Untitledsdf
Transcript of Untitledsdf
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
1/14
RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURTManila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L-6889March23,1915
JOAQUINIBAESDEALDECOAYPALET,ETAL.,plaintiff-appellants,vs.THEHONGKONGANDSHANGHAIBANKINGCORPORATION,ETAL.,defendants-appellants.
ChicoteandMiranda,andTirsodeIruretaGoyenaforplaintiffs.Haussermann,CohnandFisherfordefendants.
TRENT,J.:
ThisisanappealfromthejudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofthecityofManilaenteredonthe27thdayofJanuary,1911.
ThisactionwascommencedinOctober,1908,byJoaquinIbaezdeAldecoaandZoiloIbaesdeAldecoatocancelacertaininstrumentofmortgageexecutedbythem,jointlywithAldecoaandCo.andIsablePalet,infavoroftheHong ongandShanghaiBan ingCorporation.BythismortgagevariouspropertiesofAldecoaandCo.,ofIsabelPalet,andoftheplaintiffwerehypothecatedtosecurethepaymentuntotheban ofanoverdraftofAldecoaandCo.amountingtoP475,000.ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtdismissestheactionastoJoaquindeAldecoaandgrantsthereliefsoughtinfavorofZoiloIbaezdeAldeoca.BothJoaquinIbaezdeAldecoaandtheban appealed.
Theplaintiffs,JoaquinIbaezdeAldecoaandZoiloIbaezdeAldecoa,wereborninthePhilippineIslandsonMarch27,1884,andJuly4,1885,respectively,thelegitimatechildrenofZoiloIbaezandIsabelPalet.BothparentswerenativesofS
pain.Thefather'sdomicilewasinManila,PhilippineIsland,andhediedhereonOctober4,1895.Thewidow,stillretainingherManiladomicile,leftthePhilippineIslandsandwenttoSpainin1897,becauseofherhealth,anddidnotreturnuntil1902.Thetwoplaintiffsaccompaniedheronthisjourneyandreturnedwithher.Afterthedeathofthefather,thefirmofAldecoaandCo.,ofwhichhadbeenamember,wasreorganized,andhiswidowbecameoneofthegeneral,or"capitalistic,"partnershipofthefirm.Inhepublicinstrumentwhichconstitutesthearticlesofcopartnership,theplaintiffsappearaspartners.
OnJuly31,1903,IsabelPalet,themotheroftheplaintiff,whowerethenovertheageof18years,wentbeforeanotarypublicandexecutedtwoinstruments(ExhibitsDandE)whereinandwherebysheemancipatedhertwosons,theplaintiffs,withtheirconsent.Noguardianofthepersonorpropertyofthesetwoplaint
iffshadeverbeenappliedfororappointedunderandbyvirtueoftheprovisionsoftheCodeofCivilProceduresincethepromulgationofsaidCodein1901.Instead,theplaintiffshadcontinuedfromthedeathoftheirfatherunderthecustodyoftheirmotheruntiltheexecutionofExhibitsDandE.
OnFebruary23,1906,thefirmofAldecoaandCo.washeavilyindebtedtotheHong ongandShanghaiBan ,andthelatterwasdesirousofcollectingorsecuringthepaymentofthisindebtedness.ThecorrespondencebetweenAldecoaandCo.andIsabelPalet,theplaintiffs,andtheban disclosedthattheban wouldforeclosethisaccountunlessthesamewassufficientlyguaranteedbyadequatesecurit
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
2/14
ies.ItwasfinallyproposedthatIsabelPaletandhertwosons,theplaintiffs,shouldmortgage,inadditiontocertainsecuritiesofAldecoaandCo.,certainoftheirrealpropertiesassecurityfortheobligationsofAldecoaandCo.So,onFebruary23,1906,themortgage,whichisthesubjectmatterofthepresentaction,wasexecuted.OnDecember31,1906,thefirmofAldecoaandCo.expiredbylimitationofthepartnershipterm,andthefirmwentintoliquidation.
OnJune30,1907,AldecoaandCo.inliquidation,forthepurposesofcertainlitigationabouttobecommencedinitsbehalf,requiredaninjunctionbondinthesumofP50,000,whichwasfurnishedbytheban upontheconditionthatanyliabilityincurredonthepartoftheban upontheinjunctionbondwouldbecoveredbythemortgageofFebruary23,1906.AnagreementtothiseffectwasexecutedbyIsabelPalet,bytheplaintiffJoaquinIbaesdeAldecoa,whohadthenattainedhisfullmajority,andbyZoiloIbaezdeAldecoa,whowasnotyet23yearsofage.Subsequentthereto,andin1908,theplaintiffscommencedanactionagainsttheirmother,IsabelPalet,andAldecoaandCo.,inwhichtheban wasnotapartyandinSeptemberofthatyear,procuredajudgmentannullingthearticlesofcopartnershipofAldecoaandCo.,insofarastheplaintiffswereconcerned,anddecreeingthattheywerecreditorsandnotpartnersofthatfirm.
