G.R. No. L-7188 August 9, 1954 In re: Will and Testaent o! t"e de#eased R$%$R$N& 'AN()* A+A&IA. '$%$RINA A . %&A. &$ $NRI$, $T AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. /IG$L A+A&IA, $T AL., oppositors-appellants. Manuel A. Zosa, Luis B. Ladonga, Mariano A. Zosa and B. G. Advincula for appellants. C. de la Victoria for appellees. /*NT$/A0*R, J.: On September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia, parish priest of Ta lisa, !eb", e#ec"ted a doc"ment p"rportin$ to be his %ast &ill and Testament no' mar(ed )#hibit *A*. +esident of the !itof !eb", he died on an"ar1, 193, in the m"nicipalitof Alo$"insan, !eb", 'here he 'as an evac"ee. e left properties estimated at /0,in val"e. On October 2, 196, one Andres )nri"e, one of the le$atees in )#hibit *A*, filed a petition for its probate in the !o"rt of First 4nstance of !eb". Some co"sins and nephe's 'ho 'o"ld inherit the estate of the deceased if he left no 'ill, filed opposition. 5"rin$ the hearin$ one of the attestin$ 'itnesses, the other t'o bein$ dead, testified 'itho"t contradiction that in his presence and in the presence of his co-'itnesses, Father Sancho 'rote o"t in lon$hand )#hibit *A* in Spanish 'hich the testator spo(e and "nderstoodthat he 7testator8 si$ned on he left hand mar$in of the front pa$e of each o f the three folios or sheets of 'hich the doc"ment is composed, and n"mbered the same 'ith Arabic n"merals, and finallsi$ned his name at the end of his 'ritin$ at the last pa$e, all this, in the presence of the three attestin$ 'itnesses after tellin$ that it 'as his last 'ill and that the said three 'itnesses si$ned their names on the last p a$e after the attestation cla"se in his presence and in the presence of each other. The oppositors did not s"bmit anevidence. The learned trial co"rt fo"nd and declared )#hibit *A* to be a holo$raphic 'illthat it 'as in the hand'ritin$ of the testator and that altho"$h at the time it 'as e#ec"ted and at the time of the testators death, holo$raphic 'ills 'ere not permitted bla' still, beca"se at the time of the hearin$ and 'hen the case 'as to be decided the ne' !ivil !ode 'as alreadin force, 'hich !ode permitted the e#ec"tion of holo$raphic 'ills, "nder a liberal vie', and to carro"t the intention of the testator 'hich accordin$ to the trial co"rt is the controllin$ factor and maoverride and efect in form, said trial co"rt border dated an "ar2, 19:2, admitted to probate )#hibit *A*, as the %ast &ill and Testament of Father Sancho Abadia. The oppositors are appealin$ from that decisionand beca"se onl"estions of la' are involved in the appeal, the case 'as certified to "s bthe !o"rt ofAppeals. The ne' !ivil !ode 7+ep"blic Act ;o. 3068 "nder article 01thereof provides that a person mae#ec"te a holo$raphic 'ill 'hich m"st be entirel'ritten, dated and si$ned bthe testator himself and need not be 'itnessed. 4t is a fact, ho'ever, that at the time that )#hibit *A* 'as e#ec"ted in 1923 and at the time that Father Abadia died in 193, holo$raphic 'ills 'ere not permitted, and the la' at the time imposed certain re"irements for the e#ec"tion of 'ills, s"ch as n"mberin$ correlativeleach pa$e 7not folio or sheet8 in letters and si$nin$ on the left hand mar$in bthe testator and bthe three attestin$ 'itnesses, re"irements 'hich 'ere not complied 'ith in )#hibit *A* beca"se the bac( pa$es of the first t'o folios of the 'ill 'ere not si$ned banone, not even b
Manuel A. Zosa, Luis B. Ladonga, Mariano A. Zosa and B. G. Advincula for appellants.
C. de la Victoria for appellees.
/*NT$/A0*R, J.:
On September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia, parish priest of Talisa, !eb", e#ec"ted a doc"mentp"rportin$ to be his %ast &ill and Testament no' mar(ed )#hibit *A*. +esident of the !it of !eb",he died on an"ar 1, 193, in the m"nicipalit of Alo$"insan, !eb", 'here he 'as an evac"ee. eleft properties estimated at /0, in val"e. On October 2, 196, one Andres )nri"e, one of thele$atees in )#hibit *A*, filed a petition for its probate in the !o"rt of First 4nstance of !eb". Some
co"sins and nephe's 'ho 'o"ld inherit the estate of the deceased if he left no 'ill, filed opposition.
5"rin$ the hearin$ one of the attestin$ 'itnesses, the other t'o bein$ dead, testified 'itho"tcontradiction that in his presence and in the presence of his co-'itnesses, Father Sancho 'rote o"tin lon$hand )#hibit *A* in Spanish 'hich the testator spo(e and "nderstood that he 7testator8 si$nedon he left hand mar$in of the front pa$e of each of the three folios or sheets of 'hich the doc"mentis composed, and n"mbered the same 'ith Arabic n"merals, and finall si$ned his name at the endof his 'ritin$ at the last pa$e, all this, in the presence of the three attestin$ 'itnesses after tellin$that it 'as his last 'ill and that the said three 'itnesses si$ned their names on the last pa$e after theattestation cla"se in his presence and in the presence of each other. The oppositors did not s"bmitan evidence.
The learned trial co"rt fo"nd and declared )#hibit *A* to be a holo$raphic 'ill that it 'as in thehand'ritin$ of the testator and that altho"$h at the time it 'as e#ec"ted and at the time of thetestators death, holo$raphic 'ills 'ere not permitted b la' still, beca"se at the time of the hearin$and 'hen the case 'as to be decided the ne' !ivil !ode 'as alread in force, 'hich !odepermitted the e#ec"tion of holo$raphic 'ills, "nder a liberal vie', and to carr o"t the intention of thetestator 'hich accordin$ to the trial co"rt is the controllin$ factor and ma override an defect inform, said trial co"rt b order dated an"ar 2, 19:2, admitted to probate )#hibit *A*, as the %ast&ill and Testament of Father Sancho Abadia. The oppositors are appealin$ from that decision andbeca"se onl "estions of la' are involved in the appeal, the case 'as certified to "s b the !o"rt of
Appeals.
The ne' !ivil !ode 7+ep"blic Act ;o. 3068 "nder article 01 thereof provides that a person ma
e#ec"te a holo$raphic 'ill 'hich m"st be entirel 'ritten, dated and si$ned b the testator himselfand need not be 'itnessed. 4t is a fact, ho'ever, that at the time that )#hibit *A* 'as e#ec"ted in1923 and at the time that Father Abadia died in 193, holo$raphic 'ills 'ere not permitted, and thela' at the time imposed certain re"irements for the e#ec"tion of 'ills, s"ch as n"mberin$correlativel each pa$e 7not folio or sheet8 in letters and si$nin$ on the left hand mar$in b thetestator and b the three attestin$ 'itnesses, re"irements 'hich 'ere not complied 'ith in )#hibit*A* beca"se the bac( pa$es of the first t'o folios of the 'ill 'ere not si$ned b an one, not even b
the testator and 'ere not n"mbered, and as to the three front pa$es, the 'ere si$ned onl b thetestator.
4nterpretin$ and applin$ this re"irement this !o"rt in the case of 4n re )state of Sa$"insin, 1/hil., 0<:, 0<9, referrin$ to the fail"re of the testator and his 'itnesses to si$n on the left handmar$in of ever pa$e, said=
. . . . This defect is radical and totall vitiates the testament. 4t is not eno"$h that thesi$nat"res $"aranteein$ a"thenticit sho"ld appear "pon t'o folios or leaves three pa$eshavin$ been 'ritten on, the a"thenticit of all three of them sho"ld be $"aranteed b thesi$nat"re of the alle$ed testatri# and her 'itnesses.
And in the case of Aspe vs. Prieto, 6 /hil., <, referrin$ to the same re"irement, this !o"rtdeclared=
From an e#amination of the doc"ment in "estion, it appears that the left mar$ins of the si#pa$es of the doc"ment are si$ned onl b >ent"ra /rieto. The noncompliance 'ith section 2
of Act ;o. 26: b the attestin$ 'itnesses 'ho omitted to si$n 'ith the testator at the leftmar$in of each of the five pa$es of the doc"ment alle$ed to be the 'ill of >ent"ra /rieto, is afatal defect that constit"tes an obstacle to its probate.
&hat is the la' to appl to the probate of )#h. *A*? @a 'e appl the provisions of the ne' !ivil!ode 'hich not allo's holo$raphic 'ills, li(e )#hibit *A* 'hich provisions 'ere invo(ed b theappellee-petitioner and applied b the lo'er co"rt? "t article <9: of this same ne' !ivil !odee#pressl provides= *The validit of a 'ill as to its form depends "pon the observance of the la' inforce at the time it is made.* The above provision is b"t an e#pression or statement of the 'ei$ht ofa"thorit to the affect that the validit of a 'ill is to be B"d$ed not b the la' enforce at the time of thetestators death or at the time the s"pposed 'ill is presented in co"rt for probate or 'hen the petitionis decided b the co"rt b"t at the time the instr"ment 'as e#ec"ted. One reason in s"pport of the
r"le is that altho"$h the 'ill operates "pon and after the death of the testator, the 'ishes of thetestator abo"t the disposition of his estate amon$ his heirs and amon$ the le$atees is $iven solemne#pression at the time the 'ill is e#ec"ted, and in realit, the le$ac or be"est then becomes acompleted act. This r"lin$ has been laid do'n b this co"rt in the case of 4n re &ill of +iosa, 39 /hil.,23. 4t is a 'holesome doctrine and sho"ld be follo'ed.
Of co"rse, there is the vie' that the intention of the testator sho"ld be the r"lin$ and controllin$factor and that all ade"ate remedies and interpretations sho"ld be resorted to in order to carr o"tsaid intention, and that 'hen stat"tes passed after the e#ec"tion of the 'ill and after the death of thetestator lessen the formalities re"ired b la' for the e#ec"tion of 'ills, said s"bse"ent stat"tessho"ld be applied so as to validate 'ills defectivel e#ec"ted accordin$ to the la' in force at the timeof e#ec"tion. o'ever, 'e sho"ld not for$et that from the da of the death of the testator, if he
leaves a 'ill, the title of the le$atees and devisees "nder it becomes a vested ri$ht, protected "nderthe d"e process cla"se of the constit"tion a$ainst a s"bse"ent chan$e in the stat"te addin$ ne'le$al re"irements of e#ec"tion of 'ills 'hich 'o"ld invalidate s"ch a 'ill. parit of reasonin$,'hen one e#ec"tes a 'ill 'hich is invalid for fail"re to observe and follo' the le$al re"irements atthe time of its e#ec"tion then "pon his death he sho"ld be re$arded and declared as havin$ diedintestate, and his heirs 'ill then inherit b intestate s"ccession, and no s"bse"ent la' 'ith moreliberal re"irements or 'hich dispenses 'ith s"ch re"irements as to e#ec"tion sho"ld be allo'ed tovalidate a defective 'ill and thereb divest the heirs of their vested ri$hts in the estate b intestate
#arve! $ %& Brien and Gibbs $ Mc'onoug( for appellee.
/AL(*L/, J.:
The special administrator of the estate of )d'ard +andolph i# appeals from a decision of "d$e ofFirst 4nstance T"ason denin$ the probate of the doc"ment alle$ed to b the last 'ill and testamentof the deceased. Appellee is not a"thoried to carr on this appeal. &e thin(, ho'ever, that theappellant, 'ho appears to have been the movin$ part in these proceedin$s, 'as a *personinterested in the allo'ance or disallo'ance of a 'ill b a !o"rt of First 4nstance,* and so sho"ld bepermitted to appeal to the S"preme !o"rt from the disallo'ance of the 'ill 7!ode of !ivil /roced"re,
sec. <01, as amended >illan"eva vs. 5e %eon C192:D, 2 /hil., <08.
4t is theor of the petitioner that the alle$ed 'ill 'as e#ec"ted in )l(ins, &est >ir$inia, on ;ovember3, 192:, b i# 'ho had his residence in that B"risdiction, and that the la's of &est >er$inia !ode,
Annotated, b o$$, !harles )., vol. 2, 191, p. 169, and as certified to b the 5irector of the;ational %ibrar. "t this 'as far from a compliance 'ith the la'. The la's of a forei$n B"risdiction donot prove themselves in o"r co"rts. the co"rts of the /hilippine 4slands are not a"thoried to ta(e
American Enion. S"ch la's m"st be proved as facts. 74n re )state of ohnson C1910D, 39 /hil., 1:6.8ere the re"irements of the la' 'ere not met. There 'as no 'as printed or p"blished "nder thea"thorit of the State of &est >ir$inia, as provided in section 3 of the !ode of !ivil /roced"re. ;or 'as the e#tract from the la' attested b the certificate of the officer havin$ char$e of the ori$inal,"nder the sale of the State of &est >ir$inia, as provided in section 31 of the !ode of !ivil
/roced"re. ;o evidence 'as introd"ced to sho' that the e#tract from the la's of &est >ir$inia 'asin force at the time the alle$ed 'ill 'as e#ec"ted.
4n addition, the d"e e#ec"tion of the 'ill 'as not established. The onl evidence on this point is to befo"nd in the testimon of the petitioner. Aside from this, there 'as nothin$ to indicate that the 'ill'as ac(no'led$ed b the testator in the presence of t'o competent 'itnesses, of that these'itnesses s"bscribed the 'ill in the presence of the testator and of each other as the la' of &est>ir$inia seems to re"ire. On the s"pposition that the 'itnesses to the 'ill reside 'itho"t the
/hilippine 4slands, it 'o"ld then the d"t of the petitioner to prove e#ec"tion b some other means7!ode of !ivil /roced"re, sec. 633.8
4t 'as also necessar for the petitioner to prove that the testator had his domicile in &est >ir$iniaand not establish this fact consisted of the recitals in the (AT)0 'ill and the testimon of thepetitioner. Also in be$innin$ administration proceedin$s or$inall in the /hilippine 4slands, the
petitioner violated his o'n theor b attemptin$ to have the principal administration in the /hilippine4slands.
&hile the appeal pendin$ s"bmission in this co"rt, the attorne for the appellant presented an"nverified petition as(in$ the co"rt to accept as part of the evidence the doc"ments attached to thepetition. One of these doc"ments discloses that a paper 'ritin$ p"rportin$ to be the 'as presentedfor probate on "ne 0, 1929, to the cler( of +andolph !o"ntr, State of &est >ir$inia, in vacation,and 'as d"l proven b the oaths of 5ana &amsle and oseph %. @Adden, the s"bscribin$'itnesses thereto , and ordered to be recorded and filed. 4t 'as sho'n b another doc"ment that, invacation, on "ne 0, 1929, the cler( of co"rt of +andolph !o"ntr, &est >ir$inia, appointed !la"de&. @a#'ell as administrator, cu) testa)ento anne*o, of the estate of )d'ard +andolph i#,deceased. 4n this connection, it is to be noted that the application for the probate of the 'ill in the/hilippines 'as filed on Febr"ar 2, 1929, 'hile the proceedin$s in &est >ir$inia appear to havebeen initiated on "ne 0, 1929. These facts are stron$l indicative of an intention to ma(e the/hilippines the principal administration and &est >ir$inia the ancillar administration. o'ever thisma be, no attempt has been made to compl 'ith !ivil /roced"re, for no hearin$ on the "estion of the allo'ance of a 'ill said to have been proved and allo'ed in &est >ir$inia has been re"ested.There is no sho'in$ that the deceased left an propert at an place other than the /hilippine4slands and no contention that he left an in &est >ir$inia.
+eference has been made b the parties to a divorce p"rported to have been a'arded )d'ard+andolph i# from Annie !o"sins i# on October 0, 192:, in the State of &est specificprono"ncements on the validit or validit of this alle$ed divorce.
For all of the fore$oin$, the B"d$ment appealed from 'ill be affirmed, 'ith the costs of this instancea$ainst the appellant.
Villa)or, %strand, Jo(ns, o)ualdez and Villa+eal, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. L-411 une , 1952
Testaentaria del !inado Willia R. Gi;erson. L$LA G. &ALT*N, solicitante-apelante,vs.'<RING GI+$R'*N, opositor-apelado.
Los (ec(os aparecen relacionados en la decision del ribunal."res. C. '. Jo(nston ! A. P. 'een en representacion de la apelante.'. -rancisco . -. e)oti/ue en representacion del apelado.
<A+L*, J.:
%ela . 5alton presento en 1 de febrero de 199 "na solicit"d en el "$ado de /rimera 4nstanciade !eb"pidiendo la le$aliacion de "n doc"mento "e, se$"n ale$a ella, es testamento olo$rafo de&illiam +. iberson, otor$adoen 29 de abril de 192 en San Francisco, !alifornia "e iberson era
ci"dadano del estado de 4llinois, )stados Enidos, residente de !eb" "e fallecio en 6 de a$ostode 193 en el campo de concentracion de la Eniversidad de Sto, Tomas, @anila, Filipinas.
Sprin$ iberson, hiBo le$itimo de &illiam +. iberson, presento "n oposicion ale$ando "e eltestamento es apocrifo "e no representa la verdadera vol"ntad del finado iberson= "e no hasido otor $ado de ac"erdo con la le.
)n 1.G de B"lio de 199, el opositor presento "na mocionpidiendo el sobreseimiento de la solicit"d,ale$ando "e, antes de "e "n testamento otor$ado en pais e#tranBerop"eda ser le$aliado en las4slas Filipinas, debe demostrarse "e dicho testamento habia sido le$aliado previamenteen dichopais, de ac"erdo con el artic"lo 1 de la +e$la <0 "e la solicit"d no ale$a "e el testamento habiasido a le$aliado en !alifornia.
%a solicitante se op"so a la mocion de sobreseimiento. )n 2 de B"nio de 19: el "e sobreseo lasolicit"d, declarando= *. . . "nder o"r e#istin$ r"les onl those 'ills that have previo"sl been provedand allo'ed in the Enited States, or an state or territor thereof, or an forei$n co"ntr, accordin$ tothe la's of s"ch state, territor, or co"ntr, ma be allo'ed, filed or recorded in the proper co"rt offirst instance in the /hilippines. . . .* !ontra esta orden la solicitante apela.
)l opositor, en apoo de s" teoria, sostiene "e el artic"lo 63: del !odi$o de /rocedimiento !ivil hasido dero$ado por la +e$la <0, en virt"d de la seccion 13, Artic"lo >444 de la !onstit"cion. 5ichoartic"lo 63: del !odi$o de /rocedimiento !ivil dice asi=
)l testamento otor$ado f"era de las 4slas Filipinas, "e p"diere a"tenticarse le$aliarseconforme a las lees del estado o pais en donde se otor$o, podra a"tenticarse, le$aliarse re$istrarse en las 4slas Filipinas, tendra la misma eficacia "esi se h"biere otor$ado deconformidad con las lees de estas 4slas.
)ste artic"lo ha sido aplicado en la ca"sa de abcoc( Templeton contra +ider abcoc(, :2 "r.Fil., 13, en la c"al se declaro "e el testamento otor$ado en !alifornia "e podia le$aliarse en
dicho estado, p"ede ser le$aliado en Filipinas. )n el as"nto de >arela contra >arela !alderon, :<"r. Fil., 291, se le$alio el testamento otor$ado en /aris, Francia, por el finado 5r. Francisco >arela!alderon por"e era "n testamento "e podiaser le$aliado de ac"erdo con las lees de Francia.
Ena persona p"ede disponer de s"s bienes para desp"es de s" m"erte por testamento. )lotor$amiento de "n testamentoes "n acto B"ridico "e p"ede realiarse en Filipinas o en ele#tranBero si se otor$a en pais e#tranBero, tiene "e hacerse de ac"erdo con las lees de dichopais, "e es re$la "niversalmente adoptada.
)l e#tranBero p"ede disponer para desp"es de s" m"erte de s"s bienes en Filipinas por testamento no es foroso "e lo otor$"e en Filipinas p"ede hacerlo en s" propio pais o en otro, pero deac"erdo con las lees del pais en "e lo otor$a. )l artic"lo 63: del !odi$o de /rocedimiento !ivil,respetando la libertad del testador de otor$ar s" testamento en c"al"ier l"$ar, dispone "e el
testamento "e p"ede le$aliarse en "n pais e#tranBero en consonancia con las lees de dicho paisp"ede le$alisarse tambien en Filipinas. )sa disposicion es s"stantiva, crea los derechos de losbeneficiarios del testamento= se les ase$"ra poder le$aliar en Filipinas los testamentosotor$adosf"era de las 4slas si p"eden ser le$aliados en el pais en "e f"eron otor$ados, dandolesca"sa de accion para pedirB"dicialmente el c"mplimiento de la "ltima vol"ntad del testador sea c"alf"ere el l"$ar de s" otor$amiento. Sinesa disposicion "edaria tr"ncada la fac"ltad de testar.
Al enmendar este Trib"nal el !odi$o de /rocedimiento !ivil, solamente enmendo la parte procesal,pero no la parte s"stantiva. *%a le s"stantiva no p"ede ser enmendadapor re$las de
procedimiento.* 7+ees contra >i"da de %",H 16 %a'er o"rnal, 623.8 For tanto, "eda a"ns"bsistente como derecho s"stantivo el artic"lo63: del !odi$o de /rocedimiento !ivil.
I el artic"lo 63< dice asi= *%os testamentos a"tenticados le$aliados en los )stados Enidos, o enc"al"ier estado o territorio de los mismos, o en "n estado o paise#tranBero, de conformidad con laslees de dicho estado, territorio o pais, podran ser le$aliados, re$istrados archivados en el
"$ado de /rimera 4nstancia de la provinciaen "e el testador t"viere bienes m"ebles, o inm"eblesefectados por dichos testamentos.* )ste artic"lono esta en conflicto con el artic"lo 63: en realidad,noes mas "e s" corolario. Si "n testamento otor$ado en pais e#tranBero "e p"ede le$aliarse deac"erdo con las lees de dicho pais p"ede tambien le$aliarse en las 4slas Filipinas, con maorraon los testamentos a le$aliadosen paises e#tranBeros de ac"erdo con las lees de dichospaises, p"eden le$aliarse tambien en Filipinas.
)l artic"lo 1 de la +e$la <0 no es mas "e "na transplantacion del artic"lo 63< del !odi$o de/rocedimiento !ivil. +eprod"cimos las dos disposiciones=
+E%) <0, J S)!T4O; 1. 0ills proved outside P(ilippines )a! be allo1ed (ere. J &illsproved and allo'ed in a forei$n co"ntr,accordin$ to the la's of s"ch co"ntr, ma be
allo'ed, filed, and recorded b the proper !o"rt of First 4nstance in the /hilippines.
S)!. 63<. 0ills proved outside islands )a! be allo1ed (ere. J &ills proved and allo'ed inthe 2nited "tates, or an! "tate or erritor! t(ereof, or in a forei$n state or co"ntr, accordin$to the la's of s"ch State, Territor, or co"ntr, ma be allo'ed, filed,and recorded in the!o"rt of First 4nstance of t(e province in 1(ic( t(e testator (as real or personal estate on1(ic( suc( 1ill )a! operate.
%as palabras s"braadas en la se$"nda disposicion son las "e no aparecen en la primera.
)l artic"lo 1 de la +e$la <0 no impide "e p"ede le$aliarse en Filipinas "n testamento otor$ado en"n pais e#tranBero,si p"ede ser le$aliado de ac"erdo con las lees de dicho pais, ni e#i$e "e sea
previamente le$aliado en dicho pais. )s insostenible, por tanto, la teoria del opositor.
Se revoca la orden apelada con costas contra el apelado.
P(ilip M. Alo and Crispin M. Menc(avez for petitioners.
3icolas Ju)apao for respondents.
R$0$', .+.L., J.:
Appeal b /a"la de la !erna and others from a decision of the !o"rt of Appeals, Si#th 5ivision7!.A.-.+. ;o. 23<63-+8 reversin$ that of the !o"rt of First 4nstance of !eb" 7!iv. !ase ;o. +-30198and orderin$ the dismissal of an action for partition.
The fact"al bac($ro"nd appears in the follo'in$ portion of the decision of the !o"rt of Appeals7/etition, Anne# A, pp. 2-8=
4t appears that on @a 9, 1939, the spo"ses, ernabe de la Serna and ervasia +ebaca,e#ec"ted a Boint last 'ill and testament in the local dialect 'hereb the 'illed that *o"r t'oparcels of land ac"ired d"rin$ o"r marria$e to$ether 'ith all improvements thereon shall be$iven to @an"ela +ebaca, o"r niece, 'hom 'e have n"rt"red since childhood, beca"se oddid not $ive "s an child in o"r "nion, @an"ela +ebaca bein$ married to ;icolas /otot*, and
that *'hile each of the testators is et livin$, he or she 'ill contin"e to enBo the fr"its of thet'o lands aforementioned*, the said t'o parcels of land bein$ covered b Ta# ;o. 6<6 andTa# ;o. 66<<, both sit"ated in sitio "cao, barrio %"$o, m"nicipalit of orbon, province of!eb". ernabe dela Serna died on A"$"st 3, 1939, and the aforesaid 'ill 'as s"bmitted toprobate b said ervasia and @an"ela before the !o"rt of First 4nstance of !eb" 'hich,after d"e p"blication as re"ired b la' and there bein$ no opposition, heard the evidence,and, b Order of October 31, 1939 in Special /roceedin$s ;o. 99, *declara le$aliado eldoc"mento )#hibit A como el testamento "ltima vol"ntad del finado ernabe de la Sernacon derecho por parte d" s" vi"da s"perstite ervasia +ebaca otra testadora al propiotiempo se$"n el )#hibit A de $oar de los fr"tos de los terranos descritos en dichodoc"ments habido consideracion de la c"antia de dichos bienes, se decreta la distrib"cions"maria de los mismos en favor de la lo$ataria "niversal @an"ela +ebaca de /otot previa
prestacion por parte de la misma de "na fiana en la s"m de /:. para responder dec"ales"iera reclamaciones "e se presentare contra los bienes del finado ernabe de laSerna de los aKos desde esta fecha* 7Act )sp. 99, Testamentaria Finado ernabe de laSerna8 Epon the death of ervasia +ebaca on October 1, 19:2, another petition for theprobate of the same 'ill insofar as ervasia 'as concerned 'as filed on ;ovember 6, 19:2,bein$ Special /roceedin$s ;o. 116-+ of the same !o"rt of First 4nstance of !eb", b"t forfail"re of the petitioner, @an"ela +. /otot and her attorne, @an"el /otot to appear, for thehearin$ of said petition, the case 'as dismissed on @arch 3, 19: Spec. /roc. ;o. 116-+,4n the matter of the /robate of the &ill of ervasia +ebaca8.
The !o"rt of First 4nstance ordered the petition heard and declared the testament n"ll and void, forbein$ e#ec"ted contrar to the prohibition of Boint 'ills in the !ivil !ode 7Art. 669, !ivil !ode of 1009
and Art. 010, !ivil !ode of the /hilippines8 b"t on appeal b the testamentar heir, the !o"rt of Appeals reversed, on the $ro"nd that the decree of probate in 1939 'as iss"ed b a co"rt of probate B"risdiction and concl"sive on the d"e e#ec"tion of the testament. F"rther, the !o"rt of Appealsdeclared that=
... . 4t is tr"e the la' 7Art. 669, old !ivil !ode Art. 010, ne' !ivil !ode8. prohibits the ma(in$of a 'ill Bointl b t'o or more persons either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of athird person. o'ever, this form of 'ill has lon$ been sanctioned b "se, and the same has
contin"ed to be "sed and 'hen, as in the present case, one s"ch Boint last 'ill andtestament has been admitted to probate b final order of a !o"rt of competent B"risdiction,there seems to be no alternative e#cept to $ive effect to the provisions thereof that are notcontrar to la', as 'as done in the case of Macro(on vs. "aavedra, :1 /hil. 26<, 'hereino"r S"preme !o"rt $ave effect to the provisions of the Boint 'ill therein mentioned, sain$,*ass"min$ that the Boint 'ill in "estion is valid.*
&hence this appeal b the heirs intestate of the deceased h"sband, ernabe de la !erna.
The appealed decision correctl held that the final decree of probate, entered in 1939 b the !o"rt of First 4nstance of !eb" 7'hen the testator, ernabe de la !erna, died8, has concl"sive effect as to hislast 'ill and testament despite the fact that even then the !ivil !ode alread decreed the invalidit of
Boint 'ills, 'hether in favor of the Boint testators, reciprocall, or in favor of a third part 7Art. 669, old!ivil !ode8. The error th"s committed b the probate co"rt 'as an error of la', that sho"ld havebeen corrected b appeal, b"t 'hich did not affect the B"risdiction of the probate co"rt, nor theconcl"sive effect of its final decision, ho'ever erroneo"s. A final B"d$ment rendered on a petition forthe probate of a 'ill is bindin$ "pon the 'hole 'orld 7@analo vs. /aredes, < /hil. 930 4n re )statesof ohnson, 39 /hil. 1:68 and p"blic polic and so"nd practice demand that at the ris( of occasionalerrors B"d$ment of co"rts sho"ld become final at some definite date fi#ed b la'. 4nterest rei
publicae ut finis set litiu) 75 !a vs. !rossfield, 30 /hil, :21, and other cases cited in 2 @oran,!omments on the +"les of !o"rt 71963 )d., p. 3228.
/etitioners, as heirs and s"ccessors of the late ernabe de la !erna, are concl"ded b the 1939decree admittin$ his 'ill to probate. The contention that bein$ void the 'ill cannot be validated,overloo(s that the "ltimate decision on &hether an act is valid or void rests 'ith the co"rts, and herethe have spo(en 'ith finalit 'hen the 'ill 'as probated in 1939. On this co"rt, the dismissal oftheir action for partition 'as correct.
"t the !o"rt of Appeals sho"ld have ta(en into acco"nt also, to avoid f"t"re mis"nderstandin$, that
the probate decree in 1909 co"ld onl affect the share of the deceased h"sband, ernabe de la!erna. 4t co"ld not incl"de the disposition of the share of the 'ife, ervasia +ebaca, 'ho 'as thenstill alive, and over 'hose interest in the conB"$al properties the probate co"rt ac"ired no
B"risdiction, precisel beca"se her estate co"ld not then be in iss"e. e it remembered that prior tothe ne' !ivil !ode, a 'ill co"ld not be probated d"rin$ the testators lifetime.
4t follo's that the validit of the Boint 'ill, in so far as the estate of the 'ife 'as concerned, m"st be,on her death, ree#amined and adB"dicated de novo, since a Boint 'ill is considered a separate 'ill ofeach testator. Th"s re$arded, the holdin$ of the co"rt of First 4nstance of !eb" that the Boint 'ill isone prohibited b la' 'as correct as to the participation of the deceased ervasia +ebaca in theproperties in "estion, for the reasons e#tensivel disc"ssed in o"r decision in Bilbao vs. Bilbao, 0</hil. 1, that e#plained the previo"s holdin$ in Macro(on vs. "aavedra, :1 /hil. 26<.
Therefore, the "ndivided interest of ervasia +ebaca sho"ld pass "pon her death to her heirsintestate, and not e#cl"sivel to the testamentar heir, "nless some other valid 'ill in her favor issho'n to e#ist, or "nless she be the onl heir intestate of said ervasia.
4t is "nnecessar to emphasie that the fact that Boint 'ills sho"ld be in common "sa$e co"ld notma(e them valid 'hen o"r !ivil !odes consistentl invalidated them, beca"se la's are onl
repealed b other s"bse"ent la's, and no "sa$e to the contrar ma prevail a$ainst theirobservance 7Art. :, !iv. !ode of 1009 Art. <, !ivil !ode of the /hilippines of 19:8.
&4T T) FO+)O4; @O54F4!AT4O;, the B"d$ment of the !o"rt of Appeals in !A-.+. ;o.23<63-+ is affirmed. ;o !osts.
M. . "otelo for e*ecutor and (eir+appellees.Leopoldo M. Abellera and Jovito "alonga for oppositor+appellant.
LA+RA&*R, J.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the !o"rt of First 4nstance of 5avao, on. >icente ;. !"si, r.,presidin$, in Special /roceedin$ ;o. 622 of said co"rt, dated September 1, 199, approvin$ amon$thin$s the final acco"nts of the e#ec"tor, directin$ the e#ec"tor to reimb"rse @aria %"c !hristensenthe amo"nt of /3,6 paid b her to elen !hristensen arcia as her le$ac, and declarin$ @aria%"c !hristensen entitled to the resid"e of the propert to be enBoed d"rin$ her lifetime, and in caseof death 'itho"t iss"e, one-half of said resid"e to be paable to @rs. !arrie %o"ise !. orton, etc., inaccordance 'ith the provisions of the 'ill of the testator )d'ard ). !hristensen. The 'ill 'as
e#ec"ted in @anila on @arch :, 19:1 and contains the follo'in$ provisions=
3. 4 declare ... that 4 have b"t O;) 718 child, named @A+4A %E!I !+4ST);S); 7no' @rs.ernard 5ane8, 'ho 'as born in the /hilippines abo"t t'ent-ei$ht ears a$o, and 'ho isno' residin$ at ;o. 66: +od$er Io"n$ >illa$e, %os An$eles, !alifornia, E.S.A.
