in 1927. It is
now covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 86 (T-10)
of the registry of deeds of Misamis Occidental (p. 7,
Appellees' brief in L-27082).
The other parcel is Identified as Lot No. 1112. It has an
area of 18.0291 hectares. It is covered by OCT No. P-8419
issued on November 21, 1961 in the name of the Heirs of
Juan Pan , represented by Concepcion Pan de Yamuta (p.
73,
Record
on
Appeal
in
L-27082).
According to Guadalupe Pizarras and her children, a third
parcel, Lot No. 1920, with an area of eight hectares which
was surveyed in the name of Concepcion Pan and which
adjoins Lots Nos. 1927 and 1112, also forms part of the
estate of the deceased Pangilinan spouses (pp. 61-64,
Record on Appeal).
The Pangilinan spouses were survived by the following
heirs: (1) Prima Pangilinan, (2) Maria, Eusebio and
Apolinar all surnamed Yamuta, the children of Concepcion
Pangilinan Yamuta who died in 1961, and (3) Francis, A
Benjamin Perla and Francisco, Jr., all surnamed Pan the
Page 68
Page 69
Crispin Borromeo may set forth also his claim for the three
hectares but only for the purpose of deciding what portion
of the estate should be given to him in satisfaction of his
share. His claim for the sum of P416 had already been
adjudicated by the lower court in its order of August 31,
1966 (pp. 26- 27, Record on Appeal in L-29545). No appeal
was interposed from that adjudication.
After trial the lower court's decision on the issues as to
what constitutes the estate of the Pangilinan spouses
should include the partition thereof and should indicate
what portion of the estate should be allocated to Crispen
Borromeo. If necessary, the validity of the donation or
partition of Lot No. 1112, made by Juan C. Pangilinan
during his lifetime, should be passed upon.
Considering that the respective claims of the heirs of
Francisco Pangilinan . and the heirs of Concepcion
Pangilinan for reimbursement of the litigation expenses
allegedly incurred in Civil Case No. 560 will be included in
the trial, the two orders of the trial court dated May 11,
1968 regarding those matters (L-29545) should not be
enforced. They should be set aside.
WHEREFORE, (1) the lower court's amended order of
August 31, 1966, excluding twelve hectares from the
partition of the estate of the deceased Pan spouses (L27082) and (2) the two orders dated May 11, 1968,
regarding the claim of Guadalupe Pizarras and her children
and the debt of the estate to Concepcion Pangilinan (L29545) are reversed and set aside.
A new trial should be held on those matters after the filing
of the proper pleadings and in case no amicable settlement
is reached. The heirs of Francisco Pangilinan should file
their motion within thirty days from notice of the entry of
judgment in this case.
The case is remanded to the lower court for further
proceedings in accordance with the guidelines already set
forth. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 75579 September 30, 1991
TOMAS
TRINIDAD, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.
Tomas Trinidad for himself.
PARAS, J.:p
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the
reversal of 1) the decision * dated February 14, 1986 of the
then Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals)
in AC-G.R. N 01483 entitled: "People of the Philippines vs.
Atty. Tom Trinidad," affirming the decision of the Regional
Trial Court Manila dated January 5, 1984, which convicted
herein petitioner of violation of Section 25 in relation to
Section 39 of P 957 sentencing him to pay a fine of
P20,000.00 and to suffer the accessory penalties provided
by law and to pay the costs, and the resolution of said
appellate court dated May 9, 1986, denying the motion for
reconsideration of herein petitioner.
In an information that was filed in the then Court of First
Instance of Manila (now Regional Trial Court), herein
petitioner, Atty. Tomas Trinidad, was charged with
Page 70
the accused told her son that her title was coming. She wen
to the National Housing Authority and inquired if the
corporation of the accused is fake. Atty. Lagunsag of the
National Housing Authority set a hearing between her and
the accused but the accused did not appear. She received
the notification ("marked as Exhibit G) from the National
Housing Authority about the hearing. The hearing was
about the title she was claiming from the accused. A
hearing. was also held at the Ministry (now Department) of
Justice on March 7, 1981 but the accused did not appear.
The Ministry (now Department) of Justice handled the case
to help her and it was Fiscal Rodrigo Cosico, state
Prosecutor of the Ministry (now Department) of Justice
who handled the case. There was a resolution of the
Ministry (now Department) of Justice in her favor, marked
an presented as Exhibit H and H-1. She did not approach
an lawyer for she could not afford to pay a lawyer.
Whenever she comes to Manila to claim her title and
confront Tomas Trinidad she used to spend FIFTY PESOS
(P50.00) per day. She felt frustrated and was mad with the
accused.
In the cross-examination of this witness she said she had
been teaching Grade IV at Pampanga for 20 years then. She
admitted that she is a signatory to the contract, Exhibit B.
admitted that she did not pay the real estate taxes of this
land. She admitted that she did not go to the Probate Court.
In the re-direct, she said that she has not paid the taxes
because she was not notified about the demand of
payment. She paid the installment as evidenced by receipts
Exhibits E, E-I E-30 of Lots Nos. 19 and 51 of said
subdivision managed by the accused. She said that the
accused was the administrator of land wherein the portion
was bought by her.
After the testimony of the complainant Francesca
Dimabuyu, the prosecution rested its case and offered
Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, E-I to E-30, inclusive, F, F-I to F-5,
inclusive, and H, and H-1, which were all admitted by the
court. (Ibid., pp. 27-29).
On the other hand, herein petitioner, in his direct
testimony and cross, testified to the fact that in the
Intestate Proceedings of the estate of the late Nicolai
Drepin, he became the Judicial Administrator appointed in
the year 1976, and he presented his appointment and
marked as Exhibit 3. He testified that he took hold of the
property of the deceased including the Mother Earth
Realty Development Corporation, and also the
unregistered property situated at Antipolo, Rizal. The
whole lot is titled in the name of testator. He admitted that
he is the administrator of the Mother Earth Realty
Development Corporation, and that said corporation has
lots for sale. He continued to receive payments of lots for
sale in installment. In 1978 the National Housing Authority
stopped the sale of lots, and his corporation was told to
stop operating the property now the place being under
control of the Ministry of Human Settlements. According to
him the complainant (Ms. Francesca T. Dimabuyu) had not
complied with all the requirements for the complainant
had not paid the taxes. He asked the Probate Court as
administrator to allow him to execute a Deed of Sale to his
lot buyers and he was allowed in November 1982, the
authority was presented and marked as Exhibit 5. The
Mother Earth Realty Development Corporation, according
to him, is not in business now, and he is not the
administrator. He was appointed by the Court as
administrator in place of Atty. Guico, and he has letters of
administration presented and marked as Exhibit 3. His
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78