ThequestionispresentwhetherDoaIsabelPaletcouldlegallyemancipatetheplaintiffsunderthelawinforceinthiscountryinJuly,1903andthusconferuponthemcapacitytoexecuteavalidmortgageontheirrealpropertywithherconsent.Thesolutionofthisquestioninvolvesaninquiryastotheeffectofthep
rovisionsofthenewCodeofCivilProcedurerelatingtoguardianshipuponcertainprovisionsoftheCivilCoderelatingtothecontrolbyparentsoverthepersonsandpropertyoftheirminorchildren.
UndertheCivilCodeparentshadgeneralcontroloverthepersonsoftheirchildrenandalsoovertheirproperty.ThefollowingarticlesoftheCivilCodeillustratetheextentoftheparentalauthorityoverthepropertyoftheirminorchildrenunderthatcode:
159.Thefather,orinhisabsence,themother,isthelegaladministratorofthepropertyofthechildrenwhoareundertheirauthority.
160.Theownershipofpropertywhichachildnotemancipatedmayhaveacquired,
oracquiresbyitswor orindustryorforanygoodconsideration,isvestedinthechild,andtheusufructinthefatherormother,whohashimorherunderhisorherauthorityandinhisorhercompany;butifthechild,withtheconsentoftheparents,livesindependentlyofthem,heorsheshallbeconsideredasemancipatedforallpurposewithregardtosaidpropertyandshallownitandenjoytheusufructandadministrationthereof.
161.Theownershipandusufructofwhatthechildacquiredwiththecapitalofhisorherparentsisvestedinthelatter;butshouldtheparentsexpresslyassigntohimorherthewholeorpartoftheprofitswhichheorshemayobtain,suchprofitsshallnotbechargeabletothelatterintheinheritance.
162.Theownershiporusufructofthepropertyorincomedonatedorleftbywill
toachildnotemancipated,tocoverthecostofhisorhereducationandinstruction,isvestedinhimorher;butthefatherorthemothershallhavetheadministrationthereofifnootherprovisohasbeenmadeinthegiftsorbequest,inwhichcasethewillofthedonorsshallbestrictlyobserved.
Nothingisheresaidofaboundedguardianappointedbythecourtandrequiredtoaccounttothecourtforthepropertyandincomeofthechild'sestate.FiliationstoodinlieuofthoselegalsafeguardswithwhichthepresentCodeofProcedureenvelopsthepropertyofaminorchild.Notonlythis,buttheincomeorusufructorpropertyinheritedbythechildorbequeathedtoitbelongedtothepa
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
3/14
rentunlessthechildhadbeenformallyemancipatedorlivedapartfromhisparentwiththelatter'sconsent.(Art.160.)Trueitisthatthelawpreventedtheallegationorincumbranceofrealpropertyofthechildwithoutpermissionofthecourt(CivilCode,art164;MortgageLaw,art.205)andrequiredtheparenttogivesecurity,bindinghimselforherselftocomplywiththeobligationsimposeduponusufructuariesincasetheparentcontractedasecondmarriage.(CivilCode,art.492;Mort.Law,art200.)Butrestrictionssuchasthesedidnotma eaparentaguardian.TheCivilCodedrewasharpandclearlydistinguishablelinebetweenguardianship,properlysocalled,andthepatriapotestad,orparentalauthority.Theywereprovidedforinseparatetitles,andthedefinitionsofguardianshipcontainedinarticle199ofthatcodeprovidedthatit'isthecustodyofthepersonandproperty,orofthepropertyonly,ofthosewho,notbeingunderparentalauthority,areincapableoftal ingcareofthemselves."
ThecontrastbetweenthepatriapotestadoftheCivilCodeandguardianshipunderourpresentcodeofprocedureisnonethelessmar ed.Thelatterrequiresaguardiantoobtainhisappointmentfromthecourt;toexecuteabondforthefaithfulperformanceofhisduties;toma eaninventoryoftheproperty,themanagementofwhichheunderta esandtorenderaccountsatspecifiedintervals;tomanagetheestateofhiswardfrugallyandwithoutwasteandapplytheincomeandprofitsthereoftothesupportofthewardsofarasmaybenecessary.Aguardianisacourtofficer,responsibletothecourt,anddischargeablebythecourtalone.