. 4 f"rther declare that 4 no' have no livin$ ascendants, and no descendants e#cept mabove named da"$hter, @A+4A %E!I !+4ST);S); 5A;)I.
# # # # # # # # #
<. 4 $ive, devise and be"eath "nto @A+4A )%); !+4ST);S);, no' married to)d"ardo arcia, abo"t ei$hteen ears of a$e and 'ho, not'ithstandin$ the fact that she 'asbaptied !hristensen, is not in an 'a related to me, nor has she been at an time adoptedb me, and 'ho, from all information 4 have no' resides in )$pit, 5i$os, 5avao, /hilippines,the s"m of T+)) TOESA;5 S4L E;5+)5 /)SOS 7/3,6.8, /hilippine !"rrencthe same to be deposited in tr"st for the said @aria elen !hristensen 'ith the 5avaoranch of the /hilippine ;ational an(, and paid to her at the rate of One "ndred /esos7/1.8, /hilippine !"rrenc per month "ntil the principal thereof as 'ell as an interest'hich ma have accr"ed thereon, is e#ha"sted..
12. 4 hereb $ive, devise and be"eath, "nto m 'ell-beloved da"$hter, the said @A+4A%E!I !+4ST);S); 5A;)I 7@rs. ernard 5ane8, no' residin$ as aforesaid at ;o. 66:+od$er Io"n$ >illa$e, %os An$eles, !alifornia, E.S.A., all the income from the rest,remainder, and resid"e of m propert and estate, real, personal andMor mi#ed, of
'hatsoever (ind or character, and 'heresoever sit"ated, of 'hich 4 ma be possessed at mdeath and 'hich ma have come to me from an so"rce 'hatsoever, d"rin$ her lifetime= ....
4t is in accordance 'ith the above-"oted provisions that the e#ec"tor in his final acco"nt and proBectof partition ratified the pament of onl /3,6 to elen !hristensen arcia and proposed that theresid"e of the estate be transferred to his da"$hter, @aria %"c !hristensen.
Opposition to the approval of the proBect of partition 'as filed b elen !hristensen arcia, insofaras it deprives her 7elen8 of her le$itime as an ac(no'led$ed nat"ral child, she havin$ beendeclared b Es in .+. ;os. %-1103-0 an ac(no'led$ed nat"ral child of the deceased )d'ard ).!hristensen. The le$al $ro"nds of opposition are 7a8 that the distrib"tion sho"ld be $overned b the
la's of the /hilippines, and 7b8 that said order of distrib"tion is contrar thereto insofar as it denies toelen !hristensen, one of t'o ac(no'led$ed nat"ral children, one-half of the estate in f"llo'nership. 4n amplification of the above $ro"nds it 'as alle$ed that the la' that sho"ld $overn theestate of the deceased !hristensen sho"ld not be the internal la' of !alifornia alone, b"t the entirela' thereof beca"se several forei$n elements are involved, that the for"m is the /hilippines andeven if the case 'ere decided in !alifornia, Section 96 of the !alifornia !ivil !ode, 'hich re"iresthat the domicile of the decedent sho"ld appl, sho"ld be applicable. 4t 'as also alle$ed that @ariaelen !hristensen havin$ been declared an ac(no'led$ed nat"ral child of the decedent, she isdeemed for all p"rposes le$itimate from the time of her birth.
The co"rt belo' r"led that as )d'ard ). !hristensen 'as a citien of the Enited States and of theState of !alifornia at the time of his death, the s"ccessional ri$hts and intrinsic validit of the
provisions in his 'ill are to be $overned b the la' of !alifornia, in accordance 'ith 'hich a testatorhas the ri$ht to dispose of his propert in the 'a he desires, beca"se the ri$ht of absol"te dominionover his propert is sacred and inviolable 74n re @c5aniels )state, << !al. Appl. 2d 0<<, 1<6 /. 2d9:2, and 4n re Na"fman, 11< !al. 206, 9 /ac. 192, cited in pa$e 1<9, +ecord on Appeal8. Oppositor @aria elen !hristensen, thro"$h co"nsel, filed vario"s motions for reconsideration, b"t these 'eredenied. ence, this appeal.
The most important assi$nments of error are as follo's=
T) %O&)+ !OE+T )++)5 4; FA4%4; TO +)!O;4P) TAT E;5)+ 4;T)+;AT4O;A% %A&,/A+T4!E%A+%I E;5)+ T) +);>O4 5O!T+4;), T) 4;T+4;S4! >A%454TI OF T)T)STA@);TA+I 54S/OS4T4O; OF T) 54ST+4ET4O; OF T) )STAT) OF T) 5)!)AS)5)5&A+5 ). !+4ST);S); SOE%5 ) O>)+;)5 I T) %A&S OF T) /4%4//4;)S.
4>
T) %O&)+ !OE+T )++)5 4; ;OT 5)!%A+4; TAT T) S!)5E%) OF 54ST+4ET4O;SE@4TT)5 I T) )L)!ETO+ 4S !O;T+A+I TO T) /4%4//4;) %A&S.
>
T) %O&)+ !OE+T )++)5 4; ;OT 5)!%A+4; TAT E;5)+ T) /4%4//4;) %A&S)%); !+4ST);S); A+!4A 4S );T4T%)5 TO O;)-A%F 71M28 OF T) )STAT) 4; FE%%O&;)+S4/.
There is no "estion that )d'ard ). !hristensen 'as a citien of the Enited States and of the Stateof !alifornia at the time of his death. "t there is also no "estion that at the time of his death he'as domiciled in the /hilippines, as 'itness the follo'in$ facts admitted b the e#ec"tor himself inappellees brief=
4n the proceedin$s for admission of the 'ill to probate, the facts of record sho' that thedeceased )d'ard ). !hristensen 'as born on ;ovember 29, 10<: in ;e' Ior( !it, ;.I.,
E.S.A. his first arrival in the /hilippines, as an appointed school teacher, 'as on "l 1,191, on board the E.S. Arm Transport *Sheridan* 'ith /ort of )mbar(ation as the !it ofSan Francisco, in the State of !alifornia, E.S.A. e staed in the /hilippines "ntil 19.
4n 5ecember, 19, @r. !hristensen ret"rned to the Enited States and staed there for thefollo'in$ nine ears "ntil 1913, d"rin$ 'hich time he resided in, and 'as teachin$ school inSacramento, !alifornia.
@r. !hristensens ne#t arrival in the /hilippines 'as in "l of the ear 1913. o'ever, in1920, he a$ain departed the /hilippines for the Enited States and came bac( here thefollo'in$ ear, 1929. Some nine ears later, in 1930, he a$ain ret"rned to his o'n co"ntr,and came bac( to the /hilippines the follo'in$ ear, 1939.
&herefore, the parties respectf"ll pra that the fore$oin$ stip"lation of facts be admittedand approved b this onorable !o"rt, 'itho"t preB"dice to the parties add"cin$ otherevidence to prove their case not covered b this stip"lation of facts. 671p(86.9:t
ein$ an American citien, @r. !hristensen 'as interned b the apanese @ilitar Forces inthe /hilippines d"rin$ &orld &ar 44. Epon liberation, in April 19:, he left for the EnitedStates b"t ret"rned to the /hilippines in 5ecember, 19:. Appellees !ollective )#hibits *6*,
!F4 5avao, Sp. /roc. 622, as )#hibits *AA*, ** and *!!-5ane* )#hs. *@@*, *@@-l*,*@@-2-5ane* and p. <3, t.s.n., "l 21, 19:3.8
4n April, 19:1, )d'ard ). !hristensen ret"rned once more to !alifornia shortl after thema(in$ of his last 'ill and testament 7no' in "estion herein8 'hich he e#ec"ted at hisla'ers offices in @anila on @arch :, 19:1. e died at the St. %"(es ospital in the !it of
@anila on April 3, 19:3. 7pp. 2-38
4n arrivin$ at the concl"sion that the domicile of the deceased is the /hilippines, 'e are pers"adedb the fact that he 'as born in ;e' Ior(, mi$rated to !alifornia and resided there for nine ears, andsince he came to the /hilippines in 1913 he ret"rned to !alifornia ver rarel and onl for short visits7perhaps to relatives8, and considerin$ that he appears never to have o'ned or ac"ired a home orproperties in that state, 'hich 'o"ld indicate that he 'o"ld "ltimatel abandon the /hilippines andma(e home in the State of !alifornia.
Sec. 16. +esidence is a term "sed 'ith man shades of meanin$ from mere temporarpresence to the most permanent abode. enerall, ho'ever, it is "sed to denote somethin$
more than mere phsical presence. 7oodrich on !onflict of %a's, p. 298
As to his citienship, ho'ever, &e find that the citienship that he ac"ired in !alifornia 'hen heresided in Sacramento, !alifornia from 19 to 1913, 'as never lost b his sta in the /hilippines,for the latter 'as a territor of the Enited States 7not a state8 "ntil 196 and the deceased appears tohave considered himself as a citien of !alifornia b the fact that 'hen he e#ec"ted his 'ill in 19:1he declared that he 'as a citien of that State so that he appears never to have intended toabandon his !alifornia citienship b ac"irin$ another. This concl"sion is in accordance 'ith thefollo'in$ principle e#po"nded b oodrich in his !onflict of %a's.
The terms *residence* and *domicile* mi$ht 'ell be ta(en to mean the same thin$, a place of permanent abode. "t domicile, as has been sho'n, has ac"ired a technical meanin$.
Th"s one ma be domiciled in a place 'here he has never been. And he ma reside in aplace 'here he has no domicile. The man 'ith t'o homes, bet'een 'hich he divides histime, certainl resides in each one, 'hile livin$ in it. "t if he 'ent on b"siness 'hich 'o"ldre"ire his presence for several 'ee(s or months, he mi$ht properl be said to haves"fficient connection 'ith the place to be called a resident. 4t is clear, ho'ever, that, if hetreated his settlement as contin"in$ onl for the partic"lar b"siness in hand, not $ivin$ "p hisformer *home,* he co"ld not be a domiciled ;e' Ior(er. Ac"isition of a domicile of choicere"ires the e#ercise of intention as 'ell as phsical presence. *+esidence simpl re"iresbodil presence of an inhabitant in a $iven place, 'hile domicile re"ires bodil presence inthat place and also an intention to ma(e it ones domicile.* +esidence, ho'ever, is a term"sed 'ith man shades of meanin$, from the merest temporar presence to the mostpermanent abode, and it is not safe to insist that an one "se et the onl proper one.
7oodrich, p. 298
The la' that $overns the validit of his testamentar dispositions is defined in Article 16 of the !ivil!ode of the /hilippines, 'hich is as follo's=
A+T. 16. +eal propert as 'ell as personal propert is s"bBect to the la' of the co"ntr'here it is sit"ated.
o'ever, intestate and testamentar s"ccessions, both 'ith respect to the order ofs"ccession and to the amo"nt of s"ccessional ri$hts and to the intrinsic validit oftestamentar provisions, shall be re$"lated b the national la' of the person 'hoses"ccession is "nder consideration, 'hatever ma be the nat"re of the propert andre$ardless of the co"ntr 'here said propert ma be fo"nd.
The application of this article in the case at bar re"ires the determination of the meanin$ of theterm ;national la1; is "sed therein.
There is no sin$le American la' $overnin$ the validit of testamentar provisions in the EnitedStates, each state of the Enion havin$ its o'n private la' applicable to its citiens onl and in forceonl 'ithin the state. The *national la'* indicated in Article 16 of the !ivil !ode above "oted cannot, therefore, possibl mean or appl to an $eneral American la'. So it can refer to no other thanthe private la' of the State of !alifornia.
The ne#t "estion is= &hat is the la' in !alifornia $overnin$ the disposition of personal propert?The decision of the co"rt belo', s"stains the contention of the e#ec"tor-appellee that "nder the
!alifornia /robate !ode, a testator ma dispose of his propert b 'ill in the form and manner hedesires, citin$ the case of )state of @c5aniel, << !al. Appl. 2d 0<<, 1<6 /. 2d 9:2. "t appellantinvo(es the provisions of Article 96 of the !ivil !ode of !alifornia, 'hich is as follo's=
4f there is no la' to the contrar, in the place 'here personal propert is sit"ated, it isdeemed to follo' the person of its o'ner, and is $overned b the la' of his domicile.
The e#istence of this provision is alle$ed in appellants opposition and is not denied. &e havechec(ed it in the !alifornia !ivil !ode and it is there. Appellee, on the other hand, relies on the casecited in the decision and testified to b a 'itness. 7Onl the case of Na"fman is correctl cited.8 4t isar$"ed on e#ec"tors behalf that as the deceased !hristensen 'as a citien of the State of!alifornia, the internal la' thereof, 'hich is that $iven in the abovecited case, sho"ld $overn the
determination of the validit of the testamentar provisions of !hristensens 'ill, s"ch la' bein$ inforce in the State of !alifornia of 'hich !hristensen 'as a citien. Appellant, on the other hand,insists that Article 96 sho"ld be applicable, and in accordance there'ith and follo'in$ the doctrineof therenvoi , the "estion of the validit of the testamentar provision in "estion sho"ld be referredbac( to the la' of the decedents domicile, 'hich is the /hilippines.
The theor of doctrine of renvoi has been defined b vario"s a"thors, th"s=
The problem has been stated in this 'a= *&hen the !onflict of %a's r"le of the for"m refersa B"ral matter to a forei$n la' for decision, is the reference to the p"rel internal r"les of la'of the forei$n sstem i.e., to the totalit of the forei$n la' min"s its !onflict of %a's r"les?*
On lo$ic, the sol"tion is not an eas one. The @ichi$an co"rt chose to accept the renvoi, thatis, applied the !onflict of %a's r"le of 4llinois 'hich referred the matter bac( to @ichi$an la'."t once havin$ determined the the !onflict of %a's principle is the r"le loo(ed to, it isdiffic"lt to see 'h the reference bac( sho"ld not have been to @ichi$an !onflict of %a's.This 'o"ld have res"lted in the *endless chain of references* 'hich has so often beencriticied be le$al 'riters. The opponents of the renvoi 'o"ld have loo(ed merel to theinternal la' of 4llinois, th"s reBectin$ the renvoi or the reference bac(. Iet there seems nocompellin$ lo$ical reason 'h the ori$inal reference sho"ld be the internal la' rather than to
the !onflict of %a's r"le. 4t is tr"e that s"ch a sol"tion avoids $oin$ on a merr-$o-ro"nd, b"tthose 'ho have accepted the renvoi theor avoid this ine*tricabilis circulas b $ettin$ off atthe second reference and at that point applin$ internal la'. /erhaps the opponents ofthe renvoi are a bit more consistent for the loo( al'as to internal la' as the r"le ofreference.
Stran$el eno"$h, both the advocates for and the obBectors to the renvoi plead that $reater"niformit 'ill res"lt from adoption of their respective vie's. And still more stran$e is the factthat the onl 'a to achieve "niformit in this choice-of-la' problem is if in the disp"te thet'o states 'hose la's form the le$al basis of the liti$ation disa$ree as to 'hetherthe renvoi sho"ld be accepted. 4f both reBect, or both accept the doctrine, the res"lt of theliti$ation 'ill var 'ith the choice of the for"m. 4n the case stated above, had the @ichi$anco"rt reBected the renvoi , B"d$ment 'o"ld have been a$ainst the 'oman if the s"it had beenbro"$ht in the 4llinois co"rts, and the too reBected the renvoi , B"d$ment 'o"ld be for the'oman. The same res"lt 'o"ld happen, tho"$h the co"rts 'o"ld s'itch 'ith respect to'hich 'o"ld hold liabilit, if both co"rts accepted the renvoi .
The +estatement accepts the renvoi theor in t'o instances= 'here the title to land is in"estion, and 'here the validit of a decree of divorce is challen$ed. 4n these cases the!onflict of %a's r"le of the sit"s of the land, or the domicile of the parties in the divorce case,is applied b the for"m, b"t an f"rther reference $oes onl to the internal la'. Th"s, apersons title to land, reco$nied b the sit"s, 'ill be reco$nied b ever co"rt and everdivorce, valid b the domicile of the parties, 'ill be valid ever'here. 7oodrich, !onflict of%a's, Sec. <, pp. 13-1.8
L, a citien of @assach"setts, dies intestate, domiciled in France, leavin$ movable propertin @assach"setts, )n$land, and France. The "estion arises as to ho' this propert is to bedistrib"ted amon$ Ls ne#t of (in.
Ass"me 718 that this "estion arises in a @assach"setts co"rt. There the r"le of the conflictof la's as to intestate s"ccession to movables calls for an application of the la' of thedeceaseds last domicile. Since b hpothesis Ls last domicile 'as France, the nat"ral thin$for the @assach"setts co"rt to do 'o"ld be to t"rn to French stat"te of distrib"tions, or'hatever corresponds thereto in French la', and decree a distrib"tion accordin$l. Ane#amination of French la', ho'ever, 'o"ld sho' that if a French co"rt 'ere called "pon todetermine ho' this propert sho"ld be distrib"ted, it 'o"ld refer the distrib"tion to thenational la' of the deceased, th"s applin$ the @assach"setts stat"te of distrib"tions. So onthe s"rface of thin$s the @assach"setts co"rt has open to it alternative co"rse of action= 7a8either to appl the French la' is to intestate s"ccession, or 7b8 to resolve itself into a Frenchco"rt and appl the @assach"setts stat"te of distrib"tions, on the ass"mption that this is'hat a French co"rt 'o"ld do. 4f it accepts the so-called renvoi doctrine, it 'ill follo' the latter
co"rse, th"s applin$ its o'n la'.
This is one tpe of renvoi . A B"ral matter is presented 'hich the conflict-of-la's r"le of thefor"m refers to a forei$n la', the conflict-of-la's r"le of 'hich, in t"rn, refers the matter bac(a$ain to the la' of the for"m. This is renvoi in the narro'er sense. The erman term for this
B"dicial process is +"c(ver'eis"n$.* 7arvard %a' +evie', >ol. 31, pp. :23-:<1.8
After a decision has been arrived at that a forei$n la' is to be resorted to as $overnin$ apartic"lar case, the f"rther "estion ma arise= Are the r"les as to the conflict of la'scontained in s"ch forei$n la' also to be resorted to? This is a "estion 'hich, 'hile it hasbeen considered b the co"rts in b"t a fe' instances, has been the s"bBect of fre"entdisc"ssion b te#t'riters and essaists and the doctrine involved has been descriptiveldesi$nated b them as the *+envoer* to send bac(, or the *+"chvers'eis"n$*, or the
*&eiterver'eis"n$*, since an affirmative ans'er to the "estion post"lated and the operationof the adoption of the forei$n la' in toto 'o"ld in man cases res"lt in ret"rnin$ the maincontrovers to be decided accordin$ to the la' of the for"m. ... 716 !..S. 0<2.8
Another theor, (no'n as the *doctrine of renvoi *, has been advanced. The theor of thedoctrine of renvoi is that the co"rt of the for"m, in determinin$ the "estion before it, m"stta(e into acco"nt the 'hole la' of the other B"risdiction, b"t also its r"les as to conflict ofla's, and then appl the la' to the act"al "estion 'hich the r"les of the other B"risdictionprescribe. This ma be the la' of the for"m. The doctrine of therenvoi has $enerall beenrep"diated b the American a"thorities. 72 Am. "r. 2968
The scope of the theor of renvoi has also been defined and the reasons for its application in aco"ntr e#plained b /rof. %orenen in an article in the Iale %a' o"rnal, >ol. 2<, 191<-1910, pp.:29-:31. The pertinent parts of the article are "oted herein belo'=
The reco$nition of the renvoi theor implies that the r"les of the conflict of la's are to be"nderstood as incorporatin$ not onl the ordinar or internal la' of the forei$n state orco"ntr, b"t its r"les of the conflict of la's as 'ell. Accordin$ to this theor the la' of aco"ntr means the 'hole of its la'.
# # # # # # # # #
>on ar presented his vie's at the meetin$ of the 4nstit"te of 4nternational %a', at
;e"chatel, in 19, in the form of the follo'in$ theses=
718 )ver co"rt shall observe the la' of its co"ntr as re$ards the application of forei$n la's.
728 /rovided that no e#press provision to the contrar e#ists, the co"rt shall respect=
7a8 The provisions of a forei$n la' 'hich disclaims the ri$ht to bind its nationalsabroad as re$ards their personal stat"te, and desires that said personal stat"te shallbe determined b the la' of the domicile, or even b the la' of the place 'here theact in "estion occ"rred.
7b8 The decision of t'o or more forei$n sstems of la', provided it be certain that oneof them is necessaril competent, 'hich a$ree in attrib"tin$ the determination of a"estion to the same sstem of la'.
# # # # # # # # #
4f, for e#ample, the )n$lish la' directs its B"d$e to distrib"te the personal estate of an)n$lishman 'ho has died domiciled in el$i"m in accordance 'ith the la' of his domicile,he m"st first in"ire 'hether the la' of el$i"m 'o"ld distrib"te personal propert "pon
death in accordance 'ith the la' of domicile, and if he finds that the el$ian la' 'o"ld ma(ethe distrib"tion in accordance 'ith the la' of nationalit J that is the )n$lish la' J he m"staccept this reference bac( to his o'n la'.
&e note that Article 96 of the !alifornia !ivil !ode is its conflict of la's r"le, 'hile the r"le appliedin 4n re Na"fman, "upra, its internal la'. 4f the la' on s"ccession and the conflict of la's r"les of
!alifornia are to be enforced Bointl, each in its o'n intended and appropriate sphere, the principlecited 4n re Na"fman sho"ld appl to citiens livin$ in the State, b"t Article 96 sho"ld appl to s"chof its citiens as are not domiciled in !alifornia b"t in other B"risdictions. The r"le laid do'n ofresortin$ to the la' of the domicile in the determination of matters 'ith forei$n element involved is inaccord 'ith the $eneral principle of American la' that the domiciliar la' sho"ld $overn in mostmatters or ri$hts 'hich follo' the person of the o'ner.
&hen a man dies leavin$ personal propert in one or more states, and leaves a 'ill directin$the manner of distrib"tion of the propert, the la' of the state 'here he 'as domiciled at thetime of his death 'ill be loo(ed to in decidin$ le$al "estions abo"t the 'ill, almost ascompletel as the la' of sit"s is cons"lted in "estions abo"t the devise of land. 4t is lo$icalthat, since the domiciliar r"les control devol"tion of the personal estate in case of intestates"ccession, the same r"les sho"ld determine the validit of an attempted testamentardispostion of the propert. ere, also, it is not that the domiciliar has effect beond theborders of the domiciliar state. The r"les of the domicile are reco$nied as controllin$ b the!onflict of %a's r"les at the sit"s propert, and the reason for the reco$nition as in the caseof intestate s"ccession, is the $eneral convenience of the doctrine. The ;e' Ior( co"rt hassaid on the point= The $eneral principle that a dispostiton of a personal propert, valid at thedomicile of the o'ner, is valid an'here, is one of the "niversal application. 4t had its ori$in inthat international comit 'hich 'as one of the first fr"its of civiliation, and it this a$e, 'henb"siness interco"rse and the process of acc"m"latin$ propert ta(e b"t little notice ofbo"ndar lines, the practical 'isdom and B"stice of the r"le is more apparent than ever.7oodrich, !onflict of %a's, Sec. 16, pp. 2-3.8
Appellees ar$"e that 'hat Article 16 of the !ivil !ode of the /hilippines pointed o"t as the national
la1 is the internal la' of !alifornia. "t as above e#plained the la's of !alifornia have prescribedt'o sets of la's for its citiens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in other
B"risdictions. +eason demands that &e sho"ld enforce the !alifornia internal la' prescribed for itscitiens residin$ therein, and enforce the conflict of la's r"les for the citiens domiciled abroad. 4f 'em"st enforce the la' of !alifornia as in comit 'e are bo"nd to $o, as so declared in Article 16 ofo"r !ivil !ode, then 'e m"st enforce the la' of !alifornia in accordance 'ith the e#press mandatethereof and as above e#plained, i.e., appl the internal la' for residents therein, and its conflict-of-la's r"le for those domiciled abroad.
4t is ar$"ed on appellees behalf that the cla"se *if there is no la' to the contrar in the place 'here
the propert is sit"ated* in Sec. 96 of the !alifornia !ivil !ode refers to Article 16 of the !ivil !odeof the /hilippines and that the la' to the contrar in the /hilippines is the provision in said Article 16that the national la1 of the deceased sho"ld $overn. This contention can not be s"stained. Ase#plained in the vario"s a"thorities cited above the national la' mentioned in Article 16 of o"r !ivil!ode is the la' on conflict of la's in the !alifornia !ivil !ode, i.e., Article 96, 'hich a"thories thereference or ret"rn of the "estion to the la' of the testators domicile. The conflict of la's r"le in!alifornia, Article 96, !ivil !ode, precisel refers bac( the case, 'hen a decedent is not domiciledin !alifornia, to the la' of his domicile, the /hilippines in the case at bar. The co"rt of the domicile
can not and sho"ld not refer the case bac( to !alifornia s"ch action 'o"ld leave the iss"e incapableof determination beca"se the case 'ill then be li(e a football, tossed bac( and forth bet'een the t'ostates, bet'een the co"ntr of 'hich the decedent 'as a citien and the co"ntr of his domicile. The/hilippine co"rt m"st appl its o'n la' as directed in the conflict of la's r"le of the state of thedecedent, if the "estion has to be decided, especiall as the application of the internal la' of!alifornia provides no le$itime for children 'hile the /hilippine la', Arts. 00<78 and 09, !ivil !ode
of the /hilippines, ma(es nat"ral children le$all ac(no'led$ed forced heirs of the parentreco$niin$ them.
The /hilippine cases 74n re )state of ohnson, 39 /hil. 1:6 +iera vs. /almaroli, /hil. 1:@iciano vs. rimo, : /hil. 06< abcoc( Templeton vs. +ider abcoc(, :2 /hil. 13 and ibbs vs.overnment, :9 /hil. 293.8 cited b appellees to s"pport the decision can not possibl appl in thecase at bar, for t'o important reasons, i.e., the s"bBect in each case does not appear to be a citienof a state in the Enited States b"t 'ith domicile in the /hilippines, and it does not appear in eachcase that there e#ists in the state of 'hich the s"bBect is a citien, a la' similar to or identical 'ith
Art. 96 of the !alifornia !ivil !ode.
&e therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased !hristensen, a citien of !alifornia, is the/hilippines, the validit of the provisions of his 'ill deprivin$ his ac(no'led$ed nat"ral child, theappellant, sho"ld be $overned b the /hilippine %a', the domicile, p"rs"ant to Art. 96 of the !ivil!ode of !alifornia, not b the internal la' of !alifornia..
&)+)FO+), the decision appealed from is hereb reversed and the case ret"rned to the lo'erco"rt 'ith instr"ctions that the partition be made as the /hilippine la' on s"ccession provides."d$ment reversed, 'ith costs a$ainst appellees.
<$*<L$>' +AN? and TR'T (*/<AN0, e#ec"tor./ARIA (RI'TINA +$LLI' and /IRIA/ <AL/A +$LLI', oppositors-appellants,vs.$&WAR& A. +$LLI', $T AL., heirs-appellees.
Vicente . Macasaet and Jose '. Villena for oppositors appellants.
Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and 3azareno for (eirs+appellees . A. Bellis, et al.
<ui=ano and Arro!o for (eirs+appellees 0. ". Bellis, et al.
J. . Balon5ita for appellee People&s Ban5 $ rust Co)pan!.
%zaeta, Gibbs and %zaeta for appellee A. B. Alls)an.
+$NG*N, .<., J.:
This is a direct appeal to Es, "pon a "estion p"rel of la', from an order of the !o"rt of First4nstance of @anila dated April 3, 196, approvin$ the proBect of partition filed b the e#ec"tor in!ivil !ase ;o. 3<09 therein.671p(86.9:t
Amos . ellis, born in Te#as, 'as *a citien of the State of Te#as and of the Enited States.* hisfirst 'ife, @ar ). @allen, 'hom he divorced, he had five le$itimate children= )d'ard A. ellis,eor$e ellis 7'ho pre-deceased him in infanc8, enr A. ellis, Ale#ander ellis and Anna ellis
Allsman b his second 'ife, >iolet Nenned, 'ho s"rvived him, he had three le$itimate children=
)d'in . ellis, &alter S. ellis and 5oroth ellis and finall, he had three ille$itimate children= Amos ellis, r., @aria !ristina ellis and @iriam /alma ellis.
On A"$"st :, 19:2, Amos . ellis e#ec"ted a 'ill in the /hilippines, in 'hich he directed that afterall ta#es, obli$ations, and e#penses of administration are paid for, his distrib"table estate sho"ld bedivided, in tr"st, in the follo'in$ order and manner= 7a8 Q2,. to his first 'ife, @ar ). @allen7b8 /12,. to his three ille$itimate children, Amos ellis, r., @aria !ristina ellis, @iriam/alma ellis, or /,. each and 7c8 after the fore$oin$ t'o items have been satisfied, theremainder shall $o to his seven s"rvivin$ children b his first and second 'ives, namel= )d'ard A.ellis, enr A. ellis, Ale#ander ellis and Anna ellis Allsman, )d'in . ellis, &alter S. ellis,and 5oroth ). ellis, in e"al shares.671p(86.9:t
S"bse"entl, or on "l 0, 19:0, Amos . ellis died a resident of San Antonio, Te#as, E.S.A. is'ill 'as admitted to probate in the !o"rt of First 4nstance of @anila on September 1:, 19:0.
The /eoples an( and Tr"st !ompan, as e#ec"tor of the 'ill, paid all the be"ests thereinincl"din$ the amo"nt of Q2,. in the form of shares of stoc( to @ar ). @allen and to thethree 738 ille$itimate children, Amos ellis, r., @aria !ristina ellis and @iriam /alma ellis, vario"samo"nts totallin$ /,. each in satisfaction of their respective le$acies, or a total of/12,., 'hich it released from time to time accordin$ as the lo'er co"rt approved and allo'edthe vario"s motions or petitions filed b the latter three re"estin$ partial advances on acco"nt oftheir respective le$acies.
On an"ar 0, 196, preparator to closin$ its administration, the e#ec"tor s"bmitted and filed its*)#ec"tors Final Acco"nt, +eport of Administration and /roBect of /artition* 'herein it reported, inter
alia, the satisfaction of the le$ac of @ar ). @allen b the deliver to her of shares of stoc(amo"ntin$ to Q2,., and the le$acies of Amos ellis, r., @aria !ristina ellis and @iriam/alma ellis in the amo"nt of /,. each or a total of /12,.. 4n the proBect of partition,the e#ec"tor J p"rs"ant to the *T'elfth* cla"se of the testators %ast &ill and Testament J dividedthe resid"ar estate into seven e"al portions for the benefit of the testators seven le$itimatechildren b his first and second marria$es.
On an"ar 1<, 196, @aria !ristina ellis and @iriam /alma ellis filed their respective oppositionsto the proBect of partition on the $ro"nd that the 'ere deprived of their le$itimes as ille$itimatechildren and, therefore, comp"lsor heirs of the deceased.
Amos ellis, r. interposed no opposition despite notice to him, proof of service of 'hich isevidenced b the re$istr receipt s"bmitted on April 2<, 196 b the e#ec"tor.1
After the parties filed their respective memoranda and other pertinent pleadin$s, the lo'er co"rt, on April 3, 196, iss"ed an order overr"lin$ the oppositions and approvin$ the e#ec"tors final acco"nt,report and administration and proBect of partition. +elin$ "pon Art. 16 of the !ivil !ode, it appliedthe national la' of the decedent, 'hich in this case is Te#as la', 'hich did not provide for le$itimes.
Their respective motions for reconsideration havin$ been denied b the lo'er co"rt on "ne 11,196, oppositors-appellants appealed to this !o"rt to raise the iss"e of 'hich la' m"st appl JTe#as la' or /hilippine la'.
4n this re$ard, the parties do not s"bmit the case on, nor even disc"ss, the doctrine of renvoi, appliedb this !o"rt in Aznar v. C(ristensen Garcia, %-16<9, an"ar 31, 1963. Said doctrine is "s"all
pertinent 'here the decedent is a national of one co"ntr, and a domicile of another. 4n the presentcase, it is not disp"ted that the decedent 'as both a national of Te#as and a domicile thereof at thetime of his death.2 So that even ass"min$ Te#as has a conflict of la' r"le providin$ that thedomiciliar sstem 7la' of the domicile8 sho"ld $overn, the same 'o"ld not res"lt in a referencebac( 7renvoi8 to /hilippine la', b"t 'o"ld still refer to Te#as la'. ;onetheless, if Te#as has a conflictsr"le adoptin$ the sit"s theor 7le# rei sitae8 callin$ for the application of the la' of the place 'herethe properties are sit"ated, renvoi 'o"ld arise, since the properties here involved are fo"nd in the/hilippines. 4n the absence, ho'ever, of proof as to the conflict of la' r"le of Te#as, it sho"ld not bepres"med different from o"rs.3 Appellants position is therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi.
As stated, the never invo(ed nor even mentioned it in their ar$"ments. +ather, the ar$"e that theircase falls "nder the circ"mstances mentioned in the third para$raph of Article 1< in relation to Article16 of the !ivil !ode.
Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 139 of the !ivil !ode, render applicable the national la' of the decedent,in intestate or testamentar s"ccessions, 'ith re$ard to fo"r items= 7a8 the order of s"ccession 7b8the amo"nt of s"ccessional ri$hts 7e8 the intrinsic validit of the provisions of the 'ill and 7d8 thecapacit to s"cceed. The provide that J
A+T. 16. +eal propert as 'ell as personal propert is s"bBect to the la' of the co"ntr'here it is sit"ated.
o'ever, intestate and testamentar s"ccessions, both 'ith respect to the order ofs"ccession and to the amo"nt of s"ccessional ri$hts and to the intrinsic validit of
testamentar provisions, shall be re$"lated b the national la' of the person 'hoses"ccession is "nder consideration, 'hatever ma he the nat"re of the propert andre$ardless of the co"ntr 'herein said propert ma be fo"nd.
A+T. 139. !apacit to s"cceed is $overned b the la' of the nation of the decedent.
Appellants 'o"ld ho'ever co"nter that Art. 1<, para$raph three, of the !ivil !ode, statin$ that J
/rohibitive la's concernin$ persons, their acts or propert, and those 'hich have for theirobBect p"blic order, p"blic polic and $ood c"stoms shall not be rendered ineffective b la'sor B"d$ments prom"l$ated, or b determinations or conventions a$reed "pon in a forei$nco"ntr.
prevails as the e#ception to Art. 16, par. 2 of the !ivil !ode afore-"oted. This is not correct./recisel, !on$ressdeleted the phrase, *not'ithstandin$ the provisions of this and the ne#tprecedin$ article* 'hen the incorporated Art. 11 of the old !ivil !ode as Art. 1< of the ne' !ivil!ode, 'hile reprod"cin$ 'itho"t s"bstantial chan$e the second para$raph of Art. 1 of the old !ivil!ode as Art. 16 in the ne'. 4t m"st have been their p"rpose to ma(e the second para$raph of Art. 16a specific provision in itself 'hich m"st be applied in testate and intestate s"ccession. As f"rther
indication of this le$islative intent, !on$ress added a ne' provision, "nder Art. 139, 'hich decreesthat capacit to s"cceed is to be $overned b the national la' of the decedent.
4t is therefore evident that 'hatever p"blic polic or $ood c"stoms ma be involved in o"r Sstem ofle$itimes, !on$ress has not intended to e#tend the same to the s"ccession of forei$n nationals. Forit has specificall chosen to leave, inter alia, the a)ount of s"ccessional ri$hts, to the decedents
national la'. Specific provisions m"st prevail over $eneral ones.
Appellants 'o"ld also point o"t that the decedent e#ec"ted t'o 'ills J one to $overn his Te#asestate and the other his /hilippine estate J ar$"in$ from this that he intended /hilippine la' to$overn his /hilippine estate. Ass"min$ that s"ch 'as the decedents intention in e#ec"tin$ aseparate /hilippine 'ill, it 'o"ld not alter the la', for as this !o"rt r"led in Miciano v. Bri)o, : /hil.06<, 0<, a provision in a forei$ners 'ill to the effect that his properties shall be distrib"ted inaccordance 'ith /hilippine la' and not 'ith his national la', is ille$al and void, for his national la'cannot be i$nored in re$ard to those matters that Article 1 J no' Article 16 J of the !ivil !odestates said national la' sho"ld $overn.
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos . ellis, 'as a citien of the State of Te#as, E.S.A., andthat "nder the la's of Te#as, there are no forced heirs or le$itimes. Accordin$l, since the intrinsicvalidit of the provision of the 'ill and the amo"nt of s"ccessional ri$hts are to be determined "nderTe#as la', the /hilippine la' on le$itimes cannot be applied to the testac of Amos . ellis.
&herefore, the order of the probate co"rt is hereb affirmed in toto, 'ith costs a$ainst appellants. Soordered.
1e later filed a motion prain$ that as a le$al heir he be incl"ded in this case as one of theoppositors-appellants to file or adopt the opposition of his sisters to the proBect of partitionto s"bmit his brief after pain$ his proportionate share in the e#penses inc"rred in theprintin$ of the record on appeal or to allo' him to adopt the briefs filed b his sisters J b"tthis !o"rt resolved to den the motion.
2San Antonio, Te#as 'as his le$al residence.
3%im vs. !ollector, 36 /hil. <2 4n re Testate )state of S"nta, 9: /hil. :.
G.R. No. L-2199 une 21, 1933
ANG$LA R*&RIG$, /ARIA R*&RIG$, $T AL., petitioners,vs.)*N. AN &$ +*RA, as udge o! t"e (ourt o! irst Instan#e o! +ula#an, +ran#" III,
ANAT*LIA <ANGILINAN and A&$LAI&A A(ALAN, respondents.
/etitioners An$ela, @aria, Abelardo and Antonio, s"rnamed +odri$"e, petition this !o"rt for a 'ritof certiorari and prohibition to the !o"rt of First 4nstance of "lacan, for its ref"sal to $rant theirmotion to dismiss its Special /roceedin$ ;o. 1331, 'hich said !o"rt is alle$ed to have ta(enco$niance of 'itho"t B"risdiction.
The facts and iss"es are s"ccinctl narrated in the order of the respondent co"rt, dated "ne 13,1963 7/etition, Anne# 8, in this 'ise=
4t is alle$ed in the motion to dismiss filed b An$ela, @aria, Abelardo and Antonio +odri$"e,thro"$h co"nsel, that this !o"rt *has no B"risdiction to tr the above-entitled case in vie' ofthe pendenc of another action for the settlement of the estate of the deceased +ev. Fr.!elestino +odri$"e in the !o"rt of First 4nstance of +ial, namel, Sp. /roceedin$s ;o.
39< entitled 4n the matter of the 4ntestate )state of the deceased +ev. Fr. !elestino+odri$"e 'hich 'as filed ahead of the instant case*.
The records sho' that Fr. !elestino +odri$"e died on Febr"ar 12, 1963 in the !it of@anila that on @arch , 1963, Apolonia /an$ilinan and Adelaida acalan delivered to the!ler( of !o"rt of "lacan a p"rported last 'ill and testament of Fr. +odri$"e that on @arch0, 1963, @aria +odri$"e and An$ela +odri$"e, thro"$h co"nsel filed a petition for leave ofco"rt to allo' them to e#amine the alle$ed 'ill that on @arch 11, 1963 before the !o"rtco"ld act on the petition, the same 'as 'ithdra'n that on @arch 12, 1963, aforementionedpetitioners filed before the !o"rt of First 4nstance of +ial a petition for the settlement of theintestate estate of Fr. +odri$"e alle$in$, amon$ other thin$s, that Fr. +odri$"e 'as aresident of /araKa"e, +ial, and died 'itho"t leavin$ a 'ill and prain$ that @aria
+odri$"e be appointed as Special Administratri# of the estate and that on @arch 12, 1963 Apolonia /an$ilinan and Adelaida acalan filed a petition in this !o"rt for the probation of the'ill delivered b them on @arch , 1963. 4t 'as stip"lated b the parties that Fr. +odri$"e'as born in /araKa"e, +ial that he 'as /arish priest of the !atholic !h"rch of a$ono,"lacan, from the ear 193 "p to the time of his death in 1963 that he 'as b"ried in/araKa"e, and that he left real properties in +ial, !avite, "eon !it and "lacan.
The movants contend that since the intestate proceedin$s in the !o"rt of First 4nstance of+ial 'as filed at 0= A.@. on @arch 12, 1963 'hile the petition for probate 'as filed in the!o"rt of First 4nstance of "lacan at 11= A.@. on the same date, the latter !o"rt has no
B"risdiction to entertain the petition for probate, citin$ as a"thorit in s"pport thereof the caseof %ngsingco Vda. de Bor=a vs. an and 'e Bor=a, .+. ;o. <<92, "l 2<, 19::.
The petitioners /an$ilinan and acalan, on the other hand, ta(e the stand that the !o"rt ofFirst 4nstance of "lacan ac"ired B"risdiction over the case "pon deliver b them of the 'illto the !ler( of !o"rt on @arch , 1963, and that the case in this !o"rt therefore hasprecedence over the case filed in +ial on @arch 12, 1963.
The !o"rt of First 4nstance, as previo"sl stated denied the motion to dismiss on the $ro"nd that adifference of a fe' ho"rs did not entitle one proceedin$ to preference over the other that, as earl
as @arch <, movants 'ere a'are of the e#istence of the p"rported 'ill of Father +odri$"e,deposited in the !o"rt of "lacan, since the filed a petition to e#amine the same, and that movantsclearl filed the intestate proceedin$s in +ial *for no other p"rpose than to prevent this !o"rt 7of"lacan8 from e#ercisin$ B"risdiction over the probate proceedin$s*. +econsideration havin$ beendenied, movants, no' petitioners, came to this !o"rt, relin$ principall on +"le <3, section 1 of the+"les of !o"rt, and invo(in$ o"r r"lin$ in %ngsingco vs. an and 'e Bor=a, %-<<92, "l 2<, 19::.
S)!T4O; 1. 0(ere estate of deceased persons settled . J 4f the decedent is an inhabitant of the /hilippines at the time of his death, 'hether a citien or an alien, his 'ill shall be proved,or letters of administration $ranted, and his estate settled, in the !o"rt of First 4nstance in theprovince in 'hich he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a forei$nco"ntr, the !o"rt of First 4nstance of an province 'hich he had estate. The co"rt first ta(in$co$niance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall e#ercise B"risdiction to thee#cl"sion of all other co"rts. The B"risdiction ass"med b a co"rt, as far as it depends on theplace of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in as"it or proceedin$, e#cept in an appeal from that co"rt, in the ori$inal case, or 'hen the 'antof B"risdiction appears on the record.
&e find this reco"rse to be "ntenable. The B"risdiction of the !o"rt of First 4nstance of "lacanbecame vested "pon the deliver thereto of the 'ill of the late Father +odri$"e on @arch , 1963,even if no petition for its allo'ance 'as filed "ntil later, beca"se "pon the 'ill bein$ deposited theco"rt co"ld, )otu proprio, have ta(en steps to fi# the time and place for provin$ the 'ill, and iss"edthe correspondin$ notices conformabl to 'hat is prescribed b section 3, +"le <6, of the +evised+"les of !o"rt 7Section 3, +"le <<, of the old +"les8=
S)!. 3. Court to appoint ti)e for proving 1ill . 3otice t(ereof to be publis(ed. J &hen a 'illis delivered to, or a petition for the allo'ance of a 'ill is filed in, the !o"rt havin$ B"risdiction,s"ch !o"rt shall fi# a time and place for provin$ the 'ill 'hen all concerned ma appear tocontest the allo'ance thereof, and shall ca"se notice of s"ch time and place to be p"blished
three 738 'ee(s s"ccessivel, previo"s to the time appointed, in a ne'spaper of $eneralcirc"lation in the province.
"t no ne'spaper p"blication shall be made 'here the petition for probate has been filed bthe testator himself.
The "se of the disB"nctive in the 'ords *'hen a 'ill is delivered to O+ a petition for the allo'ance ofa 'ill is filed* plainl indicates that the co"rt ma act "pon the mere deposit therein of a decedentstestament, even if no petition for its allo'ance is as et filed. &here the petition for probate is madeafter the deposit of the 'ill, the petition is deemed to relate bac( to the time 'hen the 'ill 'asdelivered. Since the testament of Fr. +odri$"e 'as s"bmitted and delivered to the !o"rt of "lacanon @arch , 'hile petitioners initiated intestate proceedin$s in the !o"rt of First 4nstance of +ial
onl on @arch 12, ei$ht das later, the precedence and e#cl"sive B"risdiction of the "lacan co"rt isincontestable.671p(86.9:t
"t, petitioners obBect, section 3 of revised +"le <6 7old +"le <<8 spea(s of a 'ill bein$ delivered to*the !o"rt havin$ B"risdiction,* and in the case at bar the "lacan co"rt did not have it beca"se thedecedent 'as domiciled in +ial province. &e can not disre$ard Fr. +odri$"es 33 ears ofresidence as parish priest in a$ono, "lacan 7193-19638 b"t even if 'e do so, and consider thathe retained thro"$ho"t some ani)us revertendi to the place of his birth in /araKa"e, +ial, that
detail 'o"ld not impl that the "lacan co"rt lac(ed B"risdiction. As r"led in previo"s decisions, thepo'er to settle decedents estates is conferred b la' "pon all co"rts of first instance, and thedomicile of the testator onl affects the ven"e b"t not the B"risdiction of the !o"rt 74n re Na' Sin$co,< /hil. 239 +ees vs. 5ia, <3 /hil. 0 ernabe vs. >er$ara, <3 /hil. 6<68. ;either part deniesthat the late Fr. +odri$"e is deceased, or that he left personal propert in a$ono, province of"lacan 7t.s.n. p. 6, hearin$ of "ne 11, 1963, Anne# **, /etition, +ec., p. 08. That is s"fficient in
the case before "s.
4n the >a1 "ingco case 7ante8 this !o"rt r"led that=
*... 4f 'e consider s"ch "estion of residence as one affectin$ the B"risdiction of the trial co"rtover the s"bBect-matter, the effect shall be that the 'hole proceedin$s incl"din$ all decisionson the different incidents 'hich have arisen in co"rt 'ill have to be ann"lled and the samecase 'ill have to be commenced ane' before another co"rt of the same ran( in anotherprovince. That this is of mischievo"s effect in the prompt administration of B"stice is tooobvio"s to re"ire comment. 7!f. Tan"nch"an vs. 5 "ncio R !o., .+. ;o. 026,5ecember 31, 1928. F"rthermore, section 6 of Act ;o. 19, providin$ that the estate of adeceased person shall be settled in the province 'here he had last resided, co"ld not havebeen intended as definin$ the B"risdiction of the probate co"rt over the s"bBect matter,beca"se s"ch le$al provision is contained in a la' of proced"re dealin$ merel 'ithproced"ral matters, and, as 'e have said time and a$ain, proced"re is one thin$ and
B"risdiction over the s"bBect matter is another. 7Attorne eneral vs. @anila +ailroad!ompan, 2 /hil. :23.8 The la' of B"risdiction J Act ;o. 136, Section :6, ;o. : J confers"pon !o"rts of First 4nstance B"risdiction over all probate cases independentl of the place of residence of the deceased.1 Since, ho'ever, there are man !o"rts of First 4nstance in the/hilippines, the %a' of /roced"re, Act ;o. 19, section 6, fi#es the ven"e or the place'here each case shall be bro"$ht. Th"s, the place of residence of the deceased is not anelement of B"risdiction over the s"bBect matter b"t merel of ven"e. And it is "pon this $ro"ndthat in the ne' +"les of !o"rt the province 'here the estate of a deceased person shall be
settled is properl called *ven"e* 7+"le <:, section 1.8 @otion for reconsideration is denied.
The estate proceedin$s havin$ been initiated in the "lacan !o"rt of First 4nstance ahead of another, that co"rt is entitled to ass"me B"risdiction to the e#cl"sion of all other co"rts, even if it 'ere acase of 'ron$ ven"e b e#press provisions of +"le <3 7old +"le <:8 of the +"les of !o"rt, since thesame enBoins that=
The !o"rt first ta(in$ co$niance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall e#ercise B"risdiction to the e#cl"sion of all other co"rts. 7Sec. 18
This disposition pres"pposes that t'o or more co"rts have been as(ed to ta(e co$niance of thesettlement of the estate. Of them onl one co"ld be of proper ven"e, et the r"le $rants precedence
to that !o"rt 'hose B"risdiction is first invo(ed, 'itho"t ta(in$ ven"e into acco"nt.
There are t'o other reasons that militate a$ainst the s"ccess of petitioners. One is that theircommencin$ intestate proceedin$s in +ial, after the learned of the deliver of the decedents 'ill tothe !o"rt of "lacan, 'as in bad faith, patentl done 'ith a vie' to divestin$ the latter co"rt of theprecedence a'arded it b the +"les. !ertainl the order of priorit established in +"le <3 7old +"le<:8 'as not desi$ned to convert the settlement of decedents estates into a race bet'een applicants,'ith the administration of the properties as the price for the fleetest.
The other reason is that, in o"r sstem of civil la', intestate s"ccession is onl s"bsidiar ors"bordinate to the testate, since intestac onl ta(es place in the absence of a valid operative 'ill.Sas Article 96 of the !ivil !ode of the /hilippines=
A+T. 96. %e$al or intestate s"ccession ta(es place=
718 4f a person dies 'itho"t a 'ill, or 'ith a void 'ill, or one 'hich has s"bse"entl lost itsvalidit
728 &hen the 'ill does not instit"te an heir to, or dispose of all the propert belon$in$ to thetestator. 4n s"ch case, le$al s"ccession shall ta(e place onl 'ith respect to the propert in'hich the testator has not disposed
738 4f the s"spensive condition attached to the instit"tion of heir does not happen or is notf"lfilled, or if the heir dies before the testator, or rep"diates the inheritance, there bein$ nos"bstit"tion, and no ri$ht of accretion ta(es place
78 &hen the heir instit"ted is incapable of s"cceedin$, e#cept in cases provided in this!ode.
Therefore, as r"led in Castro, et al. vs. Martinez , 1 /hil. 3<, *onl after final decision as to then"llit of testate s"ccession co"ld an intestate s"ccession be instit"ted in the form of pre-establishedaction*. The instit"tion of intestac proceedin$s in +ial ma not th"s proceed 'hile the probate ofthe p"rported 'ill of Father +odri$"e is pendin$.
&e r"le that the "lacan !o"rt of First 4nstance 'as entitled to priorit in the settlement of the estatein "estion, and that in ref"sin$ to dismiss the probate. proceedin$s, said co"rt did not commit anab"se of discretion. 4t is the proceedin$s in the +ial !o"rt that sho"ld be discontin"ed.
&herefore, the 'rit of certiorari applied for is denied. !osts a$ainst petitioners +odri$"e.
This is a petition for revie' on certiorari, see(in$ to ann"l the order of the respondent B"d$e of the!o"rt of First 4nstance of @anila, ranch LLL>444, 'hich admitted to and allo'ed the probate of thelast 'ill and testament of Adoracion !. !ampos, after an e#-parte presentation of evidence b hereinprivate respondent.
On an"ar 31, 19<<, Adoracion !. !ampos died, leavin$ her father, petitioner ermo$enes!ampos and her sisters, private respondent ;enita !. /a$"ia, +emedios !. %ope and @arieta !.@edina as the s"rvivin$ heirs. As ermo$enes !ampos 'as the onl comp"lsor heir, he e#ec"tedan Affidavit of AdB"dication "nder +"le <, Section 4 of the +"les of !o"rt 'hereb he adB"dicated"nto himself the o'nership of the entire estate of the deceased Adoracion !ampos.
)leven months after, on ;ovember 2:, 19<<, ;enita !. /a$"ia filed a petition for the reprobate of a'ill of the deceased, Adoracion !ampos, 'hich 'as alle$edl e#ec"ted in the Enited States and forher appointment as administratri# of the estate of the deceased testatri#.
4n her petition, ;enita alle$ed that the testatri# 'as an American citien at the time of her death and'as a permanent resident of 633 5itman Street, /hiladelphia, /ennslvania, E.S.A. that thetestatri# died in @anila on an"ar 31, 19<< 'hile temporaril residin$ 'ith her sister at 216<%everia, @alate, @anila that d"rin$ her lifetime, the testatri# made her last 'i$ and testament on"l 1, 19<:, accordin$ to the la's of /ennslvania, E.S.A., nominatin$ &ilfredo ara$a of ;e'erse as e#ec"tor that after the testatri# death, her last 'ill and testament 'as presented,probated, allo'ed, and re$istered 'ith the +e$istr of &ins at the !o"nt of /hiladelphia, E.S.A.,that !lement %. @c%a"$hlin, the administrator 'ho 'as appointed after 5r. ara$a had declined
and 'aived his appointment as e#ec"tor in favor of the former, is also a resident of /hiladelphia,E.S.A., and that therefore, there is an "r$ent need for the appointment of an administratri# toadminister and event"all distrib"te the properties of the estate located in the /hilippines.
On an"ar 11, 19<0, an opposition to the reprobate of the 'ill 'as filed b herein petitioner alle$in$amon$ other thin$s, that he has ever reason to believe that the 'ill in "estion is a for$er that theintrinsic provisions of the 'ill are n"ll and void and that even if pertinent American la's on intrinsicprovisions are invo(ed, the same co"ld not appl inasm"ch as the 'o"ld 'or( inB"stice and inB"rto him.
On 5ecember 1, 19<0, ho'ever, the petitioner thro"$h his co"nsel, Att. Franco %oola, filed a@otion to 5ismiss Opposition 7&ith &aiver of +i$hts or 4nterests8 statin$ that he *has been able toverif the veracit thereof 7of the 'ill8 and no' confirms the same to be tr"l the probated 'ill of hisda"$hter Adoracion.* ence, an e*+partepresentation of evidence for the reprobate of the"estioned 'ill 'as made.
On an"ar 1, 19<9, the respondent B"d$e iss"ed an order, to 'it=
At the hearin$, it has been satisfactoril established that Adoracion !. !ampos, inher lifetime, 'as a citien of the Enited States of America 'ith a permanent
residence at 633 5itman Street, /hiladelphia, /A 1912, 7)#hibit 58 that 'hen alive, Adoracion !. !ampos e#ec"ted a %ast &ill and Testament in the co"nt of/hiladelphia, /ennslvania, E.S.A., accordin$ to the la's thereat 7)#hibits )-3 to )-3-b8 that 'hile in temporar soBo"rn in the /hilippines, Adoracion !. !ampos died inthe !it of @anila 7)#hibit !8 leavin$ propert both in the /hilippines and in theEnited States of America that the %ast &ill and Testament of the late Adoracion !.
!ampos 'as admitted and $ranted probate b the Orphans !o"rt 5ivision of the!o"rt of !ommon /leas, the probate co"rt of the !ommon'ealth of /ennslvania,!o"nt of /hiladelphia, E.S.A., and letters of administration 'ere iss"ed in favor of!lement . @c%a"$hlin all in accordance 'ith the la's of the said forei$n co"ntr onproced"re and allo'ance of 'ills 7)#hibits ) to )-18 and that the petitioner is nots"fferin$ from an dis"alification 'hich 'o"ld render her "nfit as administratri# ofthe estate in the /hilippines of the late Adoracion !. !ampos.
&)+)FO+), the %ast &ill and Testament of the late Adoracion !. !ampos ishereb admitted to and allo'ed probate in the /hilippines, and ;enita !ampos/a$"ia is hereb appointed Administratri# of the estate of said decedent let %ettersof Administration 'ith the &ill anne#ed iss"e in favor of said Administratri# "pon herfilin$ of a bond in the amo"nt of /:,. conditioned "nder the provisions ofSection 4, +"le 01 of the +"les of !o"rt.
Another manifestation 'as filed b the petitioner on April 1, 19<9, confirmin$ the 'ithdra'al of hisopposition, ac(no'led$in$ the same to be his vol"ntar act and deed.
On @a 2:, 19<9, ermo$enes !ampos filed a petition for relief, prain$ that the order allo'in$ the'ill be set aside on the $ro"nd that the 'ithdra'al of his opposition to the same 'as sec"redthro"$h fra"d"lent means. Accordin$ to him, the *@otion to 5ismiss Opposition* 'as inserted amon$the papers 'hich he si$ned in connection 'ith t'o 5eeds of !onditional Sales 'hich he e#ec"ted'ith the !onstr"ction and 5evelopment !orporation of the /hilippines 7!5!/8. e also alle$ed that
the la'er 'ho filed the 'ithdra'al of the opposition 'as not his co"nsel-of-record in the specialproceedin$s case.
The petition for relief 'as set for hearin$ b"t the petitioner failed to appear. e made severalmotions for postponement "ntil the hearin$ 'as set on @a 29, 190.
On @a 10, 190, petitioner filed another motion entitled *@otion to >acate andMor Set Aside theOrder of an"ar 1, 19<9, andMor dismiss the case for lac( of B"risdiction. 4n this motion, the noticeof hearin$ provided=
/lease incl"de this motion in o"r calendar for hearin$ on @a 29, 190 at 0=3 inthe mornin$ for s"bmission for reconsideration and resol"tion of the onorable
!o"rt. Entil this @otion is resolved, ma 4 also re"est for the f"t"re settin$ of thecase for hearin$ on the Oppositors motion to set aside previo"sl filed.
The hearin$ of @a 29, 190 'as re-set b the co"rt for "ne 19, 190. &hen the case 'as calledfor hearin$ on this date, the co"nsel for petitioner tried to ar$"e his motion to vacate instead ofadd"cin$ evidence in s"pport of the petition for relief. Th"s, the respondent B"d$e iss"ed an orderdismissin$ the petition for relief for fail"re to present evidence in s"pport thereof. /etitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration b"t the same 'as denied. 4n the same order, respondent B"d$e alsodenied the motion to vacate for lac( of merit. ence, this petition.
@ean'hile, on "ne 6,1902, petitioner ermo$enes !ampos died and left a 'ill, 'hich, incidentallhas been "estioned b the respondent, his children and forced heirs as, on its face, patentl n"lland void, and a fabrication, appointin$ /oll !aetano as the e#ec"tri# of his last 'ill and testament.
!aetano, therefore, filed a motion to s"bstit"te herself as petitioner in the instant case 'hich 'as$ranted b the co"rt on September 13, 1902.
A motion to dismiss the petition on the $ro"nd that the ri$hts of the petitioner ermo$enes !amposmer$ed "pon his death 'ith the ri$hts of the respondent and her sisters, onl remainin$ children andforced heirs 'as denied on September 12, 1903.
/etitioner !aetano persists 'ith the alle$ations that the respondent B"d$e acted 'itho"t or ine#cess of his B"risdiction 'hen=
18 e r"led the petitioner lost his standin$ in co"rt deprived the +i$ht to ;otice 7sic8
"pon the filin$ of the @otion to 5ismiss opposition 'ith 'aiver of ri$hts or interestsa$ainst the estate of deceased Adoracion !. !ampos, th"s, pavin$ the 'a for thehearin$ e*+parte of the petition for the probate of decedent 'ill.
28 e r"led that petitioner can 'aive, reno"nce or rep"diate 7not made in a p"blic ora"thenticated instr"ment8, or b 'a of a petition presented to the co"rt b"t b 'aof a motion presented prior to an order for the distrib"tion of the estate-the la'especiall providin$ that rep"diation of an inheritance m"st be presented, 'ithin 3das after it has iss"ed an order for the distrib"tion of the estate in accordance 'iththe r"les of !o"rt.
38 e r"led that the ri$ht of a forced heir to his le$itime can be divested b a decree
admittin$ a 'ill to probate in 'hich no provision is made for the forced heir incomplete disre$ard of %a' of S"ccession
8 e denied petitioners petition for +elief on the $ro"nd that no evidence 'asadd"ced to s"pport the /etition for +elief 'hen no ;otice nor hearin$ 'as set toafford petitioner to prove the merit of his petition J a denial of the d"e process and a$rave ab"se of discretion amo"ntin$ to lac( of B"risdiction.
:8 e ac"ired no B"risdiction over the testate case, the fact that the Testator at thetime of death 'as a "s"al resident of 5asmariKas, !avite, conse"entl !avite !o"rtof First 4nstance has e#cl"sive B"risdiction over the case 75e orBa vs. Tan, .+. ;o.%-<<92, "l 19::8.
The first t'o iss"es raised b the petitioner are anchored on the alle$ation that the respondent B"d$eacted 'ith $rave ab"se of discretion 'hen he allo'ed the 'ithdra'al of the petitioners opposition tothe reprobate of the 'ill.
&e find no $rave ab"se of discretion on the part of the respondent B"d$e. ;o proof 'as add"ced tos"pport petitioners contention that the motion to 'ithdra' 'as sec"red thro"$h fra"d"lent meansand that Att. Franco %oola 'as not his co"nsel of record. The records sho' that after the firin$ of
the contested motion, the petitioner at a later date, filed a manifestation 'herein he confirmed thatthe @otion to 5ismiss Opposition 'as his vol"ntar act and deed. @oreover, at the time the motion'as filed, the petitioners former co"nsel, Att. ose /. %a$rosa had lon$ 'ithdra'n from the caseand had been s"bstit"ted b Att. Franco %oola 'ho in t"rn filed the motion. The present petitionercannot, therefore, maintain that the old mans attorne of record 'as Att. %a$rosa at the time offilin$ the motion. Since the 'ithdra'al 'as in order, the respondent B"d$e acted correctl in hearin$
the probate of the 'ill e*+parte, there bein$ no other opposition to the same.
The third iss"e raised deals 'ith the validit of the provisions of the 'ill. As a $eneral r"le, theprobate co"rts a"thorit is limited onl to the e#trinsic validit of the 'ill, the d"e e#ec"tion thereof,the testatri#s testamentar capacit and the compliance 'ith the re"isites or solemnities prescribedb la'. The intrinsic validit of the 'ill normall comes onl after the co"rt has declared that the 'illhas been d"l a"thenticated. o'ever, 'here practical considerations demand that the intrinsicvalidit of the 'ill be passed "pon, even before it is probated, the co"rt sho"ld meet the iss"e.7@aninan$ vs. !o"rt of Appeals, 11 S!+A <08.
4n the case at bar, the petitioner maintains that since the respondent B"d$e allo'ed the reprobate of Adoracions 'ill, ermo$enes !. !ampos 'as divested of his le$itime 'hich 'as reserved b thela' for him.
This contention is 'itho"t merit.
Altho"$h on its face, the 'ill appeared to have preterited the petitioner and th"s, the respondent B"d$e sho"ld have denied its reprobate o"tri$ht, the private respondents have s"fficientlestablished that Adoracion 'as, at the time of her death, an American citien and a permanentresident of /hiladelphia, /ennslvania, E.S.A. Therefore, "nder Article 16 par. 728 and 139 of the!ivil !ode 'hich respectivel provide=
Art. 16 par. 728.
### ### ###
o'ever, intestate and testamentar s"ccessions, both 'ith respect to the order ofs"ccession and to the amo"nt of s"ccessional ri$hts and to the intrinsic validit oftestamentar provisions, shall be re$"lated b the national la' of the person 'hoses"ccession is "nder consideration, 'hatever ma be the nat"re of the propert andre$ardless of the co"ntr 'herein said propert ma be fo"nd.
Art. 139.
!apacit to s"cceed is $overned b the la' of the nation of the decedent.
the la' 'hich $overns Adoracion !ampos 'ill is the la' of /ennslvania, E.S.A., 'hich is thenational la' of the decedent. Altho"$h the parties admit that the /ennslvania la' does not providefor le$itimes and that all the estate ma be $iven a'a b the testatri# to a complete stran$er, thepetitioner ar$"es that s"ch la' sho"ld not appl beca"se it 'o"ld be contrar to the so"nd andestablished p"blic polic and 'o"ld r"n co"nter to the specific provisions of /hilippine %a'.
4t is a settled r"le that as re$ards the intrinsic validit of the provisions of the 'ill, as provided for b Article 16728 and 139 of the !ivil !ode, the national la' of the decedent m"st appl. This 'ass"arel applied in the case of Bellis v. Bellis 72 S!+A 3:08 'herein 'e r"led=
4t is therefore evident that 'hatever p"blic polic or $ood c"stoms ma be involved ino"r sstem of le$itimes, !on$ress has not intended to e#tend the same to the
s"ccession of forei$n nationals. For it has specificall chosen to leave, inter alia, theamo"nt of s"ccessional ri$hts, to the decedents national la'. Specific provisionsm"st prevail over $eneral ones.
### ### ###
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos . ellis, 'as a citien of the State ofTe#as, E.S.A., and "nder the la' of Te#as, there are no forced heirs or le$itimes.
Accordin$l, since the intrinsic validit of the provision of the 'ill and the amo"nt ofs"ccessional ri$hts are to be determined "nder Te#as la', the /hilippine %a' onle$itimes cannot be applied to the testac of Amos . ellis.
As re$ards the alle$ed absence of notice of hearin$ for the petition for relief, the records 'i$ bearthe fact that 'hat 'as repeatedl sched"led for hearin$ on separate dates "ntil "ne 19, 190 'asthe petitioners petition for relief and not his motion to vacate the order of an"ar 1, 19<9. There isno reason 'h the petitioner sho"ld have been led to believe other'ise. The co"rt even admonishedthe petitioners failin$ to add"ce evidence 'hen his petition for relief 'as repeatedl set for hearin$.There 'as no denial of d"e process. The fact that he re"ested *for the f"t"re settin$ of the case forhearin$ . . .* did not mean that at the ne#t hearin$, the motion to vacate 'o"ld be heard and $ivenpreference in lie" of the petition for relief. F"rthermore, s"ch re"est sho"ld be embodied in amotion and not in a mere notice of hearin$.
Finall, 'e find the contention of the petition as to the iss"e of B"risdiction "tterl devoid of merit.
Ender +"le <3, Section 1, of the +"les of !o"rt, it is provided that=
S)!T4O; 1. 0(ere estate of deceased persons settled . J 4f the decedent is aninhabitant of the /hilippines at the time of his death, 'hether a citien or an alien, his'ill shall be proved, or letters of administration $ranted, and his estate settled, in the!o"rt of First 4nstance in the province in 'hich he resided at the time of his death,and if he is an inhabitant of a forei$n co"ntr, the !o"rt of First 4nstance of anprovince in 'hich he had estate. The co"rt first ta(in$ co$niance of the settlementof the estate of a decedent, shall e#ercise B"risdiction to the e#cl"sion of all otherco"rts. The B"risdiction ass"med b a co"rt, so far as it depends on the place ofresidence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in as"it or proceedin$, e#cept in an appeal from that co"rt, in the ori$inal case, or 'hen
the 'ant of B"risdiction appears on the record.
Therefore, the settlement of the estate of Adoracion !ampos 'as correctl filed 'ith the !o"rt ofFirst 4nstance of @anila 'here she had an estate since it 'as alle$ed and proven that Adoracion atthe time of her death 'as a citien and permanent resident of /ennslvania, Enited States of
America and not a *"s"al resident of !avite* as alle$ed b the petitioner. @oreover, petitioner is no'estopped from "estionin$ the B"risdiction of the probate co"rt in the petition for relief. 4t is a settledr"le that a part cannot invo(e the B"risdiction of a co"rt to sec"re affirmative relief, a$ainst his
opponent and after failin$ to obtain s"ch relief, rep"diate or "estion that same B"risdiction. 7SeeSa"lo$ Transit, 4nc. vs. on. @an"el %aaro, et al., . +. ;o. 63 20, April , 1908.
&)+)FO+), the petition for certiorari and prohibition is hereb dismissed for lac( of merit.
SO O+5)+)5.
Melencio+#errera, Plana, elova and 'e la -uente, JJ., concur.
This case is abo"t the efficacio"sness or enforceabilit of a devise of ricelands located at "imba,;"eva )ciBa, 'ith a total area of aro"nd fort- fo"r hectares That devise 'as made in the 'ill of thelate Father /asc"al +i$or, a native of >ictoria Tarlac, in favor of his nearest male relative 'ho 'o"ldst"d for the priesthood.
The parish priest of >ictoria, 'ho claimed to be a tr"stee of the said lands, appealed to this !o"rtfrom the decision of the !o"rt of Appeals affirmin$ the order of the probate co"rt declarin$ that thesaid devise 'as inoperative 7+i$or vs. /arish /riest of the +oman !atholic !h"rch of >ictoria,Tarlac, !A-.+. ;o. 2319-+, A"$"st 1, 19638.
The record discloses that Father +i$or, the parish priest of /"lilan, "lacan, died on A"$"st 9, 193:,leavin$ a 'ill e#ec"ted on October 29, 1933 'hich 'as probated b the !o"rt of First 4nstance of
Tarlac in its order of 5ecember :, 193:. ;amed as devisees in the 'ill 'ere the testators nearestrelatives, namel, his three sisters= Florencia +i$or-)scobar, elina +i$or-@analoto and ;estora+i$or-"iambao. The testator $ave a devise to his co"sin, Fort"nato amalinda.
4n addition, the 'ill contained the follo'in$ controversial be"est 7para$raphin$ s"pplied to facilitatecomprehension of the testamentar provisions8=
5o deBo como le$ado !EAT+O 78 /A+!)%AS de terreno palaeros sit"ados enel m"nicipiooo de "imba de la provinciaaa de ;E)>A )!4A, c"o n"m. de
!)+T4F4!A5O 5) T+A;SF)+);!4A 5) T4TE%O SO; J Tit"lo ;"m. 6:3, mide16,29 m. c"adrados de s"perficie Tit"lo ;"m. 6:0, mide 22,990 m. c"adrados des"perficie ann"al 6:2:, mide 62,66: m. c"adrados de s"perficie Tit"lo ;"m.6:21, mide 119,2:1 m. c"adrados de s"perficie a cual/uier pariente )io varon )ascercano /ue estudie la carrera eclesiatica (asta ordenarse de Presbiterado o sea"acerdote las condiciones de estate le$ado son
71.a8 /rohibe en absol"to la venta de estos terrenos arriba sit"ados obBectos de estele$ado
72.a8 "e el le$atario pariente mio mas cercano tendra derecho de empear a $oar administrar de este le$ado al principiar a c"rar la Sa$rada Teolo$io, ordenadode Sacerdote, hasta s" m"erte pero "e pierde el le$atario este derecho deadministrar $oar de este le$ado al deBar de contin"ar s"s est"dios para ordenarsede /resbiterado 7Sacerdote8.
"e el le$atario "na ve Sacerdote a estara obli$ado a celebrar cada aKo >)4;T)728 @isas readas en s"fra$io de mi alma de mis padres dif"ntos, si el act"al
le$atario, "edase e#com"l$ado, 4/SO FA!TO se le despoBa este le$ado, laadministracion de esto pasara a car$o del act"al /arroco s"s s"cesores de la4$lecia !atolica de >ictoria, Tarlac.
I en intervalo de tiempo "e no haa le$atario acondicionado se$"n lo arriba "edae#presado, pasara la administracion de este le$ado a car$o del act"al /arroco!atolico s"s s"cesores, de >ictoria, Tarlac.
)l /arroco administrador de estate le$ado, ac"m"lara, an"almente todos losprod"ctos "e p"ede tener estate le$ado, $anando o sacando de los prod"ctosan"ales el !4;!O 7:8 por ciento para s" administracion, los derechoscorrespondientes de las >)4;T) 728 @isas readas "e debiera el /arroco celebrar cada aKo, depositando todo lo restante de los prod"ctos de estate le$ado, en "nbanco, a nombre de estate le$ado.
To implement the fore$oin$ be"est, the administrati# in 19 s"bmitted a proBect containin$ thefollo'in$ item=
:. %)A!I OF T) !E+!
That it be adB"dicated in favor of the le$ac p"rported to be $iven to the nearest malerelative 'ho shall ta(e the priesthood, and in the interim to be administered b theact"al !atholic /riest of the +oman !atholic !h"rch of >ictoria, Tarlac, /hilippines,or his s"ccessors, the real properties hereinbelo' indicated, to 'it=
"d$e +oman A. !r" in his order of A"$"st 1:, 19, approvin$ the proBect of partition, directed thatafter pament of the obli$ations of the estate 7incl"din$ the s"m of /3,132.26 d"e to the ch"rch ofthe >ictoria parish8 the administratri# sho"ld deliver to the devisees their respective shares.
4t ma be noted that the administratri# and "d$e !r" did not bother to anale the meanin$ andimplications of Father +i$ors be"est to his nearest male relative 'ho 'o"ld st"d for the
priesthood. 4nasm"ch as no nephe' of the testator claimed the devise and as the administratri# andthe le$al heirs believed that the parish priest of >ictoria had no ri$ht to administer the ricelands, thesame 'ere not delivered to that ecclesiastic. The testate proceedin$ remained pendin$.
Abo"t thirteen ears after the approval of the proBect of partition, or on Febr"ar 19, 19:, the parishpriest of >ictoria filed in the pendin$ testate proceedin$ a petition prain$ for the appointment of ane' administrator 7s"cceedin$ the deceased administration Florencia +i$or8, 'ho sho"ld deliver tothe ch"rch the said ricelands, and f"rther prain$ that the possessors thereof be ordered to renderan acco"ntin$ of the fr"its. The probate co"rt $ranted the petition. A ne' administrator 'asappointed. On an"ar 31, 19:< the parish priest filed another petition for the deliver of thericelands to the ch"rch as tr"stee.
The intestate heirs of Father +i$or co"ntered 'ith a petition dated @arch 2:, 19:< prain$ that thebe"est be d inoperative and that the be adB"d$ed as the persons entitled to the said ricelandssince, as admitted b the parish priest of >ictoria, *no nearest male relative of* the testator *has ever st"died for the priesthood* 7pp. 2: and 3:, +ecord on Appeal8. That petition 'as opposed b theparish priest of >ictoria.
Findin$ that petition to be meritorio"s, the lo'er co"rt, thro"$h "d$e ernabe de A"ino, declaredthe be"est inoperative and adB"dicated the ricelands to the testators le$al heirs in his order of "ne20, 19:<. The parish priest filed t'o motions for reconsideration.
"d$e 5e A"ino $ranted the respond motion for reconsideration in his order of 5ecember 1, 19:<on the $ro"nd that the testator had a $randnephe' named )d$ardo . !"nanan 7the $randson ofhis first co"sin8 'ho 'as a seminarian in the San ose Seminar of the es"it Fathers in "eon!it. The administrator 'as directed to deliver the ricelands to the parish priest of >ictoria as tr"stee.
The le$al heirs appealed to the !o"rt of Appeals. 4t reversed that order. 4t held that Father +i$or had
created a testamentar tr"st for his nearest male relative 'ho 'o"ld ta(e the hol orders b"t thats"ch tr"st co"ld e#ist onl for t'ent ears beca"se to enforce it beond that period 'o"ld violate*the r"le a$ainst perpet"ities. 4t r"led that since no le$atee claimed the ricelands 'ithin t'ent earsafter the testators death, the same sho"ld pass to his le$al heirs, citin$ articles 000 and 912728 ofthe old !ivil !ode and article 0< of the ne' !ivil !ode.
The parish priest in this appeal contends that the !o"rt of Appeals erred in not findin$ that thetestator created a p"blic charitable tr"st and in not liberall constr"in$ the testamentar provisionsso as to render the tr"st operative and to prevent intestac.
As ref"tation, the le$al heirs ar$"e that the !o"rt of Appeals d the be"est inoperative beca"se noone amon$ the testators nearest male relatives had st"died for the priesthood and not beca"se the
tr"st 'as a private charitable tr"st. Accordin$ to the le$al heirs, that fact"al findin$ is bindin$ on this!o"rt. The point o"t that appellant priests chan$e of theor cannot be co"ntenanced in thisappeal .
4n this case, as in cases involvin$ the la' of contracts and stat"tor constr"ction, 'here the intentionof the contractin$ parties or of the la'ma(in$ bod is to be ascertained, the primar iss"e is thedetermination of the testators intention 'hich is the la' of the case 7dicat testor et erit le* . Santosvs. @anaran$, 2< /hil. 29, 21: +odri$"e vs. !o"rt of Appeals, %-20<3, @arch 20, 1969, 2<S!+A :68.
The 'ill of the testator is the first and principal la' in the matter of testaments. &hen his intention isclearl and precisel e#pressed, an interpretation m"st be in accord 'ith the plain and literalmeanin$ of his 'ords, e#cept 'hen it ma certainl appear that his intention 'as different from thatliterall e#pressed 74n re )state of !alderon, 26 /hil. 3338.
The intent of the testator is the cardinal r"le in the constr"ction of 'ills.* 4t is *the life and so"l of a'ill 4t is *the first $reatest r"le, the soverei$n $"ide, the polestar, in $ivin$ effect to a 'ill*. 7See5issent of "stice @oreland in Santos vs. @anaran$, 2< /hil. 29, 223, 23<-0.8
One canon in the interpretation of the testamentar provisions is that *the testators intention is to beascertained from the 'ords of the 'ilt ta(in$ into consideration the circ"mstances "nder 'hich it 'asmade*, b"t e#cl"din$ the testators oral declarations as to his intention 7Art. <09, !ivil !ode of the/hilippines8.
To ascertain Father +i$ors intention, it ma be "sef"l to ma(e the follo'in$ re-statement of the
provisions of his 'ill.
1. that he be"eathed the ricelands to anone of his nearest male relatives 'ho 'o"ld p"rs"e anecclesiastical career "ntil his ordination as a priest.
3. That the devisee at the inception of his st"dies in sacred theolo$ co"ld enBo and administer thericelands, and once ordained as a priest, he co"ld contin"e enBoin$ and administerin$ the same "pto the time of his death b"t the devisee 'o"ld cease to enBo and administer the ricelands if hediscontin"ed his st"dies for the priesthood.
. That if the devisee became a priest, he 'o"ld be obli$ated to celebrate ever ear t'ent masses
'ith praers for the repose of the so"ls of Father +i$or and his parents.
:. That if the devisee is e#comm"nicated, he 'o"ld be divested of the le$ac and the administrationof the riceland 'o"ld pass to the inc"mbent parish priest of >ictoria and his s"ccessors.
6. That d"rin$ the interval of time that there is no "alified devisee as contemplated above, theadministration of the ricelands 'o"ld be "nder the responsibilit of the inc"mbent parish priest of>ictoria and his s"ccessors, and
<. That the parish priest-administrator of the ricelands 'o"ld acc"m"late ann"all the prod"ctsthereof, obtainin$ or $ettin$ from the ann"al prod"ce five percent thereof for his administration andthe fees correspondin$ to the t'ent masses 'ith praers that the parish priest 'o"ld celebrate for
each ear, depositin$ the balance of the income of the devise in the ban( in the name of hisbe"est.
From the fore$oin$ testamentar provisions, it ma be ded"ced that the testator intended to devisethe ricelands to his nearest male relative 'ho 'o"ld become a priest, 'ho 'as forbidden to sell thericelands, 'ho 'o"ld lose the devise if he discontin"ed his st"dies for the priesthood, or havin$ beenordained a priest, he 'as e#comm"nicated, and 'ho 'o"ld be obli$ated to sa ann"all t'entmasses 'ith praers for the repose of the so"ls of the testator and his parents.
On the other hand, it is clear that the parish priest of >ictoria 'o"ld administer the ricelands onl int'o sit"ations= one, d"rin$ the interval of time that no nearest male relative of the testator 'asst"din$ for the priesthood and t'o, in case the testators nephe' became a priest and he 'as
e#comm"nicated.
&hat is not clear is the duration of *el intervalo de tiempo "e no haa le$atario acondicionado*, orho' lon$ after the testators death 'o"ld it be determined that he had a nephe' 'ho 'o"ld p"rs"ean ecclesiastical vocation. 4t is that patent ambi$"it that has bro"$ht abo"t the controvers bet'eenthe parish priest of >ictoria and the testators le$al heirs.
4nter'oven 'ith that e"ivocal provision is t(e ti)e 1(en t(e nearest )ale relative 1(o 1ould stud!for t(e priest(ood s(ould be deter)ined. 5id the testator contemplate onl his nearest malerelative at t(e ti)e of (is deat( Or did he have in mind an of his nearest male relatives at an!ti)eafter (is deat(
&e hold that the said be"est refers to the testators nearest male relative living at t(e ti)e of (isdeat( and not to an! indefinite ti)e t(ereafter . *4n order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, deviseeor le$atee m"st be livin$ at the moment the s"ccession opens, e#cept in case of representation,'hen it is proper* 7Art. 12:, !ivil !ode8.
The said testamentar provisions sho"ld be sensibl or reasonabl constr"ed. To constr"e them asreferrin$ to the testators nearest male relative at an!ti)e after (is deat( 'o"ld render the provisionsdiffic"lt to appl and create "ncertaint as to the disposition of his estate. That co"ld not have beenhis intention.
4n 193:, 'hen the testator died, his nearest lea$al heirs 'ere his three sisters or second-de$reerelatives, @rs. )scobar, @rs. @analoto and @rs. "iambao. Obvio"sl, 'hen the testator specifiedhis nearest male relative, he m"st have had in mind his nephe' or a son of his sister, 'ho 'o"ld behis third-de$ree relative, or possibl a $randnephe'. "t since he co"ld not pro$nosticate the e#actdate of his death or state 'ith certit"de 'hat cate$or of nearest male relative 'o"ld be livin$ at thetime of his death, he co"ld not specif that his nearest male relative 'o"ld be his nephe' or
$randnephe's 7the son of his nephe' or niece8 and so he had to "se the term *nearest malerelative*.
4t is contended b the le$al heirs that the said devise 'as in realit intended for +amon "iambao,the testators nephe' and $odchild, 'ho 'as the son of his sister, @rs. "iambao. To prove thatcontention, the le$al heirs presented in the lo'er co"rt the affidavit of eatri amalinda, thematernal $randmother of )d$ardo !"nanan, 'ho deposed that after Father +i$ors death her o'nson, >alentin amalinda, r., did not claim the devise, altho"$h he 'as st"din$ for the priesthood atthe San !arlos Seminar, beca"se she 7eatri8 (ne' that Father +i$or had intended that devise for his nearest male relative beloning to t(e igor fa)il! 7pp. 1:-11, +ecord on Appeal8.
@rs. amalinda f"rther deposed that her o'n $randchild, )d$ardo . !"nanan, 'as not the one
contemplated in Father +i$ors 'ill and that )d$ardos father told her that he 'as not cons"lted bthe parish priest of >ictoria before the latter filed his second motion for reconsideration 'hich 'asbased on the $ro"nd that the testators $randnephe', )d$ardo, 'as st"din$ for the priesthood atthe San ose Seminar.
/arentheticall, it sho"ld be stated at this B"nct"re that )d$ardo ceased to be a seminarian in 1961.For that reason, the le$al heirs apprised the !o"rt of Appeals that the probate co"rts orderadB"dicatin$ the ricelands to the parish priest of >ictoria had no more le$ to stand on 7p. 0,
Appellants brief8.
Of co"rse, @rs. amalindas affidavit, 'hich is tantamo"nt to evidence aliunde as to the testatorsintention and 'hich is hearsa, has no probative val"e. O"r opinion that the said be"est refers tothe testators nephe' 'ho 'as livin$ at the time of his death, 'hen his s"ccession 'as opened and
the s"ccessional ri$hts to his estate became vested, rests on a B"dicio"s and "nbiased readin$ ofthe terms of the 'ill.
ad the testator intended that the *c"al"ier pariente mio varon mas cercano "e est"die la cameraeclesiatica* 'o"ld incl"de indefinitel anone of his nearest male relatives born after (is deat(, heco"ld have so specified in his 'ill e m"st have (no'n that s"ch a broad provision 'o"ld s"spendfor an "nlimited period of time the efficacio"sness of his be"est.
&hat then did the testator mean b *el intervalo de tiempo "e no haa le$atario acondicionado*?The reasonable vie' is that he 'as referrin$ to a sit"ation 'hereb his nephe' livin$ at the time ofhis death, 'ho 'o"ld li(e to become a priest, 'as still in $rade school or in hi$h school or 'as notet in the seminar. 4n that case, the parish priest of >ictoria 'o"ld administer the ricelands before
the nephe' entered the seminar. "t the moment the testators nephe' entered the seminar, thenhe 'o"ld be entitled to enBo and administer the ricelands and receive the fr"its thereof. 4n thatevent, the tr"steeship 'o"ld be terminated.
Follo'in$ that interpretation of the 'ill the in"ir 'o"ld be 'hether at the time Father +i$or died in193: he had a nephe' 'ho 'as st"din$ for the priesthood or 'ho had manifested his desire tofollo' the ecclesiastical career. That "er is cate$oricall ans'ered in para$raph of appellantpriests petitions of Febr"ar 19, 19: and an"ar 31, 19:<. e "ne"ivocall alle$ed therein that
*not male relative of the late 7Father8 /asc"al +i$or has ever st"died for the priesthood* 7pp. 2: and3:, +ecord on Appeal8.
4nasm"ch as the testator 'as not s"rvived b an nephe' 'ho became a priest, the "navoidableconcl"sion is that the be"est in "estion 'as ineffect"al or inoperative. Therefore, theadministration of the ricelands b the parish priest of >ictoria, as envisa$ed in the 'ilt 'as li(e'ise
inoperative.
The appellant in contendin$ that a p"blic charitable tr"st 'as constit"ted b the testator in is favorass"mes that he 'as a tr"stee or a s"bstit"te devisee That contention is "ntenable. A readin$ of thetestamentar provisions re$ardin$ the disp"ted be"est not s"pport the vie' that the parish priest of >ictoria 'as a tr"stee or a s"bstit"te devisee in the event that the testator 'as not s"rvived b anephe' 'ho became a priest.
4t sho"ld be "nderstood that the parish priest of >ictoria co"ld become a tr"stee onl 'hen thetestators nephe' livin$ at the time of his death, 'ho desired to become a priest, had not et enteredthe seminar or, havin$ been ordained a priest, he 'as e#comm"nicated. Those t'o contin$enciesdid not arise, and co"ld not have arisen in this case beca"se no nephe' of the testator manifested
an intention to enter the seminar or ever became a priest.
The !o"rt of Appeals correctl r"led that this case is covered b article 000 of the old !ivil !ode,no' article 9:6, 'hich provides that if *the be"est for an reason sho"ld be inoperative, it shall bemer$ed into the estate, e#cept in cases of s"bstit"tion and those in 'hich the ri$ht of accretione#ists* 7*el le$ado ... por "al"ier ca"sa, no ten$a efecto se ref"ndira en la masa de la herencia,f"era de los casos de s"stit"cion derecho de acrecer*8.
This case is also covered b article 912728 of the old !ivil !ode, no' article 96 728, 'hich providesthat le$al s"ccession ta(es place 'hen the 'ill *does not dispose of all that belon$s to the testator.*There bein$ no s"bstit"tion nor accretion as to the said ricelands the same sho"ld be distrib"tedamon$ the testators le$al heirs. The effect is as if the testator had made no disposition as to thesaid ricelands.
The !ivil !ode reco$nies that a person ma die partl testate and partl intestate, or that there mabe mi#ed s"ccession. The old r"le as to the indivisibilit of the testators 'in is no lon$er valid. Th"s,if a conditional le$ac does not ta(e effect, there 'ill be intestate s"ccession as to the propertrecovered b the said le$ac 7@acrohon On$ am vs. Saavedra, :1 /hil. 26<8.
&e find no merit in the appeal The Appellate !o"rts decision is affirmed. !osts a$ainst thepetitioner.
N$+R$&A, AN& A'TIN* N$+R$&A, r., defendants-appellants.
Priscilo vangelista for appellee.
Brigido G. strada for appellant.
+ATI'TA ANG$L*, J.:
This is an action for recover of the o'nership and possession of five 7:8 parcels of land sit"ated inthe @"nicipalit of %abrador, /rovince of /an$asinan, filed b @aria Eson a$ainst @aria del +osarioand her fo"r children named !oncepcion, !onrado, 5ominador, and Fa"stino, s"rnamed ;ebreda,'ho are all of minor a$e, before the !o"rt of First 4nstance of /an$asinan.
@aria Eson 'as the la'f"l 'ife of Fa"stino ;ebreda 'ho "pon his death in 19: left the landsinvolved in this liti$ation. Fa"stino ;ebreda left no other heir e#cept his 'ido' @aria Eson. o'ever,plaintiff claims that 'hen Fa"stino ;ebreda died in 19:, his common-la' 'ife @aria del +osariotoo( possession ille$all of said lands th"s deprivin$ her of their possession and enBoment.
5efendants in their ans'er set "p as special defense that on Febr"ar 21, 1931, @aria Eson andher h"sband, the late Fa"stino ;ebreda, e#ec"ted a p"blic doc"ment 'hereb the a$reed toseparate as h"sband and 'ife and, in consideration of their separation, @aria Eson 'as $iven aparcel of land b 'a of alimon and in ret"rn she reno"nced her ri$ht to inherit an other propertthat ma be left b her h"sband "pon his death 7)#hibit 18.
After trial, at 'hich both parties presented their respective evidence, the co"rt rendered decisionorderin$ the defendants to restore to the plaintiff the o'nership and possession of the lands indisp"te 'itho"t special prono"ncement as to costs. 5efendants interposed the present appeal.
There is no disp"te that @aria Eson, plaintiff-appellee, is the la'f"l 'ife of Fa"stino ;ebreda, former
o'ner of the five parcels of lands liti$ated in the present case. There is li(e'ise no disp"te that@aria del +osario, one of the defendants-appellants, 'as merel a common-la' 'ife of the lateFa"stino ;ebreda 'ith 'hom she had fo"r ille$itimate children, her no' co-defendants. 4t li(e'iseappears that Fa"stino ;ebreda died in 19: m"ch prior to the effectivit of the ne' !ivil !ode. &iththis bac($ro"nd, it is evident that 'hen Fa"stino ;ebreda died in 19: the five parcels of land he'as seied of at the time passed from the moment of his death to his onl heir, his 'ido' @ariaEson 7Article 6:<, old !ivil !ode8.As this !o"rt aptl said, *The propert belon$s to the heirs at themoment of the death of the ancestor as completel as if the ancestor had e#ec"ted and delivered tothem a deed for the same before his death* 74l"stre vs. Alaras Frondosa, 1< /hil., 3218. From thatmoment, therefore, the ri$hts of inheritance of @aria Eson over the lands in "estion becamevested.
The claim of the defendants that @aria Eson had relin"ished her ri$ht over the lands in "estionbeca"se she e#pressl reno"nced to inherit an f"t"re propert that her h"sband ma ac"ire andleave "pon his death in the deed of separation the had entered into on Febr"ar 21, 1931, cannotbe entertained for the simple reason that f"t"re inheritance cannot be the s"bBect of a contract norcan it be reno"nced 71 @anresa, 123, si#th edition Tolentino on !ivil !ode, p. 12 Osorio vs. Osorioand Incha"sti Steamship !o., 1 /hil., :318.
"t defendants contend that, 'hile it is tr"e that the fo"r minor defendants are ille$itimate children of the late Fa"stino ;ebreda and "nder the old !ivil !ode are not entitled to an s"ccessional ri$hts,ho'ever, "nder the ne' !ivil !ode 'hich became in force in "ne, 19:, the are $iven the stat"sand ri$hts of nat"ral children and are entitled to the s"ccessional ri$hts 'hich the la' accords to thelatter 7article 226 and article 20<, ne' !ivil !ode8, and beca"se these s"ccessional ri$hts 'eredeclared for the first time in the ne' code, the shall be $iven retroactive effect even tho"$h the
event 'hich $ave rise to them ma have occ"rred "nder the prior le$islation 7Article 22:3, ne' !ivil!ode8.
There is no merit in this claim. Article 22:3 above referred to provides indeed that ri$hts 'hich aredeclared for the first time shall have retroactive effect even tho"$h the event 'hich $ave rise to themma have occ"rred "nder the former le$islation, b"t this is so onl 'hen the ne' ri$hts do notpreB"dice an vested or ac"ired ri$ht of the same ori$in. Th"s, said article provides that *if a ri$htsho"ld be declared for the first time in this !ode, it shall be effective at once, even tho"$h the act orevent 'hich $ives rise thereto ma have been done or ma have occ"rred "nder the prior le$islation,provided said ne' ri$ht does not preB"dice or impair an vested or ac"ired ri$ht, of the sameori$in.* As alread stated in the earl part of this decision, the ri$ht of o'nership of @aria Eson overthe lands in "estion became vested in 19: "pon the death of her late h"sband and this is sobeca"se of the imperative provision of the la' 'hich commands that the ri$hts to s"ccession aretransmitted from the moment of death 7Article 6:<, old !ivil !ode8. The ne' ri$ht reco$nied b thene' !ivil !ode in favor of the ille$itimate children of the deceased cannot, therefore, be asserted tothe impairment of the vested ri$ht of @aria Eson over the lands in disp"te.
As re$ards the claim that @aria Eson, 'hile her deceased h"sband 'as lin$ in state, in a $est"re of pit or compassion, a$reed to assi$n the lands in "estion to the minor children for the reason thatthe 'ere ac"ired 'hile the deceased 'as livin$ 'ith their mother and @aria Eson 'anted toass"a$e some'hat the 'ron$ she has done to them, this m"ch can be said apart from the fact thatthis claim is disp"ted, 'e are of the opinion that said assi$nment, if an, parta(es of the nat"re of adonation of real propert, inasm"ch as it involves no material consideration, and in order that it ma
be valid it shall be made in a p"blic doc"ment and m"st be accepted either in the same doc"ment or in a separate one 7Article 633, old !ivil !ode8. 4nasm"ch as this essential formalit has not beenfollo'ed, it res"lts that the alle$ed assi$nment or donation has no valid effect.
&)+)FO+), the decision appealed from is affirmed, 'itho"t costs.
The case. J "intin, Francisco, !risanta and "liana, all s"rnamed de orBa, are le$itimate childrenof @arcelo de orBa 'ho, "pon his demise sometime in 192 or 192:, left a considerable amo"nt ofpropert. 4ntestate proceedin$s m"st have follo'ed, and the pre-'ar records of the case eitherb"rned, lost or destroed d"rin$ the last 'ar, beca"se the record sho's that in 193 "intin deorBa 'as alread the administrator of the 4ntestate )state of @arcelo de orBa.
4n the earl part of 1930, "intin de orBa died and !risanto de orBa, son of Francisco de orBa,'as appointed and too( over as administrator of the )state. Francisco de orBa, on the other hand,ass"med his d"ties as e#ec"tor of the 'ill of "intin de orBa, b"t "pon petition of the heirs of saiddeceased on the $ro"nd that his interests 'ere conflictin$ 'ith that of his brothers estate he 'aslater re"ired b the !o"rt to resi$n as s"ch e#ec"tor and 'as s"cceeded b +o$elio %imaco, a son-in-la' of "intin de orBa.
4t also appears that on Febr"ar 16, 19, at the hearin$ set for the approval of the statement ofacco"nts of the late administrator of the 4ntestate )state of @arcelo de orBa, then bein$ opposed bFrancisco de orBa, the parties s"bmitted an a$reement, 'hich 'as approved b the !o"rt 7)#h. A8.Said a$reement, translated into )n$lish, reads as follo's=
1. All the acco"nts s"bmitted and those that are to be s"bmitted correspondin$ to this ear'ill be considered approved
2. ;o heir shall claim anthin$ of the harvests from the lands in !ainta that came from)#e"iel Ampil, deceased, nor from the land in Tab"atin, ;"eva )ciBa
3. That the amo"nts of mone ta(en b each heir shall be considered as deposited inconB"nction 'ith the other properties of the intestate and shall form part of the mass 'itho"tdra'in$ an interest
. That it shall be "nderstood as incl"ded in this mass the s"m of t'elve tho"sand pesos7/12,8 that the sisters !risanta and "liana de orBa paid of their o'n mone as part of
the price the lands and three tho"sand pesos 7/3,8 the price of the machiner forirri$ation
:. The ri$ht, interests or participation that the deceased "intin de orBa has or ma have in!ivil !ase ;o. 619 of the !o"rt of First 4nstance of ;"eva )ciBa, shall be li(e'ise incl"dedin the total mass of the inheritance of the 4ntestate
6. ;ot onl the lands in Tab"atin b"t also those in !ainta comin$ from the no' deceased)#e"iel Ampil shall also from part of the total mass of the inheritance of the 4ntestate of thelate @arcelo de orBa
<. Once the total of the inheritance of the intestate is made "p as specified before in this A$reement, partition thereof 'ill be made as follo's=
From the total mass shall be ded"cted in case or in (ind, T'elve Tho"sand /esos 7/12,8that shall be delivered to 5a. "liana de orBa and 5a. !risanta de orBa in e"al shares,and the rest shall be divided amon$ the fo"r heirs, i. e., 5on Francisco de orBa, the heirs of"intin de orBa, 5a. "liana de orBa, and 5a. !risanta de orBa, in e"al parts.7T+A;S%AT4O;8
The 4ntestate remained "nder the administration of !risanto de orBa "ntil the then o"tbrea( of the'ar. From then on and "ntil the termination of the 'ar, there 'as a l"ll and state of inaction inSpecial proceedin$ ;o. 21 of the !o"rt of First 4nstance of +ial, /asi$ branch 74n the @atter ofthe 4ntestate )state of @arcelo de orBa8, "ntil "pon petition filed b @i$"el . 5aco, asadministrator of the estate of his deceased mother, !risanta de orBa, 'ho is one of heirs, forreconstit"tion of the records of this case, the !o"rt on 5ecember 11, 19:, ordered the
reconstit"tion of the same, re"irin$ the administrator to s"bmit his report and a cop of the proBectof partition.
On an"ar 3, 196, the administrator, 5r. !risanto de orBa, filed his acco"nts for the periodran$in$ from @arch 1 to 5ecember 22, 19:, 'hich accordin$ to the heirs of "intin de orBa 'ereso inade"ate and $eneral that on Febr"ar 20, 196, the filed a motion for specification. On April3, 196, the also filed their opposition to said statement of acco"nts alle$in$ that the incomereported in said statement 'as ver m"ch less than the tr"e and act"al income of the estate and thatthe e#penses appearin$ therein 'ere e#a$$erated andMor not act"all inc"rred, and praed that thestatement of acco"nts s"bmitted b the administrator be disapproved.
The administrator later filed another report of his administration, dated A"$"st 9, 199,
correspondin$ to the period lapsed from 5ecember 23, 19:, to "l 31, 199, sho'in$ a cashbalance of /<1.96, b"t 'ith pendin$ obli$ation amo"ntin$ to /3:,1:.
On A"$"st 22, 199, "an de orBa and sisters, heirs of the deceased "intin de orBa, filed theiropposition to the statement of acco"nts filed b the administrator on the $ro"nd that same 'as notdetailed eno"$h to enable the interested parties to verif the same that the cannot "nderstand 'hthe 4ntestate co"ld s"ffer an loss considerin$ that d"rin$ the administration of the same b "intinde orBa, the )state acc"m"lated $ains of more than /1, in the form of advances to the heirsas 'ell as cash balance that the desired to e#amine the acco"nts of 5r. !risanto de orBa to verifthe loss and therefore praed that the administrator be ordered to deposit 'ith the !ler( of !o"rt allboo(s, receipts, acco"nts and other papers pertainin$ to the )state of @arcelo de orBa. This motion'as ans'ered b the administrator contendin$ that the +eport referred to 'as alread clear andeno"$h, the income as 'ell as the e#pendit"res bein$ specified therein that he had to spend for the
repairs of the properties of the )state dama$ed d"rin$ the apanese occ"pation that the alle$ationthat d"rin$ the administration of "intin de oria the )state realied a profit of /1, 'as nottr"e, beca"se instead of $ain there 'as even a shorta$e in the f"nds altho"$h said administratorhad collected all his fees 7honorarios8 and commissions correspondin$ to the entire period of hisinc"mbenc that the obli$ations mentioned in said report 'ill be li"idated before the termination ofthe proceedin$s in the same manner as it is done in an other intestate case that he 'as 'illin$ tos"bmit all the receipts of the acco"nts for the e#amination of the interested parties before the !ler(or before the !o"rt itself that this 4ntestate co"ld be terminated, the proBect of partition havin$ beenallo'ed and confirmed b the S"preme !o"rt and that the Administrator 'as also desiro"s ofterminatin$ it definitel for the benefit of all the parties.