Therewas,however,noconflictbetweenthepatriapotestadandguardianshipundertheCivilCode.Thiswasforthereason,asstatedabovethatthelawofguardianshipexpresslyexcludedthepatriapotestadfromitsoperation.Butintheenactmentofthepresentcodeofprocedure,noattemptwasmade,indealingwiththesubjectofguardianshiptoexcludedthepatriapotestadfromtheoperationofthelawofguardianship.Forthepurposeofinauguratingaprocedureonthesubjectofguardianshipmoreinconsonancewiththeremainderofthenewprocedure,wholesectionsoftheCaliforniaprobateprocedurewereincorporatedalmostverbatiminthenewcode.Theseborrowedsectionscomprisepracticallyallofourpresentlawofguardianship.AsthereisnosuchinstitutionintheStatesofCaliforniaasthepatriapotestaditismanifestthatnoprovisionsavingitfromtheoperationofthelawofguardianshipwouldbefoundinthelawsoftheStates.Inotherwords,thelawofguardianshipinCaliforniaextendedtoandinclude
dminorchildrenwhoseparentswerestillliving.Itwasthislawwhichwasincorporatedintothenewcodeofprocedure,andthePhilippinesCommissioninsertednoexceptionsavingtheinstitutionofpatriaprotestedfromitsoperation.Thelanguageofthenewlawistooplaintopermitofthecourtsgivingitaninterpretationwhichwouldpermitofhecontinuedexistenceofthepatriapotestadwithregardtothechild'sestateunlesslanguagebewhollydisregarded.Section551providesthatthecourtmayappointaguardianofthepersonorestateofminor.Certainly,thislanguageiscomprehensiveenoughtoincludeallminors,whethertheirparentsarelivingornot.ifthelawdoesnotcommandorprohibit,itpermits;andwherethegrantisrestricted,itreachesallsubjectswithinthegrant.Section553expresslyabolishedtheprerogativeofthefatherandthemotherintheordernamed,ofadministeringthepropertyoftheirminorchildren,andgivesthecourtpowertoappointanotherperson.herethespecificlanguageo
fthelawshowsthatguardianshipismeanttoincludeminorchildrenwhoseparentsoroneofthemareliving.
Undersection553,thepersonappointedguardianofthechild'sestateisentitledtopossession.Thisisclearlyinconsistentwiththeparent'srightsofusufruct,fortheusufructuaryisentitledestateandthereinvestmentoftheproceeds.Itisapparentthatthissectioncontemplatesanabsolutesale,andthatsuchasaleisnotconsistentwithusufructuaryinterestvestedintheparent.These,aswellasotherspecificprovisionsofthenewcode,madeitclearthattherepugnancebetweenthepatriapotestadandthenewlawofguardianshipissuchth
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
4/14
attheparent,assuch,nolongerhasthepowertoenjoytheadministrationandusufructofthepropertyofhisminorchildren.
Keepingthisresumeoftherepugnancebetweenthepatriapotestadandthenewlawofguardianshipinmind,letusnownoticetheargumentthattheappointmentofaguardianunderthenewlawforaminorchildwhoseparents,oroneofthem,islivingisadiscretionarydutyofthecourt;andthatthepatriapotestadmaystillexist,subjectonlytothepowerofthecourttobringthechildandhispropertyundertheoperationofthenewlawofguardianship.
Itistruethatsection551confersthepowerofappointmentuponthecourtasamatterofdiscretion"whenitappearsnecessaryorconvenient."Butthescopeofthisdiscretionisrestrictedtothequestionofwhetherthereshallorshallnotbeappointedastatutoryguardian.ItdoesnotdelegatetothecourtthepowerofdecidingwhetherthechildandhispropertyshallbegovernedbytheSpanishpatriapotestadorbytheprovisionsofthepresentCodeofCivilProcedure.itdoesnotleavetothecourtthepowertobestowtheusufructofthechild'spropertyupontheparentasamatterofgrace.Aswehavestateabove,thenewlawofguardianshipwasenactedwithouttheslightestattemptbeingmadetopreservetheinstitutionofpatriapotestad.Aswehavealsoseen,theCivilCodeselectedminorchildrenwhoseparentsoroneofthemwaslivingasaspecialclassofincompetentsforwhomaspecialformofguardianshipwasprovided,andthiswasrecognizedasanexceptionfromtheoperationofthelawofguardianship(art.199).Thenewlawofguardianship,ascontainedintheCodeofCivilProcedure,
wasenactedwithoutreferencetothepreexistinglawrelatingtoincapacitatedpersons.Itwasborrowedalmostverbatim,andcertainlyinallsubstantialparticulars,fromthestatuteofCalifornia,wheretheSpanishpatriapotestadwasunnown.Wemustinterpretandapplythatlawasitcomestousandallowtoitthefullvigorofitslanguage.Itsapplicationhere,inaccordancewithwell nownrulesofstatutoryconstructionandinterpretation,shouldcorrespondinfundamentalpoints,atleast,withitsapplicationinthejurisdictionfromwhenceitwasta en.Itmustbeta enastheintentofthelegislaturethatthepracticalapplicationofthoseprovisionsoftheCodeofCivilProcedurerelatingtoguardianshipshouldconforminthemainwiththepracticeunderthesamestatuteinCalifornia.ItisobligatoryuponthejudicialdepartmenttofollowtheintentofthelegislativebranchoftheGovernmentintheapplicationoflaws.Itisbutstatingthepropositionindifferenttermstosaythatourpresentlawofguard
ianshipdoesnotcontemplateareferencebythecourttotheprovisionsoftheCivilCoderelatingtothepatriapotestadinresolvingthequestionofwhetheraguardianoughttobeappointedforaminorchildwhoseparentsoroneofthemisliving.Thatthefactofthechild'shavingaparentorparentsmaybeta enintoconsiderationbythecourtindeterminingthequestionmaynotbedisputed.Section553,aswehaveseen,recognizestheclosetbondof inship nowntonatureasasufficientguarantyforthefaithfulcareofthechild'sperson.Butsuchisnotthecasewiththechild'sproperty.Thelawsaysthatastotheadministrationoftheestateofaminorchildaparentshallonlyhaveapreferentialrights;and,whentheparentdoessecureanappointmentasguardianofachild'sestate,hemustqualityasanystrangerwould,andperformthesamedutiesandacceptthesamecompensationasastranger.Cananythingbemoreinconsistentwiththerightwhichthepatriapotestadgrantstheparentofadministrationandu
sufructinthechild'spropertybymereoperationoflaw,andrequiringneitherappointmentnorsupervisionbythecourt(exceptinaverylimitedsense,CivilCode,art160;MortgageLaw,arts.200and205)?Thetruthisthatthepatriapotestadandthepresentlawofguardianshipcoverthesamesubject;i.e.,thecustodyandcareofhepersonandpropertyofminorchildrenwhoseparentsoroneofthemisliving.Bythis,ofcourse,wedonotmeantorestrictthenewlawtothisclassofincompetentsalone.Theprovisionsofthetwolawsareentirelyrepugnanttoeachother;theyaretotallyirreconcilableifanyproperrespectbehadforthelanguageusedinthelatestlaw,andtheevidentintentofthelegislativedepartmentinenactingit.Theformermust,therefore,yieldtothelatte
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
5/14
r.