On September 1, 199, the administrator filed another statement of acco"nts coverin$ the period of
from @arch 1, 19:, to "l 31, 199, 'hich sho'ed a cash balance of /<1.9:, 'ith pendin$obli$ations in the s"m of /3:,01.
The heirs of "intin de orBa, "an de orBa and his sisters, re$istered their opposition saidstatement of acco"nts and praed the !o"rt to disapprove the same and to appoint an acco"nt to $oover the boo(s of the administrator and to s"bmit a report thereon as soon as possible. The heir"liana de orBa also formall offered her obBection to the approval of the acco"nts s"bmitted b theadministrator and praed f"rther that said administrator be re"ired to s"bmit a complete acco"ntin$of his administration of the )state from 193< to 199. On the other hand, Francisco de orBa and
@i$"el . 5aco, as the onl heir of the deceased !risanta de orBa, s"bmitted to the !o"rt ana$reement to relieve the administrator from acco"ntin$ for the period of the apanese occ"pationthat as to the acco"ntin$ from 193< to 191, the affirmed their conformit 'ith the a$reemententered into b all the heirs appearin$ in the ill of )#ceptions of "liana de orBa and the have noobBection to the approval of the statement of acco"nts s"bmitted b the administrator coverin$ of theears 19: to 199.
On 5ecember 6, 199, the administrator, ans'ered the opposition of the heir "liana de orBa,alle$in$ that the correspondin$ statement of acco"nts for the ears 193<, 1930, 1939, 19 and191 'ere presented and approved b the !o"rt before and d"rin$ the apanese occ"pation, b"tthe records of the same 'ere destroed in the Office of the !ler( of that !o"rt d"rin$ the liberation of the province of +ial, and his personal records 'ere also lost d"rin$ the apanese occ"pation, 'henhis ho"se 'as b"rned that "d$e /eKa 'ho 'as presidin$ over the !o"rt in 19: impliedl deniedthe petition of heirs to re"ire him to render an acco"ntin$ for the period from 192 to the earl partof 19:, for the reason that 'hatever mone obtained from the )state d"rin$ said period co"ld notbe made the s"bBect of an adB"dication it havin$ been declared fiat mone and 'itho"t val"e, andordered that the statement of acco"nts be presented onl for the period startin$ from @arch 1, 19:.The administrator f"rther stated that he 'as an#io"s to terminate this administration b"t some of theheirs had not et complied 'ith the conditions imposed in the proBect of partition 'hich 'as approvedb the S"preme !o"rt that in accordance 'ith said partition a$reement, "liana de orBa m"stdeliver to the administrator all the Be'elr, obBects of val"e, "tensils and other personal belon$in$s of the deceased spo"ses @arcelo de orBa and Tircila "io$"e, 'hich said heir had (ept andcontin"ed to retain in her possession that the heirs of "intin de orBa sho"ld deliver to theadministrator all the lands and a doc"ment transferrin$ in favor of the 4ntestate the t'o parcels ofland 'ith a total area of <1 hectares of c"ltivated land in !abanat"an, ;"eva )ciBa 'hich 'ere in thepossession of said heirs, to$ether 'ith the ho"se of Feliciana @ariano >da. de Saran$aa, 'hich'ere the obBects of !ivil !ase ;o. 619 mentioned in /ara$raph 11 of the proBect of partition that asconse"ence of the said dispossession the heirs of "intin de orBa m"st deliver to theadministrator the prod"cts of the <1 hectares of land in !abanat"an, ;"eva )ciBa, and the rentals ofthe ho"se of Feliciana @ariano or else render to the !o"rt an acco"ntin$ of the prod"cts of theseproperties from the time the too( possession of the same in 193< to the present that there 'as a
pendin$ obli$ation amo"ntin$ to /36, as of September 1, 199, 'hich the heirs sho"ld pabefore the properties adB"dicated to them 'o"ld be delivered. The !o"rt, ho'ever, ordered theadministrator on 5ecember 1, 199, to sho' and prove b evidence 'h he sho"ld not beacco"nts the proceeds of his administration from 193<.
@eantime, "liana de orBa filed a Constancia denin$ possession of an Be'elr belon$in$ to thedeceased spo"ses @arcelo de orBa and Tarcilla "io$"e or an other personal belon$in$ of saidspo"ses, and si$nified her 'illin$ness to t"rn over to the administrator the silver 'ares mentioned in/ara$raph 444 of the proBect of partition, 'hich 'ere the onl propert in her care, on the date that she'o"ld e#pect the deliver to her of her share in the inheritance from her deceased parents.
On "l 6, 19:, "an de orBa and his sisters @arcela, Sat"rnina, )"fracia, acoba and Olimpia, alls"rnamed de orBa, as heirs of "intin de orBa, filed a motion for the deliver to them of theirinheritance in the estate, tenderin$ to the administrator a doc"ment cedin$ and transferrin$ to thelatter all the ri$hts, interests and participation of "intin de orBa in !ivil !ase ;o. <19 of the !o"rtof First 4nstance of ;"eva )ciBa, p"rs"ant to the provisions of the proBect of /artition, and e#pressin$their 'illin$ness to p"t "p a bond if re"ired to do so b the !o"rt, and on "l 10, 19:, the !o"rtordered the administrator to deliver to @arcela, "an, Sat"rniana, )"fracia, acoba and Olimpia, alls"rnamed de orBa, all the properties adB"dicated to them in the /roBect of /artition dated Febr"ar0, 19, "pon the latters filin$ a bond in the s"m of /1, conditioned "pon the pament of s"chobli$ation as ma be ordered b the !o"rt after a hearin$ on the controverted acco"nts of theadministrator. The !o"rt considered the fact that the heirs had complied 'ith the re"irement
imposed b the /roBect of /artition 'hen the tendered the doc"ment cedin$ and transferrin$ theri$hts and interests of "intin de orBa in the aforementioned lands and e#pressed the necessit ofterminatin$ the proceedin$s as soon as practicable, observin$ that the )state had been "nderadministration for over t'ent-five ears alread. The !o"rt, ho'ever, deferred action on the petitionfiled b the special administratri# of the 4ntestate )state of "liana de orBa "ntil after compliance'ith the conditions imposed b the proBect of partition. "t on "l 2, 19:, apparentl before the
properties 'ere delivered to the heirs, Francisco de orBa and @i$"el . 5aco filed a motioninformin$ the !o"rt that the t'o parcels of land located in !abanat"an, ;"eva )ciBa, prod"ced some21,3 cavans of pala, amo"ntin$ to /213, at /1 per cavan, 'hich 'ere enBoed b someheirs that the administrator !risanto de orBa had not ta(en possession of the same forcirc"mstances beond his control and that there also e#isted the s"m of /<,2 'hich the formeradministrator, "intin de orBa, received from properties that 'ere redeemed, b"t 'hich amo"nt didnot come into the hands of the present, administrator beca"se accordin$ to reliable information,same 'as delivered to the heir "liana de orBa 'ho deposited it in her name at the /hilippine;ational an(. 4t 'as, therefore praed that the administrator be re"ired to e#ert the necessareffort to ascertain the identit of the person or persons 'ho 'ere in possession of the same amo"ntand of the val"e of the prod"cts of the lands in @aapap, !abanat"an, ;"eva )ciBa, and to recoverthe same for the 4ntestate )state.
On "l 20, 19:, the special administratri# of the estate of "liana de orBa, then deceased, filed anans'er to the motion of these t'o heirs, denin$ the alle$ation that said heir an prod"ct of thelands mentioned from "intin de orBa, and informed the !o"rt that the @aapap propert hadal'as been in the possession of Francisco de orBa himself and praed the co"rt that theadministrator be instr"cted to demand all the fr"its and prod"cts of said propert from Francisco deorBa.
On "l 20, 19:, the heirs of "intin de orBa also filed their opposition to the said motion ofFrancisco de orBa and @i$"el . 5aco on the $ro"nd that the petition 'as s"perfl"o"s beca"sethe present proceedin$ 'as onl for the approval of the statement of acco"nts filed b theadministrator that said motion 'as improper beca"se it 'as as(in$ the !o"rt to order theadministrator to perform 'hat he 'as d"t bo"nd to do and that said heirs 'ere alread barred or
stopped from raisin$ that "estion in vie' of their absol"te ratification of and assent to the statementof acco"nts s"bmitted b the administrator.
On A"$"st 16, 19:, b order of the !o"rt, the properties adB"dicated to "liana de orBa in theproBect of /artition 'ere finall delivered to the estate of said heir "pon the filin$ of a bond for/2,. 4n that same order, the !o"rt denied the administrators motion to reconsider the order of"l 10, 19:, re"irin$ him to deliver to the heirs of "intin de orBa the properties correspondin$ tothem, on the $ro"nd that there e#isted no s"fficient reason to dist"rb said order. 4t also r"led that asthe petition of Francisco de orBa and @i$"el . 5aco made mention of certain properties alle$edlbelon$in$ to the 4ntestate, said petition sho"ld properl be considered to $ather 'ith the finalacco"nts of the administrator.
The administrator raised the matter b certiorari to this Trib"nal, 'hich 'as, doc(eted as .+. ;o. %-1<9, and on @a 3, 19:1, &e rendered decision affirmin$ the order complained of, findin$ that the"an de orBa and sisters have complied 'ith the re"irement imposed in the /roBect of /artition"pon the tender of the doc"ment of cession of ri$hts and "it-claim e#ec"ted b @arcela de orBa,the administratri# of the )state of "intin de orBa, and holdin$ that the reasons advanced b theadministrator in opposin$ the e#ec"tion of the order of deliver 'ere trivial.
On A"$"st 2<, 19:1, the administrator filed his amended statement of acco"nts coverin$ the periodfrom @arch 1, 19:, to "l 31, 199, 'hich sho'ed a cash balance of /36,66. An additional
statement of acco"nts filed on A"$"st 31, 1961 for the period of from A"$"st 1, 199, to A"$"st 31,19:1, sho'ed a cash balance of /:,0:1.1< and pendin$ obli$ations in the amo"nt of /6,16:.3.
The heirs of "intin de orBa a$ain opposed the approval of the statements of acco"nts char$in$ theadministrator 'ith havin$ failed to incl"de the fr"its 'hich the estate sho"ld have accr"ed from 191to 19:1 amo"ntin$ to /<9,29.<, b"t as the other heirs seemed satisfied 'ith the acco"nts
presented b said administrator and as their $ro"p 'as onl one of the heirs of 4ntestate )state,the praed that the administrator be held liable for onl /119,932.2 'hich 'as 1M of the amo"ntalle$ed to have been omitted. On October , 19:1, the administrator filed a repl to said oppositioncontainin$ a co"nterclaim for moral dama$es a$ainst all the heirs of "intin de orBa in the s"m of/3, 'hich 'as admitted b the !o"rt over the obBection of the heirs of "intin de orBa that thesaid pleadin$ 'as filed o"t of time.
The oppositors, the heirs of "intin de orBa, then filed their ans'er to the co"nterclaim denin$ thechar$es therein, b"t later served interro$atories on the administrator relative to the averments ofsaid co"nterclaim. Epon receipt of the ans'er to said interro$atories specifin$ the acts "pon 'hichthe claim for moral dama$es 'as based, the oppositors filed an amended ans'er contendin$ thatinasm"ch as the acts, manifestations and pleadin$s referred to therein 'ere admittedl committed
and prepared b their la'er, Att. Amador ). ome, same cannot be made the basis of aco"nterclaim, said la'er not bein$ a part to the action, and f"rthermore, as the acts "pon 'hichthe claim for moral dama$es 'ere based had been committed prior to the effectivit of the ne' !ivil!ode, the provisions of said !ode on moral dama$es co"ld not be invo(ed. On an"ar 1:, 19:2,the administrator filed an amended co"nterclaim incl"din$ the co"nsel for the oppositors asdefendant.
There follo'ed a momentar respite in the proceedin$s "ntil another B"d$e 'as assi$ned to presideover said co"rt to dispose of the old case pendin$ therein. On A"$"st 1:, 19:2, "d$e )ncarnacioniss"ed an order denin$ admission to administrators amended co"nterclaim directed a$ainst thela'er, Att. Amador ). ome, holdin$ that a la'er, not bein$ a part to the action, cannot bemade ans'erable for co"nterclaims. Another order 'as also iss"ed on the same date dismissin$ theadministrators co"nterclaim for moral dama$es a$ainst the heirs of "intin de orBa and their
co"nsel for the alle$ed defamator acts, manifestation and "tterances, and statin$ that $rantin$ thesame to be meritorio"s, et it 'as a strictl private controvers bet'een said heirs and theadministrator 'hich 'o"ld not in an 'a affect the interest of the 4ntestate, and, therefore, notproper in an intestate proceedin$s. The !o"rt stressed that to allo' the ventilation of s"ch personalcontroversies 'o"ld f"rther dela the proceedin$s in the case 'hich had alread la$$ed for almost3 ears, a sit"ation 'hich the !o"rt 'o"ld not co"ntenance.
avin$ disposed of these pendin$ incidents 'hich arose o"t of the principal iss"e, that is, thedisp"ted statement of acco"nts s"bmitted b the administrator, the !o"rt rendered B"d$ment onSeptember :, 19:2, orderin$ the administrator to distrib"te the f"nds in his possession to the heirsas follo's= /1,39:.9 to the heirs of "intin de orBa /31.99 to Francisco de orBa /31.99 to the)state of "liana de orBa and /31.99 to @i$"el . 5aco, b"t as the latter still o'ed the intestate
the s"m of /9, said heirs 'as ordered to pa instead the 3 others the s"m of /16.: each. Afterconsiderin$ the testimonies of the 'itnesses presented b both parties and the available records onhand, the !o"rt fo"nd the administrator $"ilt of maladministration and sentenced !risanto de orBato pa to the oppositors, the heirs of "intin de orBa, the s"m of /03,33<.31, 'hich 'as 1M of theamo"nt 'hich the state lost, 'ith le$al interest from the date of the B"d$ment. On the same da, the!o"rt also iss"ed an order re"irin$ the administrator to deliver to the !ler( of that !o"rt /;!ertificate of 5eposit ;o. 21169 for /9<0.: 'hich 'as iss"ed in the name of "intin de orBa.
The administrator, 5r. !risanto de orBa, $ave notice to appeal from the lo'er !o"rts orders of A"$"st 1:, 19:2, the decision of September :, 19:2, and the order of even date, b"t 'hen the+ecord on Appeal 'as finall approved, the !o"rt ordered the e#cl"sion of the appeal from the order of September :, 19:2, re"irin$ the administrator to deposit the /; !ertificate of 5eposit ;o.21169 'ith the !ler( of !o"rt, after the oppositors had sho'n that d"rin$ the hearin$ of thatincident, the parties a$reed to abide b 'hatever resol"tion the !o"rt 'o"ld ma(e on the o'nership
of the f"nds covered b that deposit.
(e issues. J +ed"cin$ the iss"es to bare essentials, the "estions left for o"r determination are=718 'hether the co"nsel for a part in a case ma be incl"ded as a defendant in a co"nterclaim 728'hether a claim for moral dama$es ma be entertained in a proceedin$ for the settlement of anestate 738 'hat ma be considered as acts of maladministration and 'hether an administrator, asthe one in the case at bar, ma be held acco"ntable for an loss or dama$e that the estate "nder hisadministration ma inc"r b reason of his ne$li$ence, bad faith or acts of maladministration and 78in the case at bar has the 4ntestate or an of the heirs s"ffered an loss or dama$e b reason of theadministrators ne$li$ence, bad faith or maladministration? 4f so, 'hat is the amo"nt of s"ch loss ordama$e?
4. J Section 1, +"le 1, of the +"les of !o"rt defines a co"nterclaim as=
S)!T4O; 1. Counterclai) 'efined . J A co"nterclaim is an! clai), 'hether for mone orother'ise, 1(ic( a part! )a! (ave against t(e opposing part! . A co"nterclaim need notdismiss or defeat the recover so"$ht b the opposin$ part, b"t ma claim relief e#ceedin$in amo"nt or different in (ind from that so"$ht b the opposin$ parts claim.
4t is an elementar r"le of proced"re that a co"nterclaim is a relief available to a part-defendanta$ainst the adverse part 'hich ma or ma not be independent from the main iss"e. There is nocontrovers in the case at bar, that the acts, manifestations and act"ations alle$ed to be defamatorand "pon 'hich the co"nterclaim 'as based 'ere done or prepared b co"nsel for oppositors andthe administrator contends that as the ver oppositors manifested that 'hatever civil liabilit arisin$from acts, act"ations, pleadin$s and manifestations attrib"table to their la'er is enforceable a$ainst
said la'er, the amended co"nterclaim 'as filed a$ainst the latter not in his individ"al or personalcapacit b"t as co"nsel for the oppositors. 4t is his stand, therefore, that the lo'er erred in denin$admission to said pleadin$. &e differ from the vie' ta(en b the administrator. The appearance of ala'er as co"nsel for a part and his participation in a case as s"ch co"nsel does not ma(e him apart to the action. The fact that he represents the interests of his client or that he acts in their behalf 'ill not hold him liable for or ma(e him entitled to an a'ard that the !o"rt ma adB"dicate to theparties, other than his professional fees. The principle that a co"nterclaim cannot be filed a$ainstpersons 'ho are actin$ in representation of another J s"ch as tr"stees J in their individ"alcapacities 7!hambers vs. !ameron, 2 Fed. +"les Service, p. 1:: 29 F. S"pp. <28 co"ld be applied'ith more force and effect in the case of a co"nsel 'hose participation in the action is merelconfined to the preparation of the defense of his client. Appellant, ho'ever, asserted that he filed theco"nterclaim a$ainst said la'er not in his individ"al capacit b"t as co"nsel for the heirs of "intin
de orBa. "t as 'e have alread stated that the e#istence of a la'er-client relationship does notma(e the former a part to the action, even this alle$ation of appellant 'ill not alter the res"lt &ehave arrived at.
rantin$ that the la'er reall emploed intemperate lan$"a$e in the co"rse of the hearin$s or inthe preparation of the pleadin$s filed in connection 'ith this case, the remed a$ainst said co"nsel'o"ld be to have him cited for contempt of co"rt or ta(e other administrative meas"res that ma beproper in the case, b"t certainl not a co"nterclaim for moral dama$es.
44. J Special /roceedin$s ;o. 61 of the !o"rt of First 4nstance of +ial 7/asi$ branch8 'asinstit"ted for the p"rpose of settlin$ the 4ntestate )state of @arcelo de orBa. 4n ta(in$ co$niance ofthe case, the !o"rt 'as clothed 'ith a limited B"risdiction 'hich cannot e#pand to collateral mattersnot arisin$ o"t of or in an 'a related to the settlement and adB"dication of the properties of thedeceased, for it is a settled r"le that the B"risdiction of a probate co"rt is limited and special7"man vs. Ano$, 3< /hil. 3618. Altho"$h there is a tendenc no' to rela# this r"le and e#tend the
B"risdiction of the probate co"rt in respect to matters incidental and collateral to the e#ercise of itsreco$nied po'ers 71 Am. "r. 2:1-2:28, this sho"ld be "nderstood to comprehend onl casesrelated to those po'ers specificall allo'ed b the stat"tes. For it 'as even said that=
/robate proceedin$s are p"rel stat"tor and their f"nctions limited to the control of thepropert "pon the death of its o'ner, and cannot e#tend to the adB"dication of collateral"estions 7&oesmes, The American %a' of Administration, >ol. 4, p. :1, 662-6638.
4t 'as in the ac(no'led$ment of its limited B"risdiction that the lo'er co"rt dismissed theadministrators co"nterclaim for moral dama$es a$ainst the oppositors, partic"larl a$ainst @arcelade orBa 'ho alle$edl "ttered dero$ator remar(s intended to cast dishonor to said administratorsometime in 19: or 19:1, his onors $ro"nd bein$ that the co"rt e#ercisin$ limited B"risdiction
cannot entertain claims of this (ind 'hich sho"ld properl belon$ to a co"rt $eneral B"risdiction. From'hat ever an$le it ma be loo(ed at, a co"nterclaim for moral dama$es demanded b anadministrator a$ainst the heirs for alle$ed "tterances, pleadin$s and act"ations made in the co"rseof the proceedin$, is an e#traneo"s matter in a testate or intestate proceedin$s. The inBection intothe action of incidental "estions entirel forei$n in probate proceedin$s sho"ld not be enco"ra$edfor to do other'ise 'o"ld r"n co"nter to the clear intention of the la', for it 'as held that=
The speed settlement of the estate of deceased persons for the benefit of the creditors andthose entitled to the resid"e b 'a of inheritance or le$ac after the debts and e#penses ofadministration have been paid, is the r"lin$ spirit of o"r probate la' 7@a$aban"a vs. A(el, <2/hil., :6<, Off a., 10<18.
444. and 4>. J This appeal arose from the opposition of the heirs of "intin de orBa to the approval of
the statements of acco"nts rendered b the administrator of the 4ntestate )state of @arcelo de orBa,on the $ro"nd that certain fr"its 'hich sho"ld have been accr"ed to the estate 'ere "nacco"ntedfor, 'hich char$e the administrator denied. After a protracted and e#tensive hearin$ on the matter,the !o"rt, findin$ the administrator, 5r. !risanto de orBa, $"ilt of certain acts of maladministration,held him liable for the pament to the oppositors, the heirs of "intin de orBa, of 1M of the"nreported income 'hich the estate sho"ld have received. The evidence presented in the co"rtbelo' bear o"t the follo'in$ facts=
7a8 The estate o'ns a 6-door b"ildin$, ;os. 1:1, 1:3, 1::, 1:<, 1:9 and 1::1 in Acarra$aStreet, @anila, sit"ated in front of the Arran"e mar(et. Of this propert, the administrator reported tohave received for the estate the follo'in$ rentals=
The oppositors, in disp"tin$ this record income, presented at the 'itness stand %a"ro A$"ila, ala'er 'ho occ"pied the basement of 5oor ;o. 1:1 and the 'hole of 5oor ;o. 1:3 from 19: to;ovember 1:, 199, and 'ho testified that he paid rentals on said apartments as follo's=
From the testimon of said 'itness, it appears that from 19: to ;ovember 1:,199, he paid a totalof /20,2 for the lease of 5oor ;o. 1:3 and the basement of 5oor ;o. 1:1. These fi$"res 'erenot controverted or disp"ted b the administrator b"t claim that said tenant s"bleased theapartments occ"pied b /edro )nri"e and Soledad Sodora and paid the said rentals, not to theadministrator, b"t to said )nri"e. The transcript of the testimon of this 'itness reall bolster thiscontention J that %a"ro A$"ila tal(ed 'ith said /edro )nri"e 'hen he leased the aforementionedapartments and admitted pain$ the rentals to the latter and not to the administrator. 4t is interestin$to note that /edro )nri"e is the same person 'ho appeared to be the administrators collector,d"l a"thoried to receive the rentals from this Acarra$a propert and for 'hich services, said)nri"e received : per cent of the amo"nt he mi$ht be able to collect as commission. 4f 'e are tobelieve appellants contention, aside from the commission that /edro )nri"e received he alsos"blet the apartments he 'as occ"pin$ at a ver m"ch hi$her rate than that he act"all paid theestate 'itho"t the (no'led$e of the administrator or 'ith his approval. As the administrator alsoseemed to possess that pec"liar habit of $ivin$ little importance to boo((eepin$ methods, for henever (ept a led$er or boo( of entr for amo"nts received for the estate, &e find no record of therentals the lessees of the other doors 'ere pain$. 4t 'as, ho'ever, bro"$ht abo"t at the hearin$
that the 6 doors of this b"ildin$ are of the same sies and constr"ction and the lo'er !o"rt based itscomp"tation of the amo"nt this propert sho"ld have earned for the estate on the rental paid b Att.
A$"ila for the 1 1M2 doors that he occ"pied. &e see no e#c"se 'h the administrator co"ld not haveta(en co$niance of these rates and received the same for the benefit of the estate he 'asadministerin$, considerin$ the fact that he "sed to ma(e trips to @anila "s"all once a month and for 'hich he char$ed to the estate /0 as transportation e#penses for ever trip.
asin$ on the rentals paid b Att. A$"ila for 1 1M2 doors, the estate received /112,0 fromFebr"ar 1, 19:, to ;ovember 1:, 199, for the 6 doors, b"t the lo'er !o"rt held him acco"ntablenot onl for the s"m of /3,23: reported for the period ran$in$ from @arch 1, 19:, to 5ecember31, 199, b"t also for a deficit of /9,:2: or a total of /12,<6. The record sho's, ho'ever that the"pper floor of 5oor ;o. 1:9 'as vacant in September, 199, and as Att. A$"ila "sed to pa /39 amonth for the "se of an entire apartment from September to ;ovember, 199, and he also paid /16for the "se of the basement of an apartment 75oor ;o. 1:18, the "se, therefore, of said "pper floor'o"ld cost /23 'hich sho"ld be ded"cted, even if the comp"tation of the lo'er !o"rt 'o"ld haveto be follo'ed.
There bein$ no proper evidence to sho' that the administrator collected more rentals than those
reported b him, e#cept in the instance alread mentioned, &e are rel"ctant to bold him acco"ntablein the amo"nt for 'hich he 'as held liable b the lo'er !o"rt, and &e thin( that "nder thecirc"mstances it 'o"ld be more B"st to add to the s"m reported b the administrator as received bhim as rents for 19:-199 onl, the difference bet'een the s"m reported as paid b Att. A$"ila andthe s"m act"all paid b the latter as rents of 1 1M2 of the apartments d"rin$ the said period, or/2:,:<.9 1M of 'hich is /6,36.2< 'hich shall be paid to the oppositors.
The record also sho's that in "l, 19:, the administrator delivered to the other heirs 5oors ;os.1::, 1:<, 1:9 and 1::1 altho"$h 5oors ;os. 1:1 and 1:3 adB"dicated to the oppositorsremained "nder his administration. For the period from an"ar to "ne, 19:, that the entirepropert 'as still administered b him, the administrator reported to have received for the 2oppositors apartments for said period of si# months at /160.33 a month, the s"m of /1,1 'hichbelon$s to the oppositors and sho"ld be ta(en from the amo"nt reported b the administrator.
The lo'er !o"rt comp"ted at / a month the pre-'ar rental admittedl received for everapartment, the income that said propert 'o"ld have earned from 191 to 19, or a total of/11,:2, b"t as &e have to e#cl"de the period covered b the apanese occ"pation, the estatesho"ld receive onl P,DDE 1M of 'hich /<2 the administrator sho"ld pa to the oppositors for theear 191.
7b8 The 4ntestate estate also o'ned a parcel of land in @aapap, ;"eva )ciBa, 'ith an area of <1hectares, 9: ares and centares, ac"ired b "intin de orBa the spo"ses !ornelio Saran$aa andFeliciana @ariano in !ivil !ase ;O. 619 of the !o"rt of First 4nstance of said province, 4n virt"e ofthe a$reement entered into b the heirs, this propert 'as t"rned over b the estate of "intin deorBa to the intestate and formed part of the $eneral mass of said estate. The report of the
administrator failed to disclose an ret"rn from this propert alle$in$ that he had not ta(enpossession of the same. e does not den ho'ever that he (ne' of the e#istence of this land b"tclaimed that 'hen he demanded the deliver of the !ertificate of Title coverin$ this propert, +o$elio%imaco, then administrator of the estate of "intin de orBa, ref"sed to s"rrender the same and hedid not ta(e an f"rther action to recover the same.
To co"nteract the insin"ation that the )state of "intin de orBa 'as in possession of this propertfrom 19 to 19:, the oppositors presented several 'itnesses, amon$ them 'as an old man,;arciso /"nal, 'ho testified that he (ne' both "intin and Francisco de orBa that before the 'ar
or sometime in 193<, the former administrator of the 4ntestate, "intin de orBa, offered him theposition of overseer 7encar$ado8 of this land b"t he 'as notable to ass"me the same d"e to thedeath of said administrator that on "l <, 19:1, herein appellant invited him to $o to his ho"se in/ateros, +ial, and 'hile in said ho"se, he 'as instr"cted b appellant to testif in co"rt ne#t dathat he 'as the overseer of the @aapap propert for "intin de orBa from 193<-19, deliverin$the earl proceeds of 1, cavanes of /ala to +o$elio %imaco that he did not need to be afraid
beca"se both "intin de orBa and +o$elio %imaco 'ere alread dead. "t as he (ne' that the factson 'hich he 'as to testif 'ere false, he 'ent instead to the ho"se of one of the da"$hters of"intin de orBa, 'ho, to$ether 'ith her brother, Att. "an de orBa, accompanied him to the ho"seof the co"nsel for said oppositors before 'hom his s'orn declaration 'as ta(en 7)#h. 38.
Other 'itnesses, i.e., 4sidro en"a, Federico !oBo, )milio de la !r" and )rnesto @an$"labnan,testified that the 'ere some of the tenants of the @aapap propert that the 'ere pain$ theirshares to the overseers of Francisco de orBa and sometimes to his 'ife, 'hich the administrator'as not able to contradict, and the lo'er !o"rt fo"nd no reason 'h the administrator 'o"ld fail tota(e possession of this propert considerin$ that this 'as even the s"bBect of the a$reement ofFebr"ar 16, 19, e#ec"ted b the heirs of the 4ntestate.
The lo'er !o"rt, $ivin$ d"e credence to the testimonies of the 'itnesses for the oppositors,comp"ted the loss the estate s"ffered in the form of "nreported income from the rice lands for 1ears at /6<, 76,< a ear8and the amo"nt of /, from the remainin$ portion of the land notdevoted to rice c"ltivation 'hich 'as bein$ leased at /2 per hectare. !onse"entl, the !o"rt heldthe administrator liable to appellees in the s"m of /1<,<: 'hich is 1M of the total amo"nt 'hichsho"ld have accr"ed to the estate for this item.
"t if &e e#cl"de the 3 ears of occ"pation, the income for < ears 'o"ld be /6,9 for thericelands and /2,0 7at / a ear8 for the remainin$ portion not developed to rice c"ltivation or atotal of /0,<, 1M of 'hich is P6,6F 'hich &e hold the administrator liable to the oppositors.
7c8 The acienda alaBala located in said to'n of +ial, 'as divided into 3 parts= the /"nta sectionbelon$ed to @arcelo de orBa, the a$ombon$ pertained to ernardo de orBa and Francisco de
orBa $ot the alaBala proper. For the p"rpose of this case, 'e 'ill B"st deal 'ith that part called"nta. This propert has an area of 1,3:, hectares, 29 ares and 2 centares 7)#h. 368 of 'hich,accordin$ to the s"rveor 'ho meas"red the same, 2 hectares 'ere of c"ltivated rice fields and1 hectares dedicated to the plantin$ of "pland rice. 4t has also timberland and forest 'hichprod"ce considerable amo"nt of trees and fire'oods. From the said propert 'hich has an assessedval"e of /11:, and for 'hich the estates pa real estate ta# of /1,: ann"all, the administrator reported the follo'in$=
This statement 'as assailed b the oppositors and to s"bstantiate their char$e that the administrator did not file the tr"e income of the propert, the presented several 'itnesses 'ho testified that there'ere abo"t 2 tenants 'or(in$ therein that these tenants paid to !risanto de orBa rentals at therate of 6 cavanes of pala per hectare that in the ears of 193 and 19, the apanese 'ere theones 'ho collected their rentals, and that the estate co"ld have received no less than 1, cavanesof pala earl. After the administrator had presented 'itnesses to ref"te the facts previo"sltestified to b the 'itnesses for the oppositors, the !o"rt held that the report of the administrator didnot contain the real income of the propert devoted to rice c"ltivation, 'hich 'as fi#ed at 1,cavanes ever ear J for 191, 192, 19:, 196, 19<, 190, 199 and 19:, or a total of 0,cavanes val"ed at /<3,. "t as the administrator acco"nted for the s"m of /11,1:: collectedfrom rice harvests and if to this amo"nt 'e add the s"m of /0,<39.2 for e#penses, this 'ill ma(e atotal of /19,09.2, th"s leavin$ a deficit of /:3,1:.0, of 'hich 'ill be /13,2<6.: 'hich the
administrator is held liable to pa the heirs of "intin de orBa.
4t 'as also proved d"rin$ the hearin$ that the forest land of this propert ields considerable amo"ntof mar(etable fire'oods. Ta(in$ into consideration the testimonies of 'itnesses for both parties, the!o"rt arrived at the concl"sion that the administrator sold to re$orio Santos fire'oods 'orth /6in 191, /3,: in 19: and /,2 in 196 or a total of /0,3. As the report incl"ded onl theamo"nt of /62:, there 'as a balance of /<,6<: in favor of the estate. The oppositors 'ere not ableto present an proof of sales made after these ears, if there 'ere an and the administrator 'asheld acco"ntable to the oppositors for onl /1,910.<:.