Theprovisionsofthenewcodeofprocedureonguardianshipbeingapplicabletominorchildrenwhoseparentsoroneofthemarestillliving,itisclearthatthosearticlesoftheCivilCoderelatingtoemancipationofminorsbytheirparentsarealsopartiallyatleast,repealed.Byreferencetothesearticles(314-319),itwillbenotedthatbyemancipatinghischildtheparentsurrenderstoittherighttotheusufructandadministrationofhisproperty.This,ofcourse,isbasedupontheaprioriconditionofthelawofpatriapotestadthattheparenthastheusufructandadministrationofthechild'spropertytogive,which,aswehaveseen,henolongerhas.Nothavingtherightinthefirstplace,and,hence,noauthoritytoconcedeittohischild,theformalemancipationofaminorchildbytheparentcannotnowhavetheeffectprescribedinarticles314-319oftheCivilCode.For,werethispowerofemancipatinghisminorchildstillretainedbytheparents,thelattercouldbuttheexerciseofit,deprivethecourtguardianoftheadministrationandcontroloftheestate,or,inotherwords,thecourtproceedingswithreferencetothepersonandpropertyoftheminorchildwouldbytheparent'sact,beannulled.
Wehavenowdeterminedthattherightofadministrationandusufructofthechild'sproperty,grantedbytheformerlawtotheparent,andtherightofthelattertoemancipatehischildinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofarticle314etseq.,oftheCivilCode,wherebythechildta esovertheadministrationandusufructofhisownproperty,havebeenrepealedbythechapterofthenewcodeofp
rocedurerelatingtoguardianship.Butwedeemitnecessary,beforeproceedingfurther,tosaythattherearesomeprovisionsofthepatriapotestadwhicharenotnecessarilyinconflictwiththenewcodeofprocedure.Parentsareneverdeprivedofthenewcodeofprocedure.Parentsareneverdeprivedofthecustodyandcareoftheirchildrenexceptforcause.Thisisauniversalruleofallsystemsoflaw,asbeneficenttothechildasitisjusttotheparent.Indeed,itmightwellbesaidtobelongtotherealmofnaturaljustice.Happily,however,itisunnecessarytoresorttogeneralitiestoshowthatthepatriapotestadoftheCivilCodewithrespecttothepersonofminorchildrenisnotinconsistentwiththenewlawofguardianship.Section553ofthenewcodeprovidedthatthefatherandthemother,intheordernamed,areconsideredthenaturalguardiansofthechildandassuchentitledtothecustodyandcarefortheeducationoftheminors."Section768providesthattheeffectofadoptionshallbetofreethe
child"fromalllegalobligationofobedience"tohisparents.Fromsection770,itseemsclearthatparentsmaynotbedeprivedofthecustodyoftheirchildrenbecauseofunworthinessexceptafterhearing.Section771providedthatinthecaseofspouseslivingseparateordivorcedthecourtshalldeterminewhichofthemshallhave"thecarecustodyandcontroloftheoffspring."Theitalicizedwordclearlyac nowledgearightintheparents,undernormalconditions,toexerciseparentalauthorityoverthepersonsoftheirminorchildren.
Butsofarasthepropertyofsuchchildrenisconcerned,therightsoftheparentmustbesubordinatedtotheefficientwor ingofthenewlawofguardianship.Itisnot,ofcourse,truethataguardianofthepropertyoftheminorchildwillbeappointedinallcases.Itisalwayswithinthediscretionofthecourttodoso.Weapprehendthatnopropercaseforsuchanappointmentwouldbeprese
ntedtothecourtwhereachild'swor orindustrywereproductiveofsmallearningswhichwouldnecessarilybeconsumedinitsownsupport,andwhichtheparentsisrequiredtogive.Thesamemightpossiblybesaidwithreferencetopropertyacquiredbythechildforagoodconsideration.Thepurposeofthelawistoprotecttheestateofthechildfromtheavariceofdesigningpersonsbetheywhomtheymay.Itwouldhardlyseemnecessarytocarrythisdoctrinetothepointwheretheparenthavingthecustodyofthepersonoftheminorchildshouldnotbeentitledtoitsearningsorthatportionthereofnecessaryforitssupportascompensationforthecareandsupportwhichsuchparentiscalledupontogive.Wedonotthin therepealofthatbranchofthepatriapotestadrelatingtoth
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
6/14
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
7/14
utterlythrownuponthetendermerciesofselfishworldastorequiretheinterventionofaguardianappointedunderthenewlaw.Unlessthenewlawofguardianshipabrogatedtherightsofthoseparentsadministeringtheestatesoftheirminorintochildrenunderthepatriapotestadatthetimeitwentintoeffect,itdidnotabrogatetherightsofthosesameparentsoftosubsequentlyemancipatesuchchildrenundertheprovisionsofarticles314-317oftheCivilCode.Theparent'srightofemancipatinghischilddependedupontheantecedentrighttoexercisethepatriapotestad.Theformerwasnecessarilyaconsequenceofthelatter,andiftheparentexercisingthepatriapotestadatthetimethenewlawtooeffectwasnotmolested,neitherwashedeprivedoftherighttosubsequentlyemancipatehischildandtherebyconferuponthelattercapacitytocontractwiththirdpersons.
HavingdeterminedthattheparentCodeofCivilProcedurehasrepealedthepatriapotestadwithreferencetothechild'sandthepowerofemancipationbyconcessionoftheparent,thequestionremains,Doestheneworderofthingsapplytoaparentwhoassumedchargeofthepropertyofherminorchildrenin1895?Ifitdoes,thentheexecutionofthemortgagewhichtheappellantchildrennowsee tohaveannulledwasanactproperlydevolvinguponaguardianappointedbythecourt,whomusthaveas edforandreceiveditcouldbindthepropertyofthechildren.Ontheotherhand,ifthenewlawdoesnotaffectestateofminorchildrenwhoseparentsassumedchargethereofpriortotheenactmentofthenewcode,thevalidityofthemortgagemustbedeterminedbytheprovisionsoftheCivilCode.Tostatethepropositioninanotherform,Wereallparentsadministeringth
epropertyoftheirminorchildrenbyvirtueoftheprovisionsoftheCivilCodeonOctober1,1901(thedatethenewlawofguardianshipbecameoperative),ipsofactodeprivedoftheircontrolovertheestateoftheirminorchildren?Diditimmediatelybecomenecessarytobringtheseestatesundertheoperationofthenewlaw?
Undercoverofprocedurearadicaldepartmentfromthesubstantivelawhadbeenmade.TheCivilCodeprovidedamethodofconservingtheestateofminorchildrenthroughtheagencyoftheirparents,withoutthenecessityofjudicialintervention(exceptinaverylimitedsense).Ithad,furthermore,endowedtheminorchildafteremancipationbyconcessionoftheparentwiththecapacitytofreelycontractwiththirdspersons,requiringonlytheparent'sapprovalofcontractsinalienationoforencumberingthechild'srealpropertyandfortheborrowing
ofmoney.Andlastly,itgavetothirdpersonenteringintocontractswithemancipatedchildrenassurancethatsuchcontractwerebindingandvaliduponthechildren.Thenewlawofguardianshippracticallyplacedtheparentinthepositionofastrangertothechild'sestate,givinghimonlyapreferentialright,otherthingsbeingequal,toanappointmentasguardianoftheestate.Itbroughtthechild'sestateunderthecontrolofthecourt.Andfinally,theincapacityofthechildrenbetweentheageof18andtheageofmajoritytocontractwiththirdpersonscouldnotbemodifiedintheleastbymutualconsentoftheparentandchild,andhence,contractsmadeinthatmannerwerenolongerbindinguponthechild.Thechangewasabrupt,itwasentire,and,unfortunately,itwasnotspecifiedbutimplied.Whetherthechangewascasualorintended,itisunnecessarytodetermine.Thatitoccurredistheunavoidableconclusion.Underthesecircumstancestheinquirynaturallyarises,Doesthenewlawcontainanysavingprovi
sionexceptingfromitsoperationthoseestateofminorchildrenwhichwerebeingadministeredeitherbytheparentsunderthepatriapotestadorbythechildrenthemselvesundertheprovisionsoftheCivilCoderelatingtoemancipationbyconcessionoftheparent?Thattheauthorsofthenewcoderecognizedaconflictbetweenthenewlawofguardianshipandtheexistingsystemofcaringfortheestatesofincompetentsisevidentfromanexaminationofsection581thereof.Thatsectionreads:
PendingguardianshiptoproceedinaccordancewithSpanishlaw,withcertainexceptions.AndproceedingsincasesofguardianshippendinginthePhilippineIsla
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
8/14
ndatthetimeofthepassageofthisAct,shallproceedinaccordancewiththeexistingSpanishprocedureunderwhichtheguardianswereappointed:Provided,nevertheless,ThatanyguardianappointedunderexistingSpanishlawmayberemovedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsectionfivehundredandseventy-fourofthisAct,andhissuccessormaybeappointedasthereinprovided,andeverysuccessortoaguardiansoremovedshall,intheadministrationofthepersonorestate,oreither,oreither,asthecasemaybeofhisward,begovernedbytheprovisionsofthisAct.