7d 8 The estate also, o'ned ricefields in !ainta, +ial, 'ith a total area of 22 hectares, <6 ares and 66centares. Of this partic"lar item, the administrator reported an income of /12,1 from 19: to 19:1.The oppositors protested a$ainst this report and presented 'itnesses to disprove the same.
asilio avier 'or(ed as a tenant in the land of "liana de orBa 'hich is near the land belon$in$ tothe 4ntestate, the 2 properties bein$ separated onl b a river. As tenant of "liana de orBa, he (ne'the tenants 'or(in$ on the propert and also (no's that both lands are of the same class, and thatan area accommodatin$ one cavan of seedlin$s ields at most 1 cavanes and 6 cavanes at theleast. The administrator failed to overcome this testimon. The lo'er !o"rt considerin$ the factstestified to b this 'itness made a findin$ that the propert belon$in$ to this 4ntestate 'as act"allocc"pied b several persons accommodatin$ 13 cavanes of seedlin$s that as for ever cavan ofseedlin$s, the land prod"ces 6 cavanes of pala, the 'hole area "nder c"ltivation 'o"ld have
ielded 01 cavanes a ear and "nder the :-: sharin$ sstem 7'hich 'as testified b 'itnessavier8, the estate 'o"ld have received no less than : cavanes ever ear. ;o', for the period of< ears J from 191 to 19:, e#cl"din$ the 3 ears of 'ar J the correspondin$ earnin$ of theestate sho"ld be 2,03: cavanes, o"t of 'hich the : cavanes from the harvest of 191 is val"ed at/1,21: and the rest 2,3 cavanes at /1 is val"ed at /2,3, or all in all /2:,:1:. 4f from thisamo"nt the reported income of /12,1 is ded"cted, there 'ill be a balance of /13,11.1 1M of
'hich or PH,H.F the administrator is held liable to pa to the oppositors.
7e8 The records sho' that the administrator paid s"rchar$es and penalties 'ith a total of /900.<: for his fail"re to pa on time the ta#es imposed on the properties "nder his administration. e advancedthe reason that he la$$ed in the pament of those ta# obli$ations beca"se of lac( of cash balancefor the estate. The oppositors, ho'ever, presented evidence that on October 29, 1939, theadministrator received from "liana de orBa the s"m of /2,<:.1< to$ether 'ith certain paperspertainin$ to the intestate 7)#h. 8,aside from the chec(s in the name of "intin de orBa. %i(e'ise,for his fail"re to pa the ta#es on the b"ildin$ at Acarra$a for 19<, 190 and 199, said propert'as sold at p"blic a"ction and the administrator had to redeem the same at /3,29:.0, altho"$h theamo"nt that sho"ld have been paid 'as onl /2,91<.26. The estate therefore s"ffered a lossof PHFD. . Attrib"tin$ these s"rchar$es and penalties to the ne$li$ence of the administrator, thelo'er !o"rt adB"d$ed him liable to pa the oppositors of /1,366.9<, the total loss s"ffered b the4ntestate, or PHI6.FI.
7f 8 Sometime in 192, a bi$ fire raed n"mero"s ho"ses in /ateros, +ial, incl"din$ that of 5r.!risanto de orBa. Thereafter, he claimed that amon$ the properties b"rned therein 'as his safecontainin$ /1:, belon$in$ to the estate "nder his administration. The administrator contendedthat this loss 'as alread proved to the satisfaction of the !o"rt 'ho, approved the same b order of an"ar 0, 193, p"rportedl iss"ed b "d$e Servillano /laton7)#h. 8. The oppositors contestedthe $en"ineness of this order and presented on April 21, 19:, an e#pert 'itness 'ho cond"ctedseveral tests to determine the probable a$e of the "estioned doc"ment, and arrived at theconcl"sion that the "estioned in( 'ritin$ *7Fdo8* appearin$ at the bottom of )#hibit cannot bemore than ears old 7)#h. 398. o'ever, another e#pert 'itness presented b the administratorcontradicted this findin$ and testified that this concl"sion arrived at b e#pert 'itness @r. /edro
@anaKares 'as not s"pported b a"thorities and 'as merel the res"lt of his o'n theor, as there'as no method et discovered that 'o"ld determine the a$e of a doc"ment, for ever doc"ment hasits o'n reaction to different chemicals "sed in the tests. There is, ho'ever, another fact that calledthe attention of the lo'er !o"rt= the administrator testified that the mone and other papers deliveredb "liana de orBa to him on October 29, 1939, 'ere saved from said fire. The administrator
B"stified the e#istence of these val"ables b assertin$ that these properties 'ere loc(ed b "lianade orBa in her dra'er in the *casa solarie$a* in /ateros and hence 'as not in his safe 'hen hisho"se, to$ether 'ith the safe, 'as b"rned. This line of reasonin$ is reall s"bBect to do"bt and thelo'er !o"rt opined, that it r"ns co"nter to the ordinar co"rse of h"man behavio"r for anadministrator to leave in the dra'er of the *aparador* of "liana de orBa the mone and otherdoc"ments belon$in$ to the estate "nder his administration, 'hich deliver has receipted for, ratherthan to (eep it in his safe to$ether 'ith the alle$ed /1:, also belon$in$ to the 4ntestate. Thes"bse"ent orders of "d$e /laton also p"t the defense of appellant to bad li$ht, for on -ebruar! ,
6KIH, the !o"rt re"ired !risanto de orBa to appear before the !o"rt of e#amination of the otherheirs in connection 'ith the reported loss, and on @arch 1, 193, a"thoried the la'ers for theother parties to inspect the safe alle$edl b"rned 7)#h. 3:8. 4t is inconceivable that "d$e /laton'o"ld still order the inspection of the safe if there 'as reall an order approvin$ the loss of those/1:,. &e m"st not for$et, in this connection, that the records of this case 'ere b"rned and thatat the time of the hearin$ of this incident in 19:1, "d$e /laton 'as alread dead. The lo'er !o"rtalso fo"nd no reason 'h the administrator sho"ld (eep in his s"ch amo"nt of mone, for ordinarpr"dence 'o"ld dictate that as an administration f"nds that come into his possession in a fid"ciarcapacit sho"ld not be min$led 'ith his personal f"nds and sho"ld have been deposited in the an(
in the name of the intestate. The administrator 'as held responsible for this loss and ordered to pa thereof, or the s"m of /3,<:.
7g 8 Ena"thoried e#pendit"res J
1. The report of the administrator contained certain s"ms amo"ntin$ to /2,13 paid to and receipted
b "anita >. arencio the administrators 'ife, as his private secretar. 4n e#plainin$ this item, theadministrator alle$ed that he needed her services to (eep receipts and records for him, and that hedid not sec"re first the a"thoriation from the co"rt before ma(in$ these disb"rsements beca"se it'as merel a p"re administrative f"nction.
The (eepin$ of receipts and retainin$ in his c"stod records connected 'ith the mana$ement of theproperties "nder administration is a d"t that properl belon$s to the administrator, necessar tos"pport the statement of acco"nts that he is obli$ed to s"bmit to the co"rt for approval. 4f ever his'ife too( char$e of the safe(eepin$ of these receipts and for 'hich she sho"ld be compensated, thesame sho"ld be ta(en from his fee. This disb"rsement 'as disallo'ed b the !o"rt for bein$"na"thoried and the administrator re"ired to pa the oppositors , thereof or PH.E .
2. The salaries of /edro )nri"e, as collector of the Acarra$a propert of riccio @atieno and%eoncio /ere, as encar$ados, and of >icente /an$aniban and ermini$ildo @acetas as forest-$"ards 'ere fo"nd B"stified, altho"$h "n a"thoried, as the appear to be reasonable and necessarfor the care and preservation of the 4ntestate.
3. The lo'er !o"rt disallo'ed as "nB"stified and "nnecessar the e#penses for salaries paid tospecial policemen amo"ntin$ to /1,:9. Appellant contended that he so"$ht for the services of@acario Nam"n$ol and others to act as special policemen d"rin$ harvest time beca"se most of the'or(ers tiltin$ the /"nta propert 'ere not natives of alaBala b"t of the nei$hborin$ to'ns and the'ere li(el to r"n a'a 'ith the harvest 'itho"t $ivin$ the share of the estate if the 'ere notpoliced. This (ind of reasonin$ did not appear to be convincin$ to the trial B"d$e as the ca"se fors"ch fear seemed to e#ist onl in the ima$ination. rantin$ that s"ch (ind of sit"ation e#isted, theproper thin$ for the administrator to do 'o"ld have been to sec"re the previo"s a"thoriation fromthe !o"rt if he failed to sec"re the help of the local police. e sho"ld be held liable for this"na"thoried e#pendit"re and pa the heirs of "intin de orBa thereof or PHFF. .
. From the ear 192 'hen his ho"se 'as b"rned, the administrator and his famil too( shelter atthe ho"se belon$in$ to the 4ntestate (no'n as *casa solarie$a* 'hich, in the /roBect of /artition 'asadB"dicated to his father, Francisco de orBa. This propert, ho'ever, remained "nder hisadministration and for its repairs he spent from 19:-19:, /16:,1, d"l receipted.
;one of these repairs appear to be e#traordinar for the receipts 'ere for nipa, for carpenters andthatchers. Altho"$h it is tr"e that +"le 0:, section 2 provides that=
e#ec"tor or administrator shall maintain in tenant able repair the ho"ses and other str"ct"resand fences belon$in$ to the estate, and deliver the same in s"ch repair to the heirs ordevisees 'hen directed so to do b the co"rt.
et considerin$ that d"rin$ his occ"panc of the said *casa solarie$a* he 'as not pain$ an rentalat all, it is b"t reasonable that he sho"ld ta(e care of the e#penses for the ordinar repair of saidho"se. Appellant asserted that had he and his famil not occ"pied the same, the 'o"ld have to pasomeone to 'atch and ta(e care of said ho"se. "t this 'ill not e#c"se him from this responsibilitfor the disb"rsements he made in connection 'ith the aforementioned repairs beca"se even if he
staed in another ho"se, he 'o"ld have had to pa rentals or else ta(e char$e also of e#penses forthe repairs of his residence. The administrator sho"ld be held liable to the oppositors in the amo"ntof PH.D .
:. Appellant reported to have inc"rred e#penses amo"ntin$ to /6,3.<: for alle$ed repairs on therice mill in /ateros, also belon$in$ to the 4ntestate. Of the disb"rsements made therein, the items
correspondin$, to )#hibits 4, 4-1, 4-21, %-26, %-1:, %-6 and %-6:, in the total s"m of /:<.< 'erereBected b the lo'er co"rt on the $ro"nd that the 'ere all "nsi$ned altho"$h some 'ere dated.The lo'er !o"rt, ho'ever, made an oversi$ht in incl"din$ the s"m of /1: covered b )#hibit %-26'hich 'as d"l si$ned b !la"dio +ees beca"se this does not refer to the repair of the rice-mill b"tfor the roofin$ of the ho"se and another b"ildin$ and shall be allo'ed. !onse"entl, the s"m of/:<.< shall be red"ced to /2.< 'hich added to the s"m of /3,:9 representin$ e#pendit"resreBected as "na"thoried to 'it=
)#hibit %-:9 ............. /:. Ie( &in$
)#hibit %-6 ............. 616. Ie( &in$
)#hibit %-61 ............. 6. Ie( &in$
)#hibit %-62 ............. 0. Ie( &in$
)#hibit %-63 ............. 10. Ie( &in$
)#hibit -2 ............. 323. scale*o'e*
Total ......................
PH,EK.E E
'ill $ive a total of /3,<9 1M of 'hich is /069.92 that belon$s to the oppositors.
6. On the e#penses for plantin$ in the !ainta ricefields= J 4n his statement of acco"nts, appellantreported to have inc"rred a total e#pense of /:,9<< for the plantin$ of the ricefields in !ainta, +ial,from the a$ric"lt"ral ear 19:-6 to 19:-:1. 4t 'as proved that the prevailin$ sharin$ sstem inthis part of the co"ntr 'as on :-: basis. Appellant admitted that e#penses for plantin$ 'ereadvanced b the estate and li"idated after each harvest. "t the report, e#cept for the a$ric"lt"ralear 19: contained nothin$ of the paments that the tenants sho"ld have made. 4f the totale#penses for said plantin$ amo"nted to /:,9<<, thereof or /2,900.: sho"ld have been paid bthe tenants as their share of s"ch e#pendit"res, and as /96: 'as reported b the administrator as
paid bac( in 19:, there still remains a balance of /2,23.: "nacco"nted for. For this shorta$e, theadministrator is responsible and sho"ld pa the oppositors thereof or PE.DF .
<. On the transportation e#penses of the administrator= J 4t appears that from the ear 19: to19:1, the administrator char$ed the estate 'ith a total of /:,1< for transportation e#penses. The "nreceipted disb"rsements 'ere correspondin$l itemied, a tpical e#ample of 'hich is as follo's=
19:
astos de viaBe del administrador From/ateros
To /asi$ ................ : # /. U /2.
To @anila ...............: #
/1. U /:.
To !ainta ................ 0 # /0. U /6.
To alaBala ............... : # /3:. U /1<:.
U /399.
7)#hibit &-:8.
From the report of the administrator, &e are bein$ made to believe that the 4ntestate estate is alosin$ proposition and ass"min$ arguendo that this is tr"e, that precario"s financial condition 'hichhe, as administrator, sho"ld (no', did not deter !risanto de orBa from char$in$ to the depletedf"nds of the estate comparativel bi$ amo"nts for his transportation e#penses. Appellant tried to
B"stif these char$es b contendin$ that he "sed his o'n car in ma(in$ those trips to @anila, /asi$and !ainta and a la"nch in visitin$ the properties in alaBala, and the 'ere for the $asolinecons"med. This rather "nreasonable spendin$ of the estates f"nd prompted the !o"rt to observethat one 'ill have to spend onl /. for transportation in ma(in$ a trip from /ateros to @anila andpracticall the same amo"nt in $oin$ to /asi$. From his report for 199 alone, appellant made a totalof 9< trips to these places or an avera$e of one trip for ever 3 1M2 das. Iet &e m"st not for$et thatit 'as d"rin$ this period that the administrator failed or ref"sed to ta(e co$niance of the prevailin$
rentals of commercial places in @anila that ca"sed certain loss to the estate and for 'hich he 'asaccordin$l held responsible. For the reason that the alle$ed disb"rsements made for transportatione#penses cannot be said to be economical, the lo'er !o"rt held that the administrator sho"ld beheld liable to the oppositors for thereof or the s"m of /1,292.:, tho"$h &e thin( that this s"msho"ld still be red"ced to PEE .
The administrator also ordered boo(lets of printed contracts of lease in the name of the aciendaalaBala 'hich cost /1:. As the said hacienda 'as divided into 3 parts one belon$in$ to this4ntestate and the other t'o parts to Francisco de oria and ernardo de orBa, ordinaril the
4ntestate sho"ld onl sho"lder VM3 of the said e#pense, b"t as the tenants 'ho testifiedd"rin$ the hearin$ of the matter testified that those printed forms 'ere not
bein$ "sed, the !o"rt adB"d$ed the administrator personall responsible forthis amo"nt. The records reveal, that this printed form 'as not "tiliedbeca"se the tenants ref"sed to si$n an, and &e can pres"me that 'hen theadministrator ordered for the printin$ of the same, he did not foresee thissit"ation. As there is no sho'in$ that said printed contracts 'ere "sed banother and that the are still in the possession of the administrator 'hichco"ld be "tilied antime, this disb"rsement ma be allo'ed.
The report also contains a receipt of pament made to @r. Severo Abellera in the s"m of /3<: forhis transportation e#penses as one of the t'o commissioners 'ho prepared the /roBect of /artition.The oppositors 'ere able to prove that on @a 2, 191, the !o"rt a"thoried the administrator to
'ithdra' from the f"nds of the intestate the s"m of /3 to defra the transportation e#penses ofthe commissioners. The administrator, ho'ever, alle$ed that he "sed this amo"nt for the pament ofcertain fees necessar in connection 'ith the approval of the proposed plan of the Acarra$apropert 'hich 'as then bein$ processed in the !it )n$ineers Office. From that testimon, it 'o"ldseem that appellant co"ld even $o to the e#tent of disobein$ the order of the !o"rt specifin$ for'hat p"rpose that amo"nt sho"ld be appropriated and too( "pon himself the tas( of B"d$in$ for 'hatit 'ill serve best. Since he 'as not able to sho' or prove that the mone intended and ordered bthe !o"rt to be paid for the transportation e#penses of the commissioners 'as spent for the benefitof the estate as claimed, the administrator sho"ld be held responsible therefor and pa to theoppositors of /3<: or the s"m of PKH.F .
The records reveal that for the service of s"mmons to the defendants in !ivil !ase ;o. 0 of the!o"rt of First 4nstance of +ial, /1 'as paid to the /rovincial Sheriff of the same province 7)#hibit-<8. o'ever, an item for / appeared to have been paid to the !hief of /olice on alaBalaalle$edl for the service of the same s"mmons. Appellant claimed that as the defendants in said civilcase lived in remote barrios, the services of the !hief of /olice as dele$ate or a$ent of the /rovincialSheriff 'ere necessar. e for$ot probabl the fact that the local chiefs of police are dep"tsheriffs e*+officio. The administrator 'as therefore ordered b the lo'er !o"rt to pa of saidamo"nt or /1 to the oppositors.
The administrator incl"ded in his +eport the s"m of /:: paid to Att. Filamor for his professionalservices rendered for the defense of the administrator in .+. ;o. %-1<9, 'hich 'as decideda$ainst him, 'ith costs. The lo'er !o"rt disallo'ed this disb"rsement on the $ro"nd that this !o"rtprovided that the costs of that liti$ation sho"ld not be borne b the estate b"t b the administratorhimself, personall.
!osts of a liti$ation in the S"preme !o"rt ta#ed b the !ler( of !o"rt, after a verified petition hasbeen filed b the prevailin$ part, shall be a'arded to said part and 'ill onl incl"de his fee and thatof his attorne for their appearance 'hich shall not be more than / e#penses for the printin$ andthe copies of the record on appeal all la'f"l char$es imposed b the !ler( of !o"rt fees for theta(in$ of depositions and other e#penses connected 'ith the appearance of 'itnesses or for la'f"lfees of a commissioner 75e la !r", /hilippine S"preme !o"rt /ractice, p. <-<18. 4f the costsprovided for in that case, 'hich this !o"rt ordered to be char$eable personall a$ainst theadministrator are not recoverable b the latter, 'ith more reason this item co"ld not be char$ed
a$ainst the 4ntestate. !onse"entl, the administrator sho"ld pa the oppositors of the s"m of/:: or /13<.:.
7e8 The lo'er !o"rt in its decision re"ired appellant to pa the oppositors the s"m of /1,39: o"t ofthe f"nds still in the possession of the administrator.
4n the statement of acco"nts s"bmitted b the administrator, there appeared a cash balance of/:,0:1.1< as of A"$"st 31, 1961. From this amo"nt, the s"m of /1,2.96 representin$ the!ertificate of 5eposit ;o. 21619 and !hec( ;o. :<330, both of the /hilippine ;ational an( and inthe name of "intin de orBa, 'as ded"cted leavin$ a balance of /,00. As "d$e P"l"eta orderedthe deliver to the oppositors of the amo"nt of /1,09 in his order of October 0, 19:1 the deliver of the amo"nt of /01 to the estate of "liana de orBa in his order of October 23, 19:1, and the s"mof /932.32 to the same estate of "liana de orBa b order of the !o"rt of Febr"ar 29, 19:2, or atotal of /3,632.32 after ded"ctin$ the same from the cash in the possession of the administrator,there 'ill onl be a remainder of /13.90.
The 4ntestate is also the creditor of @i$"el . 5aco, heir and administrator of the estate of !risantade orBa, in the s"m of /9 7)#hibits S and S-18. Addin$ this credit to the act"al cash on hand,
there 'ill be a total of /1,3.90, , of 'hich or /2:0.< properl belon$s to the oppositors.o'ever, as there is onl a resid"e of /13.90 in the hands of the administrator and dividin$ itamon$ the 3 $ro"ps of heirs 'ho are not indebted to the 4ntestate, each $ro"p 'ill receive /.99,and @i$"el . 5aco is "nder obli$ation to reimb"rse /213.<6 to each of them.
The lo'er !o"rt ordered the administrator to deliver to the oppositors the amo"nt of /1,39:.9 and/31.99 each to Francisco de orBa and the estate of "liana de orBa, b"t as &e have arrived atthe comp"tation that the three heirs not idebted to the 4ntestate o"$ht to receive /.99 each o"t ofthe amo"nt of /13.90, the oppositors are entitled to the s"m of /1,0.91 J the amo"nt ded"ctedfrom them as ta#es b"t 'hich the !o"rt ordered to be ret"rned to them J pl"s /.99 or a total of/1,12:.9. 4t appearin$ ho'ever, that ina oint @otion dated ;ovember 2<, 19:2, d"l approved bthe !o"rt, the parties a$reed to fi# the amo"nt at /1,12:.:0, as the amo"nt d"e and said heirs havealread received this amo"nt in satisfaction of this item, no other s"m can be char$eable a$ainst the
administrator.
7f 8 The probate !o"rt also ordered the administrator to render an acco"ntin$ of his administrationd"rin$ the apanese occ"pation on the $ro"nd that altho"$h appellant maintained that 'hatevermone he received d"rin$ that period is 'orthless, same havin$ been declared 'itho"t an val"e,et d"rin$ the earl ears of the 'ar, or d"rin$ 192-3, the /hilippine peso 'as still in circ"lation,and articles of prime necessit as rice and fire'ood commanded hi$h prices and 'ere paid 'ith
Be'els or other val"ables.
"t &e m"st not for$et that in his order of 5ecember 11, 19:, "d$e /eKa re"ired theadministrator to render an acco"ntin$ of his administration onl from @arch 1, 19:, to 5ecember ofthe same ear 'itho"t orderin$ said administrator to incl"de therein the occ"pation period. Altho"$h
the !o"rt belo' mentioned the condition then prevailin$ d"rin$ the 'ar-ears, &e cannot simplpres"me, in the absence of proof to that effect, that the administrator received s"ch val"ables orproperties for the "se or in e#chan$e of an asset or prod"ce of the 4ntestate, and in vie' of theaforementioned order of "d$e /eKa, 'hich &e find no reason to dist"rb, &e see no practicalreason for re"irin$ appellant to acco"nt for those occ"pation ears 'hen everthin$ 'as affectedb the abnormal conditions created b the 'ar. The records of the /hilippine ;ational an( sho'that there 'as a c"rrent acco"nt Bointl in the names of !risanto de orBa and "anita >. arencio,his 'ife, 'ith a balance of /36,<:.3: in apanese militar notes and admittedl belon$in$ to the
4ntestate and &e do not believe that the oppositors or an of the heirs 'o"ld be interested in anacco"ntin$ for the p"rpose of dividin$ or distrib"tin$ this deposit.
7g 8 On the s"m of /13,29 for administrators fees=
4t is not disp"ted that the administrator set aside for himself and collected from the estate the s"m of
/13,29 as his fees from 19: to 19:1 at the rate of /2, a ear. There is no controvers as tothe fact that this appropriated amo"nt 'as ta(en 'itho"t the order or previo"s approval b theprobate !o"rt. ;either is there an do"bt that the administration of the 4ntestate estate b !risantode orBa is far from satisfactor.
Iet it is a fact that !risanto de orBa e#ercised the f"nctions of an administrator and is entitled alsoto a certain amo"nt as compensation for the 'or( and services he has rendered as s"ch. ;o',considerin$ the e#tent and sie of the estate, the amo"nt involved and the nat"re of the properties"nder administration, the amo"nt collected b the administrator for his compensation at /2 amonth is not "nreasonable and sho"ld therefore be allo'ed.
4t mi$ht be ar$"ed a$ainst this disb"rsement that the records are replete 'ith instances of hi$hl
irre$"lar practices of the administrator, s"ch as the pretended i$norance of the necessit of a boo(or led$er or at least a list of chronolo$ical and dated entries of mone or prod"ce the 4ntestateac"ired and the amo"nt of disb"rsements made for the same properties that admittedl he did nothave even a list of the names of the lessees to the properties "nder his administration, nor even alist of those 'ho o'ed bac( rentals, and altho"$h &e certainl a$ree 'ith the probate !o"rt infindin$ appellant $"ilt of acts of maladministration, specificall in mi#in$ the f"nds of the estate"nder his administration 'ith his personal f"nds instead of (eepin$ a c"rrent acco"nt for the4ntestate in his capacit as administrator, &e are of the opinion that despite these irre$"lar practicesfor 'hich he 'as held alread liable and made in some instances to reimb"rse the 4ntestate foramo"nts that 'ere not properl acco"nted for, his claim for compensation as administrators feesshall be as the are hereb allo'ed.
ecapitulation. J Ta(in$ all the matters threshed herein to$ether, the administrator is held liable topa to the heirs of "intin de orBa the follo'in$=
b ..................................................................
c ..................................................................
1.
d ...................................................................
13<.:
/6,21.
4n vie' of the fore$oin$, the decision appealed from is modified b red"cin$ the amo"nt that theadministrator 'as sentenced to pa the oppositors to the s"m of /6,21.<0 7instead of/03,33<.318, pl"s le$al interests on this amo"nt from the date of the decision appealed from, 'hichis hereb affirmed in all other respects. &itho"t prono"ncement as to costs. 4t is so ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Monte)a!or, e!es, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador and ndencia, JJ., conc"r.
This is a petition for revie' 1 of the Order of the !o"rt of First 4nstance of Abra in !ivil !ase ;o. 0:6,entitled Fort"nata arcena vs. %eon arcena, et al., denin$ the motions for reconsideration of its orderdismissin$ the complaint in the aforementioned case.
On @arch 31, 19<: Fort"nata arcena, mother of minors +osalio onilla and Salvacion onilla and'ife of /onciano onilla, instit"ted a civil action in the !o"rt of First 4nstance of Abra, to "iet titleover certain parcels of land located in Abra.
On @a 9, 19<:, defendants filed a 'ritten motion to dismiss the complaint, b"t before the hearin$ of the motion to dismiss, the co"nsel for the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint in order to incl"de
certain alle$ations therein. The motion to amend the complaint 'as $ranted and on "l 1<, 19<:,plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.
On A"$"st , 19<:, the defendants filed another motion to dismiss the complaint on the $ro"nd thatFort"nata arcena is dead and, therefore, has no le$al capacit to s"e. Said motion to dismiss 'asheard on A"$"st 1, 19<:. 4n said hearin$, co"nsel for the plaintiff confirmed the death of Fort"nataarcena, and as(ed for s"bstit"tion b her minor children and her h"sband, the petitioners hereinb"t the co"rt after the hearin$ immediatel dismissed the case on the $ro"nd that a dead personcannot be a real part in interest and has no le$al personalit to s"e.
On A"$"st 19, 19<:, co"nsel for the plaintiff received a cop of the order dismissin$ the complaintand on A"$"st 23, 19<:, he moved to set aside the order of the dismissal p"rs"ant to Sections 16
and 1< of +"le 3 of the +"les of !o"rt.2
On A"$"st 20, 19<:, the co"rt denied the motion for reconsideration filed b co"nsel for the plaintifffor lac( of merit. On September 1, 19<:, co"nsel for deceased plaintiff filed a 'ritten manifestationprain$ that the minors +osalio onilla and Salvacion onilla be allo'ed to s"bstit"te their deceasedmother, b"t the co"rt denied the co"nsels praer for lac( of merit. From the order, co"nsel for thedeceased plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration of the order dismissin$ the complaintclaimin$ that the same is in violation of Sections 16 and 1< of +"le 3 of the +"les of !o"rt b"t thesame 'as denied.
ence, this petition for revie'.
The !o"rt reverses the respondent !o"rt and sets aside its order dismissin$ the complaint in !ivil!ase ;o. 0:6 and its orders denin$ the motion for reconsideration of said order of dismissal. &hileit is tr"e that a person 'ho is dead cannot s"e in co"rt, et he can be s"bstit"ted b his heirs inp"rs"in$ the case "p to its completion. The records of this case sho' that the death of Fort"nataarcena too( place on "l 9, 19<: 'hile the complaint 'as filed on @arch 31, 19<:. This meansthat 'hen the complaint 'as filed on @arch 31, 19<:, Fort"nata arcena 'as still alive, andtherefore, the co"rt had ac"ired B"risdiction over her person. 4f thereafter she died, the +"les of!o"rt prescribes the proced"re 'hereb a part 'ho died d"rin$ the pendenc of the proceedin$can be s"bstit"ted. Ender Section 16, +"le 3 of the +"les of !o"rt *'henever a part to a pendin$case dies ... it shall be the d"t of his attorne to inform the co"rt promptl of s"ch death ... and to$ive the name and residence of his e#ec"tor, administrator, $"ardian or other le$al representatives.*This d"t 'as complied 'ith b the co"nsel for the deceased plaintiff 'hen he manifested before therespondent !o"rt that Fort"nata arcena died on "l 9, 19<: and as(ed for the proper s"bstit"tion
of parties in the case. The respondent !o"rt, ho'ever, instead of allo'in$ the s"bstit"tion,dismissed the complaint on the $ro"nd that a dead person has no le$al personalit to s"e. This is a$rave error. Article <<< of the !ivil !ode provides *that the ri$hts to the s"ccession are transmittedfrom the moment of the death of the decedent.* From the moment of the death of the decedent, theheirs become the absol"te o'ners of his propert, s"bBect to the ri$hts and obli$ations of thedecedent, and the cannot be deprived of their ri$hts thereto e#cept b the methods provided for bla'. The moment of death is the determinin$ factor 'hen the heirs ac"ire a definite ri$ht to theinheritance 'hether s"ch ri$ht be p"re or contin$ent. 4 The ri$ht of the heirs to the propert of thedeceased vests in them even before B"dicial declaration of their bein$ heirs in the testate or intestate
proceedin$s. 5 &hen Fort"nata arcena, therefore, died her claim or ri$ht to the parcels of land inliti$ation in !ivil !ase ;o. 0:6, 'as not e#tin$"ished b her death b"t 'as transmitted to her heirs "ponher death. er heirs have th"s ac"ired interest in the properties in liti$ation and became parties ininterest in the case. There is, therefore, no reason for the respondent !o"rt not to allo' their s"bstit"tionas parties in interest for the deceased plaintiff.
Ender Section 1<, +"le 3 of the +"les of !o"rt *after a part dies and the claim is not therebe#tin$"ished, the co"rt shall order, "pon proper notice, the le$al representative of the deceased toappear and be s"bstit"ted for the deceased, 'ithin s"ch time as ma be $ranted ... .* The "estionas to 'hether an action s"rvives or not depends on the nat"re of the action and the dama$e s"edfor. 3 4n the ca"ses of action 'hich s"rvive the 'ron$ complained affects primaril and principall propertand propert ri$hts, the inB"ries to the person bein$ merel incidental, 'hile in the ca"ses of action 'hichdo not s"rvive the inB"r complained of is to the person, the propert and ri$hts of propert affected bein$incidental. 7 Follo'in$ the fore$oin$ criterion the claim of the deceased plaintiff 'hich is an action to "iettitle over the parcels of land in liti$ation affects primaril and principall propert and propert ri$hts andtherefore is one that s"rvives even after her death. 4t is, therefore, the d"t of the respondent !o"rt toorder the le$al representative of the deceased plaintiff to appear and to be s"bstit"ted for her. "t 'hatthe respondent !o"rt did, "pon bein$ informed b the co"nsel for the deceased plaintiff that the latter 'asdead, 'as to dismiss the complaint. This sho"ld not have been done for "nder the same Section 1<, +"le
3 of the +"les of !o"rt, it is even the d"t of the co"rt, if the le$al representative fails to appear, to orderthe opposin$ part to proc"re the appointment of a le$al representative of the deceased. 4n the instantcase the respondent !o"rt did not have to bother orderin$ the opposin$ part to proc"re the appointmentof a le$al representative of the deceased beca"se her co"nsel has not onl as(ed that the minor childrenbe s"bstit"ted for her b"t also s"$$ested that their "ncle be appointed as $"ardian ad lite) for thembeca"se their father is b"s in @anila earnin$ a livin$ for the famil. "t the respondent !o"rt ref"sed there"est for s"bstit"tion on the $ro"nd that the children 'ere still minors and cannot s"e in co"rt. This isanother $rave error beca"se the respondent !o"rt o"$ht to have (no'n that "nder the same Section 1<,+"le 3 of the +"les of !o"rt, the co"rt is directed to appoint a $"ardian ad lite) for the minor heirs./recisel in the instant case, the co"nsel for the deceased plaintiff has s"$$ested to the respondent !o"rtthat the "ncle of the minors be appointed to act as $"ardian ad lite) for them. En"estionabl, therespondent !o"rt has $ravel ab"sed its discretion in not complin$ 'ith the clear provision of the +"lesof !o"rt in dismissin$ the complaint of the plaintiff in !ivil !ase ;o. 0:6 and ref"sin$ the s"bstit"tion ofparties in the case.