ThissectionsavesfromtheoperationofthenewActallproceedingsincasesofguardianshippendinginthePhilippineIslandsatthetimeofitspassage.DoesthisrefertoandincludetheadministrationofthepropertyofminorchildrenbytheirparentsundertheprovisionsoftheCivilCode?ifitdoesthentheauthoritywhichIsabelPaletexercisedoverthepropertyofherminorchildrenwasnotaffectedbytheenactmentofthenewcodeofprocedure,andshewasatlibertytoproceedasshedid,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheCivilCode,toemancipateherchildrenbyaformaldeclaration,andtheythereuponacquiredthecapacityextendedtoemancipatedchildrenbyarticle317ofthatcode.
Examiningthesectionwithaviewtoascertainthemereliteralmeaningofthelanguageused,weareatoncemetwiththeargumentthatitrefersonlytocasesofguardianshipandthattheparentadministeringtheestateofhisminorchildinaccordancewiththeCivilCodeisnotaguardian,eitherundertheCivilCodeorasthatwordsisusedintheCodeofCivilProcedure.Hence,accordingtoth
isargument,thepatriapotestadandtheancillaryrightofemancipationpertainingtotheparentarenotsavedfromtheoperationofthenewlawbysection581.Butweareoftheopinionthatthisargumentamountstoaplayuponwordsratherthantoareasonableinterpretationofthesection.Inthefirstplace,thequestionarises,Inwhatsensewerethewords"guardian"anditsderivative,"guardianship,"usedinsection581?WeretheyusedinthesamesenseasintheprecedingsectionsofChapter27ofthenewAct,thechapterprescribingthenewlawofguardianship?Ifso,theyincludetheadministrationoftheestatesofallincompetents,includinginfantswhoseparentsareliving,forthatisthedesignofthenewlawofguardianship.Iftheargumentunderexaminationissound,itmustbeheldthattheauthorofthecodedescendedfromthisall-inclusivemeaningofthewordwhentheyfinallycametotheconsiderationofwhatoughttobesaved,andattemptedtodealonlywithguardianshipasthattermisunderstoodin
thecivillaw.AcarefulexaminationoftheentireAct,inthelightoftheconditionsunderwhichitwaspassed,revealsconvincingevidencethattheauthorsofthecodeattemptednosuchnicelyofexpressioninsection581.WiththeadventofAmericansovereigntyin1898therecameaninfluxofAmericanideaofadministrationofjustice.Anewcodeofcriminalprocedurewasenactedunderauthorityofthemilitarygovernorin1900,andearlyin1901thefirstPhilippineCommissionundertoo asoneofitsfirsttas stherecognizationofthecourtsandtheenactmentofanewcodeofcivilprocedure.ThenewlegislationdidnotpurporttobeanamendmentoftheSpanishlawonthesubject.Onthecontrary,itwasavirtualsubstitutionoftheonefortheother.ThevarioussectionsoftheCodeoutmaterialalterationfromoneoranother,adoptedwithoutmaterialalterationfromoneoranotheroftheStatesoftheAmericanUnion.Bothexecutiveandlegislativeaffairswere,atthetime,beingdischargedbyasinglebodythePhi
lippineCommissionandthepreasureofbusinessaffordedlittleopportunityortimetocarefullysurveythefiledcoveredbythenewlegislationanddiscoverhowmuchoftheformerlawwouldbeaffectedbythenewAct.Theonlymethodsthatcouldbesafelyfollowedunderthecircumstances,wastoruthlessbrushasidetheSpanishlawandinauguratethenewintheformwhichhadwithstoodthetestoftimeintheUnitedStates,andleavetheextentofthechangetobeascertainedbythecourtsintheactualadministrationofthenewcodebydeterminingimpliedrepeals.Hence,theauthorsofthenewcodeexpressedthemselvesentirelyintermsofAmericanlaw.Instancespointingtothisfactarenumerous.Thus,"embezzlement"insection30;"adversepossession"insection41"battery"and"slan
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
9/14
der"insection43;"corporation"insection198andvariousothersection;mayofthetermsusedinthechapteronevidence;"residuarylegatee"insection644;"heir"asitisusedinvarioussectionsoftheprobateprocedure;allshowquiteclearlytheextenttowhichtheauthorsofthenewcodeheldtothetechnicaltermsofAmericanlawincompilingthenewcode.Bearinginmindsuchextremeinstancesofthetermsinwhichtheauthorsofthenewcodeexpressedthemselves,isitpossiblethattheystoppedtoma eadistinctioninsection581betweentheadministrationofaminor'sestatebyhisparentandtheadministrationoftheestatesofallotherincompetents?They newthatthesystemtheywereintroducingwasapplicabletotheestateofallincompetents.Thefactthattheyinauguratedthisnewsystemofcaringfortheestatesofincompetentsclearlyshowsthattheydisapprovedwithoutdistinction,ofalltheexistinglawonthatsubject.Theadministrationoftheestateofaminorbyhisparentwasimpliedlyrepealedbythenewlaw.Isitnotreasonabletosupposethatthesavingclause,whichitwasdeemeddesirabletoinsertinthelaw,wasintended,byimplication,toincludedthosependingcasesofthatnature?Asavingclauseisenactedtosavesomethingwhichwouldotherwisebelost.Whenexistingprocedureisalteredorsubstitutedbyanother,itisusualtosavethoseproceedingspendingundertheoldlawatthetimethenewlawta eseffect.Thiswasthepurposeofsection581.Itwasdesignedtosaveundisturbedallpendingproceedingsinguardianshipcases:thatis,thoseproceedingsalreadybegunandstillunfinished,whichwouldotherwisehavebeenaffectedthenewlaw,weretobeallowedtocontinuetodeterminationinaccordancewiththeoldlaw.Therewasnoreasonforallowingguardianships,socalledundertheCivilCode,pendingatthetimethenewcodewent
intoeffect,tocontinueundisturbedbythenewlaw,whileparentswhowereadministeringthepropertyoftheirminorchildrenunderthesamecodedmustsubmittothenewregulations.Bothwereequallyfavoredinstitutionsunderthecivillaw,andbothwereequaldisapprovedbytheauthorsofthenewcode.
Butitissaidthatthosependingcasewhereintheparentswereadministrationthepropertyoftheirminorchildrendonotcomewithinthesavingprovisionsofsection581,becausethatsectionrefersonlytopendingcasesofguardianshipwhereintheguardianswereappointedinaccordancewiththeSpanishprocedure;thatis,guardianswhoweresubjecttoremovalbythecourtinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsection524ofthenewcode,andwhosesuccessorscouldbeappointedasthereinprovided.
Guardianship,socalledundertheCivilCode,wasconferred(a)bywill;(b)bylaw;and(c)bythefamilycouncil.Guardiansthusdesignatedwereremovablegenerallybythefamilycounsel.Therighttoadministerthepropertyofaninfantchildwasconferredupontheparentbylaw.Underarticle169oftheCivilCodetheparentlosttheauthorityoverhismindchild(1)byafinaljudgmentinacriminalcase;and(2)byafinaljudgmentinacasefordivorse.Andunderarticle171thecourtshadthepowertodepriveparentsoftheparentalauthorityorsuspendtheexercisethereofwhentheytreatedtheirchildrenwithexcessivecruelty,oriftheygavethemcorruptingorders,advice,orexamples.thecourtscouldalsodeprivetheparentseithertotallyorpartiallyoftheusufructofthechild'sproperty.
Allpendingcasesoftestamentaryguardianships,legitimateguardianship,andgu
ardianshipsconferredbyfamilycouncilsfallwithintheprovisionsofsection581.Theguardiansinthesecasesmayberemovedbythecourtinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsection574,andtheirsuccessorsappointedasthereinprovided.Whatsoundreasoncanbeadvancesforexcludingthosependingcaseswhereinthepersonandpropertyoftheminorchildwerebeingcaredforbytheparentunderthepatriapotestad?Thepatriapotestadwasconferredbylaw.Ineachinstancethelawspecificallydesignatedintheirorderthepersonswhowereentitledtothecareandcustodyofthechildandtheadministrationofitsproperty.Inthoseparticularsbotharethesame.Buthowmayacourt,undertheauthorityconferreduponitbysection581,removeaparentwhoisexercisingthepatriapot
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
10/14
estadoverthepersonandpropertyofhisminorchildandappointaguardianinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsection574ofthepersonandpropertyofsuchchild?
Thequestionmightbeansweredbypointingoutthatiftheprobatecourtwasdulyinformedthataparenthadlosttheauthorityoverhisminorchild,orhadlosttheparentalauthorityoverboththechildanditspropertyasprovidedinarticle167and171oftheCivilCode,itcouldproceedtoappointaregularguardianforboththepersonandpropertyofthechild.Itmaybetruethattheprobatecourtwouldnothavethepowertodepriveaparentwhowasexercisingthepatriapotestadoverthepersonandpropertyofhisminorchildofeitherthepossessionofthechildoritsproperty,andappointaguardiantota echargeofeitherorboth.This,iftrue,isnot,inouropinion,asufficientreasonforexcludingfromtheoperationofsection581thosependingcaseswhereintheaffairsofminorchildrenwerebeingadministeredbytheirparentsinaccordancewiththeformerlaw.