4; >4)& OF T) FO+)O4;, the order of the respondent !o"rt dismissin$ the complaint in !ivil!ase ;o. 0:6 of the !o"rt of First 4nstance of Abra and the motions for reconsideration of the orderof dismissal of said complaint are set aside and the respondent !o"rt is hereb directed to allo' thes"bstit"tion of the minor children, 'ho are the petitioners therein for the deceased plaintiff and toappoint a "alified person as $"ardianad lite) for them. &itho"t prono"ncement as to costs.
SO O+5)+)5.
ee(an5ee ?C(air)an@, Ma5asiar, sguerra and Mu9oz Pal)a, JJ., concur.
ootnotes
1 &hich this !o"rt treats as special civil action as per its +esol"tion dated Febr"ar11, 19<6.
2 Section 16. 'ut! of Attorne! upon 1(ic( deat(, incapacit! or inco)petenc! of part! . - &henever a part to a pendin$ case dies, becomes incapacitated orincompetent, it shall be the d"t of his attorne to inform the co"rt promptl of s"ch
death, incapacit or incompetenc, and to $ive the name and residence of hise#ec"tor, administrator, $"ardian or other le$al representative.
Section 1<. 'eat( of part!. After a part dies and the claim is not therebe#tin$"ished, the co"rt shall order, "pon proper notice, the le$al representative of thedeceased to appear and to be s"bstit"ted for deceased, 'ithin a period of thirt 738
das, or 'ithin s"ch time as ma be $ranted. 4f the le$al representative fails toappear 'ithin said time, the co"rt ma order the opposin$ part to proc"re theappointment of a le$al representative of the 'ithin a time to be specified b the co"rt,and the representative shall immediatel appear for and on behalf of the interest ofthe deceased. The co"rt char$es involved in proc"rin$ s"ch appointment, if defraedb the opposin$ part, ma be recovered as costs. The heirs of the deceased ma beallo'ed to be s"bstit"ted for the deceased, 'itho"t re"irin$ the appointment of ane#ec"tor or administrator and the co"rt ma appoint $"ardian ad lite) for the minorheirs.
3 "an vs. eirs of "an, :3 /hil. 6:.
4barle vs. /o, 92 /hil. <21.
: @orales, et al. vs. Ibane, 90 /hil. 6<<.
6 4ron ate an( vs. rad, 10 E.S. 66:, 22 S!T :29, 6 %. ed. <39.
< &enber vs. St. /a"l !it !o., 9< Feb. 1 +. 39 !.!.A. <9.
G.R. No. L-2224 NoBe;er 29, 1971
TAR($LA %&A. &$ +*G), plaintiff appellee,vs.
NAR(I'* R*()A, *'$ RA/IR$ and R$/$&I*' RA/IR$, de!endants-a66ellants.TAR($LA %&A. &$ +*G) 6lainti!!-a66ellee, Bs. NAR(I'* R*()A, adinistrador de los
;ienes reli#tos de la !inada /atilde (antiBeros and <*N(IAN* LL*R$N, defendants-appellants.
Julio "ia!ungco for plaintiff+appellee.
Antonio Montilla for defendants+appellants.
/A?ALINTAL, J.:
This appeal from the decision of the !o"rt of First 4nstance of %ete, rendered Bointl in its !ivil!ases 161 and 163, 'as ori$inall ta(en to the !o"rt of Appeals b"t s"bse"entl certified to this!o"rt, onl "estion of la' bein$ involved.
Sometime in "l of 193: one @atilde !antiveros died intestate in !ari$ara, %ete. She 'as s"rvivedb h"sband, r"no @odesto, b"t left neither ascendant nor descendant. On October 12 of the sameear r"no @odesto filed an interstate proceedin$ in the !o"rt of First 4nstance of %ete 7Sp. /roc.
;o. 2:1:8, prain$ that he be named administrator of the estate and event"all declared thedeceaseds onl heir. efore the petition co"ld be finall resolved one Posima de la !r" presentedfor probate in the same proceedin$ a doc"ment p"rportin$ to be the last 'ill and testament of thedeceased. For lac( of s"fficient f"nds in that time to meet the considerable e#pense to be inc"rred inopposin$ Posima de la !r"s petition, r"no @odesto entered into a contract 'ith several otherparties on @arch , 1936, the pertinent portions of 'hich provide=
S)/A; TO5OS %OS E) %A /+)S);T)5 >4)+);
"e nosotros r"no @odesto, esposo de la dif"nta 5Ka. @atilde !antiveros deTana"an, %ete, +estit"to Anopol, 4. "stav"s o"$hC representante de losherederos de la dif"nta asilia Anopol, todos de !ari$ara %ete, !armen Anopol deTacloban, %ete, por la presente irrevocablemente hacemos constar "e en lareparticion de los bienes de la dif"nta 5Ka. @atilde !antiveros hecha por el Sr.r"no @odesto en el sentido "e "na tercera parte "ede con el "na tercera partesea dividida entre los arriba mencionados +estit"to Anopol, 4. "stav"s o"$h,Ser$io Anopol !armen Anopol "e "na tercera parte sea "sada para pa$ar los$astos ocasionados en la liti$acion motivada por "n ale$ado testamento presentadopor el Abo$ado Salaar en la !orte de la /rimera 4nstancia de Tacloban, %ete conesta reparticion estamos conformes.
)sta tercera parte se entiende es para pa$ar los $astos solamente "e ocasionaraen la liti$acion de la "na tercera parte perteneciente "e corresponde a +estit"to
Anopol, 4. "stav"s o"$h, Ser$io Anopol !armen Anopol como nadie de losherederos dispone s"ficientes fondos para s"fra$ar los $astos "e necesariamenteva a oc"rrir, para pa$ar dichos $astos nosotros todos los herederos hemoss"plicado, ofrecido entre$ado baBo esta escrit"ra al 5r. 4. "stav"s o"$h de!ari$ara %ete, la "na tercera parte do todos los bienes de la dif"nta 5Ka. @atilde!antiveros en consideracion en compensacion para los $astos de esta liti$acion
"e el 5r. o"$h ha comprometido de pa$ar en favor de los arriba mencionados+estit"to Anopol, 4. "stav"s o"$h, Ser$io Anopol !armen Anopol.
Se entiende ademas "e la parte "e sera entre$ada al mencionado 5r. 4. "stav"so"$h, en compensacion de s"s $astos sera "na tercera parte de todos los bienesde la dif"nta 5Ka. @atilde !antiveros, sin reserva de c"al"iera nat"ralea caso "eel as"nto se decide el "s$ado en favor del solicitante del abintestado Sr. r"no@odesto "e esta tercera parte sera entre$ada al arriba dicho 5r. 4. "stav"so"$h immediatamente desp"es de haber dictado sentencia favorable las cortescompetentes.
4n time the !o"rt of First 4nstance of %ete denied the probate of the doc"ment presented b Posima
de la !r" and declared r"no @odesto the sole heir of his deceased 'ife. Epon appeal to the !o"rtof Appeals 7!A-.+. ;o. 32<8, the decision of the lo'er co"rt 'as affirmed on Febr"ar 29, 19.This decision has lon$ become final.
Sometime in @a of 191 4. "stav"s o"$h and !armen Anopol commenced s"it in the !o"rt ofFirst 4nstance of %ete 7!ivil !ase ;o. :20:8, prain$ that r"no @odesto be ordered to partition theproperties left b @atilde !antiveros in accordance 'ith the contract above-"oted. "d$ment 'asrendered b said co"rt in favor of plaintiffs o"$h and Anopol, and "pon appeal to the !o"rt of
Appeals 7!A-.+, ;o. 222-+8, the same 'as modified in a decision prom"l$ated on "ne 16, 199.!onsiderin$ the decision not as one for partition strictl b"t onl as an action intended to determinethe ri$hts of the parties "nder the terms of the private contract, the !o"rt of Appeals r"led=
1. The contract )#hibit is declared valid and bindin$ "pon all parties thereto, 'iththe "nderstandin$ that the same shall be effective and enforceable onl "pon the net
estate of the deceased @atilde !antiveros adB"dicated to her onl intestate heir,r"no @odesto. For the p"rpose of ma(in$ said contract effective, a cop of this
B"d$ment shall be served "pon the administrator of the estate of said deceased@atilde !antiveros and another cop sho"ld be filed in the record of Special/roceedin$ ;o. 2:1:, 'here the interested parties ma as( for the correspondin$order of deliver of their respective shares
2. The plaintiff, Tarcela +. >da. de o"$h, in her capacit as an administratri# of theintestate estate of the deceased 4. "stav"s o"$h, is hereb ordered to pa thes"m of /,2:. to the administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased @atilde!antiveros as reimb"rsement of an e"al amo"nt paid b the latter to the heirs of thedeceased +"perto Nap"nan. Th"s modified, the appealed B"d$ment is affirmed in allother respects, 'ith costs.
This decision has also lon$ become final.
4n the meantime, d"rin$ the pendenc of !ivil !ase ;o. :20: certain transactions too( place 'ithrespect to portions of the 61 parcels of land 'hich comprise the estate of the deceased @atilde!antiveros. 4t appears that on September 12, 193 r"no @odesto sold to the spo"ses ose and+emedios +amire a :66.6 s. m. parcel of land sit"ated at 5istrict aaba, !ari$ara, %ete 7)#h.*1*8. This sale 'as s"bse"entl confirmed in a more formal doc"ment 7)#h. *2*8 dra'n "p andsi$ned ane' b r"no @odesto on an"ar 21, 19<. And in another separate transaction, r"no@odesto, in a doc"ment dated an"ar <, 196 and entitled *>);TA !O; /A!TO 5) +)T+O*
7)#h. **8, conveed to "an %loren a 1,2 s. m. residential lot located in !ari$ara, %ete.
4t 'as a$ainst the fore$oin$ bac(drop that Tarcela >da. de o"$h, in her capacit as administratri#of the estate of the late 4. "stav"s o"$h, 'ho had died before then, as 'ell as his children b hisfirst 'ife, the deceased asilia Anopol, commenced in the co"rt a /uo !ivil !ase ;os. 161 and 163a$ainst the spo"ses ose and +emedios +amire and a$ainst /onciano %loren, respectivel. Theadministrator of the estate of r"no @odesto, 'ho had li(e'ise died in the interim, 'as alsoimpleaded as part defendant. The complaints in the t'o cases are similarl 'orded and contain acommon plea= to order the respective defendants to deliver to the plaintiffs the parcels of landdisposed of b r"no @odesto, alle$edl 'itho"t B"dicial a"thorit, d"rin$ the pendenc of thespecial proceedin$ for the settlement of the estate of @atilde !antiveros.
)vent"all, and in vie' of the fact that the plaintiffs had the same evidence in both cases, a Boint trial'as a$reed to b the parties altho"$h the defendants 'ere allo'ed to present their respectiveevidence separatel. 4n time the co"rt a /uo rendered the Boint decision no' on appeal, thedispositive portion of 'hich reads=
FO+ A%% T) FO+)O4;, the !o"rt declares that the propert in !ivil !ase ;o.161 and the properties in !ivil !ase ;o. 163 pertain to the 4ntestate )state of @atilde!antiveros, Sp. /roceedin$ 2:1:, and the defendants are therefore ordered to
deliver the said properties to the administrator of the said estate s"bBect to a ref"ndto /onciano %loren of the necessar improvements he ma have made on the ho"seb"ilt on one of the parcels in !ivil !ase 163 'hich the !o"rt conservativel estimatesat /1,:., considerin$ that the ho"se is 6W depreciated d"e to lac( of paintin$'itho"t costs and 'itho"t dama$es the plaintiffs ma file their claim for a partition ofthe estate in the Special /roceedin$s 2:1: before this !o"rt as re"ired in )#hibit A,
and the defendants ma intervene in said Special /roceedin$s 2:1: to claim for areimb"rsement from the share pertainin$ to r"no @odesto.
Enable to sec"re a reconsideration of the decision, the defendants interposed this appeal, alle$in$that the trial co"rt erred= 718 in not dismissin$ the t'o cases not'ithstandin$ its findin$ that theplaintiffs had not ac"ired o'nership of the properties in "estion nor 'ere the entitled to thepossession of the same 728 in holdin$ that the sales made to the defendants 'ere n"ll and void and738 in not holdin$ that the defendants are o'ners of the parcels of land in "estion.
The defendants s"bmit that the t'o cases sho"ld have been dismissed on the basis of the follo'in$findin$s of the co"rt belo', to 'it=
... The amended as 'ell as the ori$inal complaint in both cases is captioned *Sobre/ropiedad* et in the same, the plaintiffs do not pretend to have proprietar ri$htsover the parcels of land described in the t'o cases, b"t the see( that the saidproperties be delivered to them ... . 4f the p"rpose of the plaintiffs is to recover thepossession of these properties, this !o"rt cannot in these civil cases ori$inall filedbefore it to recover s"ch possession pass B"d$ment on the le$alit of saidpossession, it appearin$ admitted b the plaintiffs that the defendants +amire in!ivil !ase 161 had been in possession of the propert in said case since 19< 'hilethe defendant %loren in !ivil !ase 163 had possessed the lands described in thecomplaint in 19:, it not appearin$ in the complaint that the plaintiffs had for oncebeen in possession of the respective properties in each of the civil case. The plaintiffs
neither have a ca"se of action to recover the o'nership of the propert it notappearin$ in the complaint that the claim ri$hts of o'nership over the specificproperties described in each of the !ivil !ase 161 and 163. ;either had it beenproven that the plaintiffs in the t'o cases have ever possessed the land that thehave so"$ht to recover. ...
!onsiderin$ the fore$oin$ findin$s in relation to the relief so"$ht in the complaints, the cases sho"ldindeed have been dismissed. Said relief, 'hich is identical in both cases, is for B"d$ment orderin$the defendants to deliver the lands in "estion to the plaintiffs. Since the latter are not the o'nersthereof, nor even the previo"s possessors the trial co"rt correctl r"led that the have no ca"se ofaction to recover either o'nership or possession. The same co"rt, ho'ever, disre$arded theplaintiffs lac( of a ca"se of action and, proceedin$ "pon a theor that alle$ed or relied "pon in the
complaints, ann"lled the sales of the lands in favor of the defendants on the $ro"nd that the hadbeen e#ec"ted b r"no @odesto 'itho"t a"thorit of the probate co"rt in the intestate of thedeceased @atilde !antiveros, and ordered that the be ret"rned to the administrator thereof so thatthe ma be the obBect of partition to be claimed therein b the plaintiffs.
Aside from the fact that the relief th"s $ranted is not the relief praed for, it does not appear B"stifiedb the facts of record and is at best premat"re. 4t sho"ld be noted that in !ivil !ase ;o. :20: filed bthe spo"ses 4. "stav"s o"$h and !armen Anopol in 191 and then appealed to the !o"rt of
Appeals 7!A-.+. ;o. 222-+8 the said co"rt, in its decision of "ne 16, 199, spelled o"t the ri$htsof the plaintiffs "nder the contract of @arch , 1936 and the proced"re that sho"ld be follo'ed *forthe p"rpose of ma(in$ said contract effective,* namel=
... a cop of this B"d$ment shall be served "pon the administrator of the estate of saiddeceased @atilde !antiveros and another cop sho"ld be filed in the record of
Special /roceedin$ ;o. 2:1:, 'here the interested parties ma as( for thecorrespondin$ order of deliver of their respective shares.
The plaintiffs did not follo' the proced"re indicated b the !o"rt of Appeals. ;o B"dicial partitionappears to have been made in the intestate proceedin$ of the deceased @atilde !antiveros. &hatdoes appear, ho'ever, and is in fact alle$ed in the complaints in these t'o cases, is that theplaintiffs received from r"no @odesto a n"mber of parcels of land correspondin$ to their share inthe estate, altho"$h the sa that the same is less than the entiret of s"ch share. ;either thecomplaints nor the decision appealed from nor the briefs for the parties sho' that the deliver of thesaid parcels to the plaintiffs 'as 'ith the a"thorit or s"bse"ent approval of the co"rt in theintestate case, or ho' m"ch of their share remains "nsatisfied. And altho"$h there is an alle$ation inthe complaints that the properties still in the hands of the administrator are ins"fficient to cover the"nsatisfied portion, s"ch alle$ation has not been established.
&e $ather from the record that "ntil no' in 4nterstate /roceedin$ ;o. 2:1: has not been closed andthe estate of the deceased @atilde !antiveros has not been definitel settled. &hat the plaintiffssho"ld have done 'as to enforce the B"d$ment of the !o"rt of Appeals in !A-.+. ;o. 222 bpresentin$ their claim for partition in the said proceedin$ instead of filin$ the present action forrecover in their o'n behalf. !onsiderin$ that 'itho"t havin$ presented s"ch claim and 'itho"ta"thorit of the co"rt the received from the then administrator, r"no @odesto, a n"mber of parcelspertainin$ to their share in the estate, the are in no position to complain that r"no @odesto, ass"ch administrator or as the "niversal heir 7to the estate of his 'ife8 co"ld onl dispose of his ri$htsand interest in ali"ot portion thereof J not of specific properties as he did in favor of the herein
defendants. Th"s, "ntil it can be sho'n that the parcels of land alread received b the plaintiffs areindeed short of the share to 'hich the are entitled, as adB"d$ed b the !o"rt of Appeals, and thatthe properties still remainin$ in the hands of the administrator are ins"fficient to cover the shorta$e,the B"d$ment appealed from, orderin$ the defendants to ret"rn to the estate the properties the havep"rchased, is premat"re. And s"ch sho'in$ can be made b the plaintiffs onl b enforcin$ the
B"d$ment of the !o"rt of Appeals, namel, b filin$ a claim in the intestate proceedin$ for thecompletion of their share. For the defendants to be sin$led o"t and compelled to ret"rn theproperties in "estion to the estate in advance of s"ch sho'in$ 'o"ld be "nfair to them, since otherproperties J fifteen parcels o"t of the 61 comprisin$ the estate, accordin$ to the record J 'eresimilarl disposed of b r"no @odesto in favor of other persons, a$ainst 'hom no actions forrecover appear to have been filed b the plaintiffs.
&)+)FO+), the B"d$ment appealed from is hereb reversed insofar as it declares that theproperties s"bBect of these t'o cases pertain to the 4ntestate )state of @atilde !antiveros, Sp./roceedin$ ;o. 2:1:, and orders their deliver to the administration thereof and affirmed insofar asit directs the plaintiffs to file their claim for partition in said proceedin$, s"bBect to the ri$ht ofdefendants to intervene therein for the protection of their interests. This B"d$ment is 'itho"tpreB"dice to the ri$ht of plaintiffs to p"rs"e the correspondin$ remedies and file s"ch actions as mabe proper a$ainst the herein defendants sho"ld the properties remainin$ in the estate of thedeceased @atilde !antiveros t"rn o"t to be ins"fficient to B"stif the portions pertainin$ to plaintiffs in
These cases before "s all stem from S/. /+O!. ;O. 916-+ of the then !o"rt of First 4nstance of!eb".
G.. 3o. I66F6
>ito orromeo, a 'ido'er and permanent resident of !eb" !it, died on @arch 13, 19:2, in/arana"e, +ial at the a$e of 00 ears, 'itho"t forced heirs b"t leavin$ e#tensive properties in theprovince of !eb".
On April 19, 19:2, ose "n"era filed 'ith the !o"rt of First 4nstance of !eb" a petition for theprobate of a one pa$e doc"ment as the last 'ill and testament left b the said deceased, devisin$ allhis properties to Tomas, Fort"nato and Amelia, all s"rnamed orromeo, in e"al and "ndividedshares, and desi$natin$ "n"era as e#ec"tor thereof. The case 'as doc(eted as Special/roceedin$s ;o. 916-+. The doc"ment, drafted in Spanish, 'as alle$edl si$ned and th"mbmar(edb the deceased in the presence of !ornelio andionco, )"sebio !abil"na, and Feli#berto %eonardo'ho acted as 'itnesses.
Oppositions to the probate of the 'ill 'ere filed. On @a 20, 196, after d"e trial, the probate co"rtheld that the doc"ment presented as the 'ill of the deceased 'as a for$er.
On appeal to this !o"rt, the decision of the probate co"rt disallo'in$ the probate of the 'ill 'asaffirmed inestate state of Vito Borro)eo, Jose #. Jun/uera et al. v. Crispin Borro)eo et al . 719S!+A 6:68.
The testate proceedin$s 'as converted into an intestate proceedin$s. Several parties came beforethe co"rt filin$ claims or petitions alle$in$ themselves as heirs of the intestate estate of >itoorromeo.
The follo'in$ petitions or claims 'ere filed=
1. On A"$"st 29, 196<, the heirs of ose @a. orromeo and !osme orromeo filed a petitionfor declaration of heirs and determination of heirship. There 'as no opposition filed a$ainstsaid petition.
2. On ;ovember 26, 196<, >italiana orromeo also filed a petition for declaration as heir.The heirs of ose @a. orromeo and !osme orromeo filed an opposition to this petition.
3. On 5ecember 13, 196<, ose arcenilla, r., Anecita Ocampo de !astro, +amon Ocampo,%o"rdes Ocampo, )lena Ocampo, 4sa$ani @orre, +osario @orre, A"rora @orre, %ila @orre,%amberto @orre, and /atricia @orre, filed a petition for declaration of heirs and determinationof shares. The petition 'as opposed b the heirs of ose and !osme orromeo.
. On 5ecember 2, 1960, @aria orromeo Ate$a, %" orromeo, ermene$ilda orromeo;onnen(amp, +osario orromeo, and Fe orromeo "ero filed a claim. ose !"encoorromeo, !rispin orromeo, >italiana orromeo and the heirs of !arlos orromeorepresented b ose Talam filed oppositions to this claim.
&hen the aforementioned petitions and claims 'ere heard Bointl, the follo'in$ facts 'ereestablished=
1. @a#imo orromeo and ermene$ilda alan, h"sband and 'ife 7the latter havin$ predeceased theformer8, 'ere s"rvived b their ei$ht 708 children, namel,
ose @a. orromeo
!osme orromeo
/antaleon orromeo
>ito orromeo
/a"lo orromeo
Anecita orromeo
"irino orromeo and
"lian orromeo
2. >ito orromeo died a 'ido'er on @arch 13, 19:2, 'itho"t an iss"e, and all his brothers andsisters predeceased him.
3. >itos brother /antaleon orromeo died leavin$ the follo'in$ children=
a. 4smaela orromeo,'ho died on Oct. 16, 1939
b. Teofilo orromeo, 'ho died on A"$. 1, 19::, or 3 ears after the death of >ito orromeo.e 'as married to +emedios !"enco orromeo, 'ho died on @arch 20, 1960. e had anonl son-Att. ose !"enco orromeo one of the petitioners herein.
c. !rispin orromeo, 'ho is still alive.
. Anecita orromeo, sister of >ito orromeo, died ahead of him and left an onl da"$hter, A"rora .Ocampo, 'ho died on an. 3, 19: leavin$ the follo'in$ children=
a. Anecita Ocampo !astro
b. +amon Ocampo
c. %o"rdes Ocampo
d. )lena Ocampo, all livin$, and
e. Antonieta Ocampo arcenilla 7deceased8, s"rvived b claimant ose arcenilla, r.
:. !osme orromeo, another brother of >ito orromeo, died before the 'ar and left the follo'in$children=
a. @arcial orromeo
b. !arlos orromeo,'ho died on an. 10, 196:,s"rvived b his 'ife, +emedios Alfonso, andhis onl da"$hter, Amelinda orromeo Talam
c. As"ncion orromeo
d. Florentina orromeo, 'ho died in 190.
e. Amilio orromeo, 'ho died in 19.
f. !armen orromeo, 'ho died in 192:.
The last three died leavin$ no iss"e.
6. ose @a. orromeo, another brother of >ito orromeo, died before the 'ar and left the follo'in$children=
a. )#e"iel orromeo,'ho died on 5ecember 29, 199
b. !an"to orromeo, 'ho died on 5ec. 31, 19:9, leavin$ the follo'in$ children=
e. Andres orromeo, 'ho died on an. 3, 1923, b"t s"rvived b his children=
aa. @aria orromeo Ate$a
bb. %" orromeo
cc. ermene$ilda orromeo ;onnen(amp
dd. +osario orromeo
ee. Fe orromeo "ero
On April 1, 1969, the trial co"rt, invo(in$ Art. 9<2 of the !ivil !ode, iss"ed an order declarin$ thefollo'in$, to the e#cl"sion of all others, as the intestate heirs of the deceased >ito orromeo=
The co"rt also ordered that the assets of the intestate estate of >ito orromeo shall be divided intoM9 and :M9 $ro"ps and distrib"ted in e"al and e"itable shares amon$ the 9 abovenamed declaredintestate heirs.
On April 21 and 3, 1969, the declared heirs, 'ith the e#ception of /atrocinio . errera, si$ned ana$reement of partition of the properties of the deceased >ito orromeo 'hich 'as approved b thetrial co"rt, in its order of A"$"st 1:, 1969. 4n this same order, the trial co"rt ordered the administrator,
Att es"s aboa, r., to partition the properties of the deceased in the 'a and manner the aredivided and partitioned in the said A$reement of /artition and f"rther ordered that W of the mar(etval"e of the M9 and :M9 of the estate shall be se$re$ated. All attornes fees shall be ta(en and paidfrom this se$re$ated portion.
On A"$"st 2:, 19<2, respondent Fort"nato orromeo, 'ho had earlier claimed as heir "nder the
for$ed 'ill, filed a motion before the trial co"rt prain$ that he be declared as one of the heirs of thedeceased >ito orromeo, alle$in$ that he is an ille$itimate son of the deceased and that in thedeclaration of heirs made b the trial co"rt, he 'as omitted, in disre$ard of the la' ma(in$ him aforced heir entitled to receive a le$itime li(e all other forced heirs. As an ac(no'led$ed ille$itimatechild, he stated that he 'as entitled to a le$itime e"al in ever case to fo"r-fifths of the le$itime ofan ac(no'led$ed nat"ral child.
Findin$ that the motion of Fort"nato orromeo 'as alread barred b the order of the co"rt dated April 12, 1969 declarin$ the persons named therein as the le$al heirs of the deceased >itoorromeo, the co"rt dismissed the motion on "ne 2:, 19<3.
Fort"nato orromeo filed a motion for reconsideration. 4n the memorand"m he s"bmitted to s"pport
his motion for reconsideration, Fort"nato chan$ed the basis for his claim to a portion of the estate.e asserted and incorporated a &aiver of ereditar +i$hts dated "l 31, 196<, s"pposedl si$nedb /ilar ;. orromeo, @aria . /"ton$, ose orromeo, !an"to >. orromeo, r., Sal"d orromeo,/atrocinio orromeo-errera, @arcial orromeo, As"ncion orromeo, Federico >. orromeo,!ons"elo . @orales, +emedios Alfonso and Amelinda . Talam 4n the 'aiver, five of the nine heirsrelin"ished to Fort"nato their shares in the disp"ted estate. The motion 'as opposed on the $ro"ndthat the trial co"rt, actin$ as a probate co"rt, had no B"risdiction to ta(e co$niance of the claim thatrespondent Fort"nato orromeo is estopped from assertin$ the 'aiver a$reement that the 'aivera$reement is void as it 'as e#ec"ted before the declaration of heirs that the same is void havin$been e#ec"ted before the distrib"tion of the estate and before the acceptance of the inheritance andthat it is void ab initio and ine#istent for lac( of s"bBect matter.
On 5ecember 2, 19<, after d"e hearin$, the trial co"rt concl"din$ that the five declared heirs 'hosi$ned the 'aiver a$reement assi$nin$ their hereditar ri$hts to Fort"nato orromeo had lost thesame ri$hts, declared the latter as entitled to :M9 of the estate of >ito orromeo.
A motion for reconsideration of this order 'as denied on "l <, 19<:.
4n the present petition, the petitioner see(s to ann"l and set aside the trial co"rts order dated5ecember 2, 19<, declarin$ respondent Fort"nato orromeo entitled to :M9 of the estate of >itoorromeo and the "l <, 19<: order, denin$ the motion for reconsideration.
The petitioner ar$"es that the trial co"rt had no B"risdiction to ta(e co$niance of the claim ofrespondent Fort"nato orromeo beca"se it is not a mone claim a$ainst the decedent b"t a claim
for properties, real and personal, 'hich constit"te all of the shares of the heirs in the decedentsestate, heirs 'ho alle$edl 'aived their ri$hts in his favor. The claim of the private respondent "nderthe 'aiver a$reement, accordin$ to the petitioner, ma be li(ened to that of a creditor of the heirs'hich is improper. e alle$es that the claim of the private respondent "nder the 'aiver a$reement'as filed beond the time allo'ed for filin$ of claims as it 'as filed onl sometime in 19<3, afterthere had been a declaration of heirs 7April 1, 19698, an a$reement of partition 7April 3, 19698, theapproval of the a$reement of partition and an order directin$ the administrator to partition the estate7A"$"st 1:, 19698, 'hen in a mere memorand"m, the e#istence of the 'aiver a$reement 'asbro"$ht o"t.
4t is f"rther ar$"ed b the petitioner that the doc"ment entitled * 'aiver of ereditar +i$hts*e#ec"ted on "l 31, 196<, aside from havin$ been cancelled and revo(ed on "ne 29, 1960, bTomas %. orromeo, Fort"nato orromeo and Amelia orromeo, is 'itho"t force and effect beca"sethere can be no effective 'aiver of hereditar ri$hts before there has been a valid acceptance of theinheritance the heirs intend to transfer. /"rs"ant to Article 13 of the !ivil !ode, to ma(eacceptance or rep"diation of inheritance valid, the person m"st be certain of the death of the onefrom 'hom he is to inherit and of his ri$ht to the inheritance. Since the petitioner and her co-heirs'ere not certain of their ri$ht to the inheritance "ntil the 'ere declared heirs, their ri$hts 'ere,therefore, "ncertain. This vie', accordin$ to the petitioner, is also s"pported b Article 1:< of thesame !ode 'hich directs heirs, devicees, and le$atees to si$nif their acceptance or rep"diation'ithin thirt das after the co"rt has iss"ed an order for the distrib"tion of the estate.
+espondent Fort"nato orromeo on the other hand, contends that "nder Article 13 of the !ivil
!ode there is no need for a person to be first declared as heir before he can accept or rep"diate aninheritance. &hat is re"ired is that he m"st first be certain of the death of the person from 'hom heis to inherit and that he m"st be certain of his ri$ht to the inheritance. e points o"t that at the time of the si$nin$ of the 'aiver doc"ment on "l 31, 196<, the si$natories to the 'aiver doc"ment 'erecertain that >ito orromeo 'as alread dead as 'ell as of their ri$hts to the inheritance as sho'n inthe 'aiver doc"ment itself.
&ith respect to the iss"e of B"risdiction of the trial co"rt to pass "pon the validit of the 'aiver ofhereditar ri$hts, respondent orromeo asserts that since the 'aiver or ren"nciation of hereditarri$hts too( place after the co"rt ass"med B"risdiction over the properties of the estate it parta(es ofthe nat"re of a partition of the properties of the estate needin$ approval of the co"rt beca"se it 'ase#ec"ted in the co"rse of the proceedin$s. lie f"rther maintains that the probate co"rt loses
B"risdiction of the estate onl after the pament of all the debts of the estate and the remainin$ estateis distrib"ted to those entitled to the same.
The prevailin$ B"rispr"dence on 'aiver of hereditar ri$hts is that *the properties incl"ded in ane#istin$ inheritance cannot be considered as belon$in$ to third persons 'ith respect to the heirs,'ho b fiction of la' contin"e the personalit of the former. ;or do s"ch properties have thecharacter of f"t"re propert, beca"se the heirs ac"ire a ri$ht to s"ccession from the moment of thedeath of the deceased, b principle established in article 6:< and applied b article 661 of the !ivil
!ode, accordin$ to 'hich the heirs s"cceed the deceased b the mere fact of death. @ore or less,time ma elapse from the moment of the death of the deceased "ntil the heirs enter into possessionof the hereditar propert, b"t the acceptance in an event retroacts to the moment of the death, inaccordance 'ith article 909 of the !ivil !ode. The ri$ht is vested, altho"$h conditioned "pon theadB"dication of the correspondin$ hereditar portion.* 7Osorio v. Osorio and Incha"sti Steamship!o., 1 /hil., :318. The heirs, therefore, co"ld 'aive their hereditar ri$hts in 196< even if the order
to partition the estate 'as iss"ed onl in 1969.
4n this case, ho'ever, the p"rported *&aiver of ereditar +i$hts* cannot be considered to beeffective. For a 'aiver to e#ist, three elements are essential= 718 the e#istence of a ri$ht 728 the(no'led$e of the e#istence thereof and 738 an intention to relin"ish s"ch ri$ht. 7/eople v. Salvador,7!A8 :3 O.. ;o. 22, p. 0116, 0128. The intention to 'aive a ri$ht or advanta$e m"st be sho'nclearl and convincin$l, and 'hen the onl proof of intention rests in 'hat a part does, his actsho"ld be so manifestl consistent 'ith, and indicative of an intent to, vol"ntaril relin"ish thepartic"lar ri$ht or advanta$e that no other reasonable e#planation of his cond"ct is possible 76< !..,3118. 7Fernande v. Sebido, et al., < /hil., 1:1, 1:98.
The circ"mstances of this case sho' that the si$natories to the 'aiver doc"ment did not have theclear and convincin$ intention to relin"ish their ri$hts, Th"s= 718 On October 2<, 196<. Fort"nato,Tomas, and Amelia orromeo filed a pleadin$ entitled *!ompliance* 'herein the s"bmitted aproposal for the amicable settlement of the case. 4n that !ompliance, the proposed to concede toall the ei$ht 708 intestate heirs of >ito orromeo all properties, personal and real, incl"din$ all cashand s"ms of mone in the hands of the Special Administrator, as of October 31, 196<, not contestedor claimed b them in an action then pendin$ in the !o"rt of First 4nstance of !eb". 4n t"rn, theheirs 'o"ld 'aive and concede to them all the 1 contested lots. 4n this doc"ment, the respondentreco$nies and concedes that the petitioner, li(e the other si$natories to the 'aiver doc"ment, is anheir of the deceased >ito orromeo, entitled to share in the estate. This sho's that the *&aiver ofereditar +i$hts* 'as never meant to be 'hat the respondent no' p"rports it to be. ad the intentbeen other'ise, there 'o"ld not be an reason for Fort"nato, Tomas, and Amelia orromeo to
mention the heirs in the offer to settle the case amicabl, and offer to concede to them parts of theestate of the deceased 728 On April 21 and 3, 1969, the maBorit of the declared heirs e#ec"ted an A$reement on ho' the estate the inherited shall be distrib"ted. This A$reement of /artition 'asapproved b the trial co"rt on A"$"st 1:, 1969 738 On "ne 29, 1960, the petitioner, amon$ others,si$ned a doc"ment entitled 5eed of Assi$nment* p"rportin$ to transfer and assi$n in favor of therespondent and Tomas and Amelia orromeo all her 7/atrocinio . erreras8 ri$hts, interests, andparticipation as an intestate heir in the estate of the deceased >ito orromeo. The statedconsideration for said assi$nment 'as /1,. 78 On the same date, "ne 29, 1960, therespondent Tomas, and Amelia orromeo 7assi$nees in the aforementioned deed of assi$nment8 int"rn e#ec"ted a *5eed of +econveance* in favor of the heirs-assi$nors named in the same deed ofassi$nment. The stated consideration 'as /:,. 7:8 A !ancellation of 5eed of Assi$nmentand 5eed of +econveance 'as si$ned b Tomas orromeo and Amelia orromeo on October 1:,
1960, 'hile Fort"nato orromeo si$ned this doc"ment on @arch 2, 1969.
&ith respect to the iss"e of B"risdiction, 'e hold that the trial co"rt had B"risdiction to pass "pon thevalidit of the 'aiver a$reement. 4t m"st be noted that in Special /roceedin$s ;o. 916-+ the lo'erco"rt disallo'ed the probate of the 'ill and declared it as fa(e. Epon appeal, this !o"rt affirmed thedecision of the lo'er co"rt on @arch 3, 196<, in .+. ;o. %-1090. S"bse"entl, several partiescame before the lo'er co"rt filin$ claims or petitions alle$in$ themselves as heirs of the intestateestate of >ito orromeo. &e see no impediment to the trial co"rt in e#ercisin$ B"risdiction and trin$
the said claims or petitions. @oreover, the B"risdiction of the trial co"rt e#tends to matters incidentaland collateral to the e#ercise of its reco$nied po'ers in handlin$ the settlement of the estate.
4n vie' of the fore$oin$, the "estioned order of the trial co"rt dated 5ecember 2, 19<, is herebS)T AS45).
G.. 3o. EEE
This case 'as ori$inall an appeal to the !o"rt of Appeals from an order of the !o"rt of First4nstance of !eb", ranch 11, dated 5ecember 2, 19<, declarin$ the 'aiver doc"ment earlierdisc"ssed in .+. ;o. 11<1 valid. The appellate co"rt certified this case to this !o"rt as the"estions raised are all of la'.
The appellants not onl assail the validit of the 'aiver a$reement b"t the also "estion the B"risdiction of the lo'er co"rt to hear and decide the action filed b claimant Fort"nato orromeo.
The appellants ar$"e that 'hen the 'aiver of hereditar ri$ht 'as e#ec"ted on "l 31, 196<, /ilar
orromeo and her children did not et possess or o'n an hereditar ri$ht in the intestate estate ofthe deceased >ito orromeo beca"se said hereditar ri$ht 'as onl ac"ired and o'ned b them on
April 1, 1969, 'hen the estate 'as ordered distrib"ted.
The f"rther ar$"e that in contemplation of la', there is no s"ch contract of 'aiver of hereditar ri$htin the present case beca"se there 'as no obBect, 'hich is hereditar ri$ht, that co"ld be the s"bBectmatter of said 'aiver, and, therefore, said 'aiver of hereditar ri$ht 'as not onl n"ll and void ab
initio b"t 'as ine#istent.
&ith respect to the iss"e of B"risdiction, the appellants contend that 'itho"t an formal pleadin$ filedb the la'ers of Fort"nato orromeo for the approval of the 'aiver a$reement and 'itho"t notice tothe parties concerned, t'o thin$s 'hich are necessar so that the lo'er co"rt 'o"ld be vested 'ith
a"thorit and B"risdiction to hear and decide the validit of said 'aiver a$reement, nevertheless, thelo'er co"rt set the hearin$ on September 2:, 19<3 and 'itho"t as(in$ for the re"isite pleadin$.This res"lted in the iss"ance of the appealed order of 5ecember 2, 19<, 'hich approved thevalidit of the 'aiver a$reement. The appellants contend that this constit"tes an error in the e#erciseof B"risdiction.
The appellee on the other hand, maintains that b 'aivin$ their hereditar ri$hts in favor of Fort"natoorromeo, the si$natories to the 'aiver doc"ment tacitl and irrevocabl accepted the inheritanceand b virt"e of the same act, the lost their ri$hts beca"se the ri$hts from that moment on becamevested in Fort"nato orromeo.
4t is also ar$"ed b the appellee that "nder Article 13 of the !ivil !ode there is no need for aperson to be declared as heir first before he can accept or rep"diate an inheritance. &hat is re"iredis that he is certain of the death of the person from 'hom he is to inherit, and of his ri$ht to theinheritance. At the time of the si$nin$ of the 'aiver doc"ment on "l 31, 196<, the si$natories to the'aiver doc"ment 'ere certain that >ito orromeo 'as alread dead and the 'ere also certain oftheir ri$ht to the inheritance as sho'n b the 'aiver doc"ment itself.
On the alle$ation of the appellants that the lo'er co"rt did not ac"ire B"risdiction over the claimbeca"se of the alle$ed lac( of a pleadin$ invo(in$ its B"risdiction to decide the claim, the appellee
asserts that on A"$"st 23, 19<3, the lo'er co"rt iss"ed an order specificall callin$ on all oppositorsto the 'aiver doc"ment to s"bmit their comments 'ithin ten das from notice and settin$ the samefor hearin$ on September 2:, 19<3. The appellee also avers that the claim as to a :M9 share in theinheritance involves no "estion of title to propert and, therefore, the probate co"rt can decide the"estion.
The iss"es in this case are similar to the iss"es raised in .+. ;o. 11<1. The appellants in thiscase, 'ho are all declared heirs of the late >ito orromeo are contestin$ the validit of the trialco"rts order dated 5ecember 2, 19<, declarin$ Fort"nato orromeo entitled to :M9 of the estate of >ito orromeo "nder the 'aiver a$reement.
As stated in .+. ;o. 11<1, the s"pposed 'aiver of hereditar ri$hts can not be validated. Theessential elements of a 'aiver, especiall the clear and convincin$ intention to relin"ish hereditarri$hts, are not fo"nd in this case.
The October 2<, 196< proposal for an amicable settlement concedin$ to all the ei$ht 708 intestateheirs vario"s properties in consideration for the heirs $ivin$ to the respondent and to Tomas, and
Amelia orromeo the fo"rteen 718 contested lots 'as filed inspite of the fact that on "l 31, 196<,some of the heirs had alle$edl alread 'aived or sold their hereditar ri$hts to the respondent.
The a$reement on ho' the estate is to be distrib"ted, the "ne 29, 1960 deed of assi$nment, thedeed of reconveance, and the s"bse"ent cancellation of the deed of assi$nment and deed ofreconveance all ar$"e a$ainst the p"rported 'aiver of hereditar ri$hts.
!oncernin$ the iss"e of B"risdiction, 'e have alread stated in .+. ;o. 11<1 that the trial co"rtac"ired B"risdiction to pass "pon the validit of the 'aiver a$reement beca"se the trial co"rts
B"risdiction e#tends to matters incidental and collateral to the e#ercise of its reco$nied po'ers inhandlin$ the settlement of the estate.
The "estioned order is, therefore, S)T AS45).
G.. 3o. DK
A motion dated April 20, 19<2, 'as filed b Att. +a"l @. Sesbreno, representative of some of theheirs-distrib"tees, prain$ for the immediate clos"re of Special /roceedin$ ;o. 916-+. A similarmotion dated @a 29, 19<9 'as filed b Att. ose Amadora. oth motions 'ere $ro"nded on thefact that there 'as nothin$ more to be done after the pament of all the obli$ations of the estatesince the order of partition and distrib"tion had lon$ become final.
Alle$in$ that respondent "d$e Francisco /. "r$os failed or ref"sed to resolve the aforesaidmotions, petitioner ose !"enco orromeo-filed a petition for mandam"s before the !o"rt of
Appeals to compel the respondent B"d$e to terminate and close Special /roceedin$s ;o. 916-+.
Findin$ that the inaction of the respondent B"d$e 'as d"e to pendin$ motions to compel thepetitioner, as co-administrator, to s"bmit an inventor of the real properties of the estate and anacco"ntin$ of the cash in his hands, pendin$ claims for attornes fees, and that mandam"s 'ill notlie to compel the performance of a discretionar f"nction, the appellate co"rt denied the petition on@a 1, 1902. The petitioners motion for reconsideration 'as li(e'ise denied for lac( of merit.ence, this petition.
The petitioners stand is that the inaction of the respondent B"d$e on the motion filed on April 20,19<2 for the clos"re of the administration proceedin$ cannot be B"stified b the filin$ of the motion for inventor and acco"ntin$ beca"se the latter motion 'as filed onl on @arch 2, 19<9. e claimed that"nder the then !onstit"tion, it is the d"t of the respondent B"d$e to decide or resolve a case ormatter 'ithin three months from the date of its s"bmission.
The respondents contend that the motion to close the administration had alread been resolved'hen the respondent B"d$e cancelled all settin$s of all incidents previo"sl set in his co"rt in anorder dated "ne , 19<9, p"rs"ant to the resol"tion and restrainin$ order iss"ed b the !o"rt of
Appeals enBoinin$ him to maintain stat"s "o on the case.
As stated in .+. ;o. 11<1, on April 21 and 3, 1969, the declared heirs, 'ith the e#ception of/atrocinio . errera, si$ned an a$reement of partition of the properties of the deceased >itoorromeo 'hich 'as approved b the trial co"rt, in its order dated A"$"st 1:, 1969. 4n this sameorder, the trial co"rt ordered the administrator, Att. es"s aboa, r., to partition the properties ofthe deceased in the 'a and manner the are divided and partitioned in the said A$reement of/artition and f"rther ordered that W of the mar(et val"e of the M9 and :M9 of the estate shall bese$re$ated and reserved for attornes fees.
Accordin$ to the manifestation of "d$e Francisco "r$os dated "l :, 1902, 7p. 19<, +ollo, . +.;o. 11<18 his co"rt has not finall distrib"ted to the nine 798 declared heirs the properties d"e to thefollo'in$ circ"mstances=
1. The co"rts determination of the mar(et val"e of the estate in order to se$re$ate the Wreserved for attornes fees
2. The order of 5ecember 2, 19<, declarin$ Fort"nato orromeo as beneficiar of the :M9of the estate beca"se of the 'aiver a$reement si$ned b the heirs representin$ the :M9$ro"p 'hich is still pendin$ resol"tion b this !o"rt 7.+. ;o. 11< 18
3. The ref"sal of administrator ose !"enco orromeo to render his acco"ntin$ and
. The claim of @arcela >ille$as for 1M2 of the estate ca"sin$ annotations of notices of lis
pendens on the different titles of the properties of the estate.
Since there are still real properties of the estate that 'ere not vet distrib"ted to some of the declaredheirs, partic"larl the :M9 $ro"p of heirs d"e to the pendin$ resol"tion of the 'aiver a$reement, this!o"rt in its resol"tion of "ne 1:, 1903, re"ired the B"d$e of the !o"rt of First 4nstance of !eb",ranch 11, to e#pedite the determination of Special /roceedin$s ;o. 916-+ and ordered the co-administrator ose !"enco orromeo to s"bmit an inventor of real properties of the estate and torender an acco"ntin$ of cash and ban( deposits realied from rents of several properties.
The matter of attornes fees shall be disc"ssed in .+. ;o. 6:99:.
!onsiderin$ the prono"ncements stated in=
1. .+. ;o. 11<1 R .+. ;o. ::, settin$ aside the Order of the trial co"rt dated5ecember 2, 19<
2. .+. ;o. 63010, denin$ the petition for revie' see(in$ to modif the decision of the4ntermediate Appellate !o"rt insofar as it dis"alifies and inhibits "d$e Francisco /. "r$osfrom f"rther hearin$ the 4ntestate )state of >ito orromeo and orderin$ the remand of thecase to the )#ec"tive,"d$e of the +e$ional trial !o"rt of !eb" for re-rafflin$ and
3. .+. ;o. 6:99:, $rantin$ the petition to restrain the respondents from f"rther actin$ on
an and all incidents in Special proceedin$s ;o. 916-11 beca"se of the affirmation of thedecision of the 4ntermediate Appellate !o"rt in .+. ;o. 63010.
the trial co"rt ma no' terminate and close Special /roceedin$s ;o. 916-+, s"bBect to thes"bmission of an inventor of the real properties of the estate and an acco"ntin$ of the call and ban(deposits of the petitioner, as co-administrator of the estate, if he has not vet done so, as re"ired bthis !o"rt in its +esol"tion dated "ne 1:, 1903. This m"st be effected 'ith all deliberate speed.
G.. 3o. HD6D
On "ne 9, 19<9, respondents ose !"enco orromeo and /etra . orromeo filed a motion for
inhibition in the !o"rt of First 4nstance of !eb", ranch 11, presided over b "d$e Francisco /."r$os to inhibit the B"d$e from f"rther actin$ in Special /roceedin$s ;o. 916-+. The movantsalle$ed, amon$ others, the follo'in$=
# # # # # # # # #
6. To (eep the a$itation to sell movin$, Att. Anti$"a filed a motion for the prod"ction of thecertificates of title and to deposit the same 'ith the ranch !ler( of !o"rt, pres"mabl for theread inspection of interested b"ers. Said motion 'as $ranted b the on. !o"rt in its order of October 2, 19<0 'hich, ho'ever, became the s"bBect of vario"s motions forreconsideration from heirs-distrib"tees 'ho contended that as o'ners the cannot bedeprived of their titles for the flims reasons advanced b Att, Anti$"a. 4n vie' of the
motions for reconsideration, Att Anti$"a "ltimatel 'ithdra' his motions for prod"ction oftitles.
<. The incident concernin$ the prod"ction of titles tri$$ered another incident involvin$ Att.+a"l . Sesbreno 'ho 'as then the co"nsel of herein movants /etra O. orromeo and
Amelinda . Talam 4n connection 'ith said incident, Att. Sesbreno filed a pleadin$ 'hich thetion. presidin$, "d$e !onsidered direct contempt beca"se amon$ others, Att. Sesbrenoinsin"ated that the on. /residin$ "d$e stands to receive *fat commission* from the sale ofthe entire propert. 4ndeed, Att. Sesbreno 'as serio"sl in dan$er of bein$ declared incontempt of co"rt 'ith the dim prospect of s"spension from the practice of his profession."t obvio"sl to e#tricate himself from the prospect of contempt and s"spension. Att.Sesbreno chose rapproachment and "ltimatel Boined forces 'ith Att. Anti$"a, et al., 'ho,
to$ether, contin"ed to harass administrator
# # # # # # # # #
9. The herein movants are informed and so the alle$e, that a brother of the on. /residin$"d$e is married to a sister of Att. 5omin$o %. Anti$"a.
1. There is no' a clear t"$ of 'ar bet 'een Att. Anti$"a, et al. 'ho are a$itatin$ for thesale of the entire estate or to b" o"t the individ"al heirs, on the one hand, and the hereinmovants, on the other, 'ho are not 'illin$ to sell their distrib"tive shares "nder the terms andconditions presentl proposed. 4n this t"$ of 'ar, a pattern of harassment has becomeapparent a$ainst the herein movants, especiall ose !"enco orromeo. Amon$ theharassments emploed b Att Anti$"a et al. are the pendin$ motions for the removal of
administrator ose !"enco orromeo, the s"bpoena duces tecu) iss"ed to the ban( 'hichsee(s to invade into the privac of the personal acco"nt of ose !"enco orromeo, and theother matters mentioned in para$raph 0 hereof. @ore harassment motions are e#pected "ntilthe herein movants shall finall ield to the proposed sale. 4n s"ch a sit"ation, the hereinmovants be$ for an entirel independent and impartial B"d$e to pass "pon the merits of saidincidents.
11. Sho"ld the on. /residin$ "d$e contin"e to sit and ta(e co$niance of this proceedin$,incl"din$ the incidents above-mentioned, he is liable to be mis"nderstood as bein$ biased infavor of Att Anti$"a, et al. and preB"diced a$ainst the herein movants. 4ncidents 'hich macreate this impression need not be en"merated herein. 7pp. 39-1, +ollo8
The motion for inhibition 'as denied b "d$e Francisco /. "r$os. Their motion for reconsiderationhavin$ been denied, the private respondents filed a petition for certiorari andMor prohibition 'ithpreliminar inB"nction before the 4ntermediate Appellate !o"rt.
4n the appellate co"rt, the private respondents alle$ed, amon$ others, the follo'in$=
# # # # # # # # #
16. &ith all d"e respect, petitioners re$ret the necessit of havin$ to state herein thatrespondent on. Francisco /. "r$os has sho'n "nd"e interest in p"rsin$ the sale initiatedb Att. 5omin$o %. Anti$"a, et al. Si$nificantl, a brother of respondent on. Francisco /.
"r$os is married to a sister of Att. 5omin$o %. Anti$"a.
1<. )vidence the proposed sale of the entire properties of the estate cannot be le$all done'itho"t the conformit of the heirs-distrib"tees beca"se the certificates of title are alreadre$istered in their names ence, in p"rs"it of the a$itation to sell, respondent on. Francisco/. "r$os "r$ed the heirs-distrib"tees to sell the entire propert based on the rationale thatproceeds thereof deposited in the ban( 'ill earn interest more than the present income ofthe so called estate. @ost of the heirs-distrib"tees, ho'ever. have been petitioner timid tosa their piece. Onl the M9 $ro"p of heirs led b ose !"enco orromeo have had theco"ra$e to stand "p and ref"se the proposal to sell clearl favored b respondent on.Francisco /. "r$os.
# # # # # # # # #
2. /etitioners 'ill refrain from disc"ssin$ herein the merits of the shot$"n motion of Att.5omin$o %. Anti$"a as 'ell as other incidents no' pendin$ in the co"rt belo' 'hich smac(of harassment a$ainst the herein petitioners. For, re$ardless of the merits of said incidents,petitioners respectf"ll contend that it is hi$hl improper for respondent on. Francisco /."r$os to contin"e to preside over Sp. /roc. ;o. 916-+ b reason of the follo'in$circ"mstances=
7a8 e has sho'n "nd"e interest in the sale of the properties as initiated b Att.5omin$o %. Anti$"a 'hose sister is married to a brother of respondent.
7b8 The proposed sale cannot be le$all done 'itho"t the conformit of the heirs-distrib"tees, and petitioners have openl ref"sed the sale, to the $reatdisappointment of respondent.
7c8 The shot $"n motion of Att. Anti$"a and similar incidents are clearl intended toharass and embarrass administrator ose !"enco orromeo in order to press"re himinto accedin$ to the proposed sale.
7d8 +espondent has sho'n bias and preB"dice a$ainst petitioners b failin$ to resolvethe claim for attornes fees filed b ose !"enco orromeo and the late !rispinorromeo. Similar claims b the other la'ers 'ere resolved b respondent afterpetitioners ref"sed the proposed sale. 7pp. 1-3, +ollo8
On @arch 1, 1903, the appellate co"rt rendered its decision $rantin$ the petition for certiorari andMor
prohibition and dis"alifin$ "d$e Francisco /. "r$os from ta(in$ f"rther co$niance of Special/roceedin$s ;o. 916-+. The co"rt also ordered the transmission of the records of the case to the)#ec"tive "d$e of the +e$ional Trial !o"rt of +e$ion >44 for re-rafflin$.
A motion for reconsideration of the decision 'as denied b the appellate co"rt on April 11, 1903.ence, the present petition for revie' see(in$ to modif the decision of the 4ntermediate Appellate!o"rt insofar as it dis"alifies and inhibits "d$e Francisco /. "r$os from f"rther hearin$ the caseof 4ntestate )state of >ito orromeo and orders the remand of the case to the )#ec"tive "d$e of the+e$ional Trial !o"rt of !eb" for re-rafflin$.
The principal iss"e in this case has become moot and academic beca"se "d$e Francisco /."r$os decided to retire from the +e$ional Trial !o"rt of !eb" sometime before the latest
reor$aniation of the B"diciar. o'ever, 'e decide the petition on its merits for the $"idance of the B"d$e to 'hom this case 'ill be reassi$ned and others concerned.
The petitioners den that respondent ose !"enco orromeo has been harassed. The contend that"d$e "r$os has benn sho'n "n"s"al interest in the proposed sale of the entire estate for/6,<,. in favor of the b"ers of Att. Anti$"a. The claim that this disinterest is sho'n b the
B"d$es order of @arch 2, 19<9 assessin$ the propert of the estate at /1:,,.. The addthat he onl ordered the administrator to sell so m"ch of the properties of the estate to pa theattornes fees of the la'ers-claimants. To them, the inhibition of "d$e "r$os 'o"ld have been"nreasonable beca"se his orders a$ainst the fail"re of ose !"enco orromeo, as administrator, to$ive an acco"ntin$ and inventor of the estate 'ere all affirmed b the appellate co"rt. The claimthat the respondent co"rt, sho"ld also have ta(en B"dicial notice of the resol"tion of this !o"rt
directin$ the said B"d$e to *e#pedite the settlement and adB"dication of the case* in .+. ;o. :232. And finall, the state that the dis"alification of B"d$e "r$os 'o"ld dela f"rther the closin$ of theadministration proceedin$ as he is the onl B"d$e 'ho is conversant 'ith the < vol"mes of therecords of the case.
+espondent ose !"enco orromeo, to sho' that he had been harassed. co"ntered that "d$e"r$os appointed +icardo >. +ees as co-administrator of the estate on October 11, 19<2, etorromeo 'as sin$led o"t to ma(e an acco"ntin$ of 'hat t he 'as s"pposed to have received as
rentals for the land "pon 'hich the "liana Trade !enter is erected, from an"ar, 19<< to Febr"ar1902, incl"sive, 'itho"t mentionin$ the 'ithholdin$ ta# for the "rea" of 4nternal +even"e. 4n orderto bolster the a$itation to sell as proposed b 5omin$o %. Anti$"a, "d$e "r$os invited Antonioarredo, r., to a series of conferences from Febr"ar 26 to 20, 19<9. 5"rin$ the conferences, Att.
Antonio arredo, r., offered to b" the shares of the heirs-distrib"tees pres"mabl to cover "p theproBected sale initiated b Att. Anti$"a.
On @arch 2, 19<9, or t'o das after the conferences, a motion 'as filed b petitioner 5omin$o %. Anti$"a prain$ that ose !"enco orromeo be re"ired to file an inventor 'hen he has alreadfiled one to acco"nt for cash, a report on 'hich the administrators had alread rendered= and toappear and be e#amined "nder oath in a proceedin$ cond"cted b "d$e "r$os lt 'as also praedthat s"bpoena duces tecu) be iss"ed for the appearance of the @ana$er of the !onsolidated an(and Tr"st !o., brin$in$ all the ban( records in the name of ose !"enco orromeo Bointl 'ith his'ife as 'ell as the appearance of heirs-distrib"tees Amelinda orromeo Talam and another heirdistrib"tee >italiana orromeo. Sim"ltaneo"sl 'ith the filin$ of the motion of 5omin$o Anti$"a, Att.+a"l . Sesbreno filed a re"est for the iss"ance of s"bpoena duces tecu) to the @ana$er of!onsolidated an( and Tr"st !o., 4nc. +e$ister of 5eeds of !eb" !it +e$ister of 5eeds for the/rovince of !eb" and another s"bpoena duces tecu) to Att. ose !"enco orromeo.
On the same date, the ranch !ler( of !o"rt iss"ed a s"bpoena d"ces tec"m to the @ana$ert of theban(, the +e$ister of deeds for the !it of !eb", the +e$ister of 5eeds for the /rovince, of !eb".and to ose !"enco orromeo.
On the follo'in$ da, @arch 3, 19<9, Att a"dioso v. >illa$onalo in behalf of the heirs of @arcialorromeo 'ho had a common ca"se 'ith Att arredo, r., Boined petitioner 5omin$o %. Anti$"a bfilin$ a motion for relief of the administrator.
On @arch :, 19<9, Att. >illa$onalo filed a re"est for the iss"ance of a s"bpoena duces tecu) toprivate respondent ose !"enco orromeo to brin$ and prod"ce all the o'ners* copies of the titles
in the co"rt presided order b "d$e "r$os.
!onse"entl. the ranch !ler( of !o"rt iss"ed a s"bpoena duces tecu) commandin$ Att. ose!"enco orromeo to brin$ and prod"ce the titles in co"rt.
All the above-incidents 'ere set for hearin$ on "ne <, 19<9 b"t on "ne 1, 19<9, before the dateof the hearin$, "d$e "r$os iss"ed an order denin$ the private respondents motion forreconsideration and the motion to "ash the s"bpoena. 6avvp(i6
4t 'as f"rther ar$"ed b the private respondents that if ,B"d$e Francisco /. "r$os is not inhibited ordis"alified from trin$ Sp. /roc. ;o. 916-+, there 'o"ld be a miscarria$e of B"stice eca"se for thepast t'elve ears, he had not done anthin$ to'ards the clos"re of the estate proceedin$s e#cept to
sell the properties of the heirs-distrib"tees as initiated b petitioner 5omin$o %. Anti$"a at 6.< millionpesos 'hile the 4ntestate !o"rt had alread eval"ated it at 1: million pesos.
The alle$ations of the private respondents in their motion for inhibition, more specificall, theinsistence of the trial B"d$e to sell the entire estate at /6,<,., 'here M9 $ro"p of heirsobBected, cannot easil be i$nored. S"spicion of partialit on the part of a trial B"d$e m"st be avoidedat all costs. 4n the case of Bautista v. ebeuno701 S!+A :3:8, this !o"rt stated=
... The "d$e m"st maintain and preserve the tr"st and faith of the parties liti$ants. e m"sthold himself above reproach and s"spicion. At the ver first si$n of lac( of faith and tr"st tohis actions, 'hether 'ell $ro"nded or not, the "d$e has no other alternative b"t inhibithimself from the case. A B"d$e ma not be le$all /rohibited from sittin$ in a liti$ation, b"t'hen circ"mstances appear that 'ill ind"ce do"bt to his honest act"ations and probit infavor or of either partl or incite s"ch state of mind, he sho"ld cond"ct a caref"l self-
e#amination. e sho"ld e#ercise his discretion in a 'a that the peoples faith in the !o"rtsof "stice is not impaired, *The better co"rse for the "d$e "nder s"ch circ"mstances is todis"alif himself *That 'a he avoids bein$ mis"nderstood, his rep"tation for probit andobBectivit is preserve ed. 'hat is more important, the 4deal of impartial administration of
B"stice is lived "p to.
4n this case, the fervent distr"st of the private respondents is based on so"nd reasons. As )arlierstated, ho'ever, the petition for revie' see(in$ to modif the decision of the 4ntermediate Appellate!o"rt insofar as it dis"alifies and inhibits "d$e Francisco /. "r$os from f"rther hearin$ the4ntestate )state of >ito orromeo case and orderin$ the remand of the case to the )#ec"tive "d$eof the +e$ional Trial !o"rt for re-rafflin$ sho"ld be 5);4)5 for the decision is not onl valid b"t theiss"e itself has become moot and academic.
G.. 3o. KK
The petitioners see( to restrain the respondents from f"rther actin$ on an and all incidents inSpecial /roceedin$s ;o. 916-+ d"rin$ the pendenc of this petition and ;o. 63010. The also prathat all acts of the respondents related to the said special proceedin$s after @arch 1, 1903 'hen therespondent "d$e 'as dis"alified b the appellate co"rt be declared n"ll and void and 'itho"t forceand effect 'hatsoever.
The petitioners state that the respondent "d$e has set for hearin$ all incidents in Special/roceedin$s ;o. 916-+, incl"din$ the reversion from the heirs-distrib"tees to the estate, of the
distrib"ted properties alread titled in their names as earl as 19<, not'ithstandin$ the pendin$inhibition case elevated before this !o"rt 'hich is doc(eted as .+. ;o. 63010.
The petitioners f"rther ar$"e that the present stat"s of Special /roceedin$ ;o. 916-+ re"ires onlthe appraisal of the attornes fees of the la'ers-claimants 'ho 'ere individ"all hired b theirrespective heirs-clients, so their attornes fees sho"ld be le$all char$ed a$ainst their respectiveclients and not a$ainst the estate.
On the other hand, the respondents maintain that the petition is a dilator one and barred b res
=udicata beca"se this !o"rt on "l 0, 1901, in .+. ;o. :232 directed the respondent "d$e toe#pedite the settlement and li"idation of the decedents estate. The claim that this resol"tion,'hich 'as alread final and e#ec"tor, 'as in effect reversed and n"llified b the 4ntermediate
Appellate !o"rt in its case-A! .+.-;o. S/ - 111: J 'hen it $ranted the petition for certiorari andor prohibition and dis"alified "d$e Francisco /. "r$os from ta(in$ f"rther co$niance of Special/roceedin$s ;o. 916+ as 'ell as orderin$ the transmission of the records of the case to the)#ec"tive "d$e of the +e$ional Trial !o"rt of +e$ion >44 for re-rafflin$ on @arch 1, 1903, 'hich 'asappealed to this !o"rt b means of a /etition for +evie' 7.+. ;o. 630108.
&e a$ree 'ith the petitioners contention that attornes fees are not the obli$ation of the estate b"tof the individ"al heirs 'ho individ"all hired their respective la'ers. The portion, therefore, of the
Order of A"$"st 1:, 1969, se$re$atin$ the e#horbitantl e#cessive amo"nt of W of the mar(etval"e of the estate from 'hich attornes fees shall be ta(en and paid sho"ld be deleted.
5"e to o"r affirmance of the decision of the 4ntermediate Appellate !o"rt in .+. ;o. 63010, 'e$rant the petition.
&)+)FO+), J
718 4n .+. ;o. 11<1, the order of the respondent B"d$e dated 5ecember 2, 19<,declarin$ the respondent entitled to :M9 of the estate of the late >ito orromeo and the orderdated "l <, 19<:, denin$ the petitioners motion for reconsideration of the aforementionedorder are hereb S)T AS45) for bein$ ;E%% and >O45
728 4n .+. ;o. ::, the order of the trial co"rt declarin$ the 'aiver doc"ment valid ishereb S)T AS45)
738 4n .+. ;o. 63010, the petition is hereb 5);4)5. The iss"e in the decision of the
4ntermediate Appellate !o"rt dis"alifin$ and orderin$ the inhibition of "d$e Francisco /."r$os from f"rther hearin$ Special /roceedin$s ;o. 916-+ is declared moot and academic.The B"d$e 'ho has ta(en over the sala of retired "d$e Francisco /. "r$os shallimmediatel cond"ct hearin$s 'ith a vie' to terminatin$ the proceedin$s. 4n the event thatthe s"ccessor-B"d$e is li(e'ise dis"alified, the order of the 4ntermediate Appellate !o"rtdirectin$ the )#ec"tive "d$e of the +e$ional Trial !o"rt of !eb" to re-raffle the case shallbe implemented=
78 4n .+. ;o. 6:99:, the petition is hereb +A;T)5. The iss"e see(in$ to restrain "d$eFrancisco /. "r$os from f"rther actin$ in .+. ;o. 63010 is @OOT and A!A5)@4!=
7:8 4n .+, ;o, 6209:, the trial co"rt is hereb ordered to speedil terminate the close
Special /roceedin$s ;o. 916-+, s"bBect to the s"bmission of an inventor of the realproperties of the estate and an acco"ntin$ of the cash and ban( deposits b the petitioner-administrator of the estate as re"ired b this !o"rt in its +esol"tion dated "ne 1:, 1903and
768 The portion of the Order of A"$"st 1:, 1969, se$re$atin$ W of the mar(et val"e of theestate from 'hich attornes fees shall be ta(en and paid sho"ld be, as it is hereb5)%)T)5. The la'ers sho"ld collect from the heirs-distrib"tees 'ho individ"all hiredthem, attornes fees accordin$ to the nat"re of the services rendered b"t in amo"nts 'hichsho"ld not e#ceed more than 2W of the mar(et val"e of the propert the latter ac"iredfrom the estate as beneficiaries