Inthefinalanalysis,itseemsthatprotectionfromtheeffectofthenewlawisclaimedfortheCivilCodeguardianbecausehewasexercisinghisdutieseonomine,whiletheparentandpartiesdealingwiththatparentaretobedeniedthatprotectionbecausetheparentactedunderthepatriapotestadorunderthoseprovisionsofthecoderelatingtoemancipationofthechildbyconcessionoftheparent.
Thefirstpremiseoftheplaintiffs'caserestsuponthepropositionthattheparent'srighttoadministerthepropertyofhischildhadbeenabolishedbythenewlawofguardianship.Thisconclusionisreachedbydeterminingthatthisrightandthepresentlawofguardianshipcoverthesamesubject,thattheyarerepugnanttoeachother,thattheycannotstandtogether,andthat,therefore,thelatterlaw,repealstheformer.thesecondpremiseoftheplaintiffscaseisthatpendingcasesofpatriapotestadarenotwithinthesavingclauseofsection581.Thisconclusionisreachedbydisregardingthesubstanceofthetwomethodsofcaringfortheminorchildrenandtheirproperty,andcaringfortheminorchildrenandtheirproperty,andchildrentothewordforms"patriapotestad"and"guardianship."Inthefirstpremisetheintentofthelawisthedeterminingfactor.Inthesecondpremise,theintentisdisregarded.
Butitisas edwhytheplaintiffswerenotgiventhesamestatuswhentheywereemancipatedin1903asanyotherincompetentswhoseCivilCodeguardianshaddied,resigned,orbeenremoved,inasmuchastheplaintiffsandtheirmotheroccupiedthesamepositionforthepurposeofbringingthemwithinthesavingprovisionofsection581asaCivilCodeguardianandhiswards.Wehaveattemptedtoshowthattheemancipationoftheplaintiffswasnotaninterruptionofthedependencyofthechildupontheparent;thattheparentdidnottherebydivestherselfofcontroloverthechild'sproperty.hence,therecouldnotfollowanysuchhiatusintheprotectionaffordedthechildasoccursbyresignationorremovalofaguardiansocalledundertheCivilCode.Thedifferencebetweenthestatusofthetwogroupsofchildrenisclearandfundamental.
Wethereforeconcludethatitwasintendedbythesavingprovisionofsection58
1towithholdtheapplicationofthenewlawfromallthosecaseswhichwerealreadybeingta encareofundertheprovisionsoftheCivilCode,andthattheplaintiffshadfullpowertochargetheirestateswiththemortgagewhichtheynowsee todisaffirm.
Itisurgedfinallythatadmittingallelse,emancipationoftheplaintiffscouldnotbevalidbecausetheadmittedemancipationwasnotcontainedinapublicinstrument,asrequiredbyarticle316oftheCivilCode.Thisarticleprovidesthattheemancipationbytheconcessionofthefatherormotherexercisingthepatriapotestad,shallbegrantedbyapublicinstrumentorbyanappearancebefor
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
11/14
eamunicipaljudge.Inthecaseatbartheemancipationdocumentswereac nowledgedordulyexecutedbeforeanotarypublicin1903.ThenotarypublicexercisedhisauthoritynotbyvirtueoftheSpanishlaw,butunderauthorityofActNo.136.
Adocumentac nowledgedbeforeanotarypublic,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofanActofthePhilippineCommission,isapublicinstrumentwithinthemeaningofarticle1924oftheCivilCode.(Gochuicovs.Ocampo,7Phil,Rep.,15Solervs.Alzoua,8Phil.rep.,539;DelaRamavs.Robles,8Phil.,Rep.,712;McMic ingvs.Kimura,12Phil.,Rep.,98.)Thephrasereferredtoinarticle1924oftheCivilCodeandwhichwasbroughtinquestioninthesecasesreads;"Inapublicinstrument""escriturapublica."Exactlythesamewords,"escributurapublica,"areusedinarticle316.Ifadocumentwhichwasac nowledgedbeforeanotarypublicappointedunderanActoftheCommission,wasapublicdocumentwithinthemeaningofthatphraseinarticle1924,itcertainlymustbeheldtobeapublicdocumentwithinthemeaningofthatphraseinarticle316,asbothareexactlythesame.
Theconclusionswehavearrivedatma eitunnecessarytoconsidertheratificationofthemortgagecontractbytheplaintiff,JoaquinIbaezdeAldecoa,afterhavingarrivedattheageofmajority.Nevertheless,wemightsaythatwefullyagreewiththeholdingofthetrialcourtuponthispoint.WhethertheplaintiffwerecreditorsorpartnersofAldecoaandCo.isli ewiseunimportant.Neitherrelationwouldpreventtheminanywayfromguaranteeingthepaymentofthedebto
wnedbythefirm.Thejudgmentofthecourtbelow,insofarasitsustainsthevalidityofthemortgagecontractastoJoaquinIbaezdeAldecoa,isaffirmed.InsofarasthatjudgmentdeclaresthenullityofthemortgageastoZoiloIbaezdeAldecoa,itisreversed,andthemortgageisherebydeclaredbindinguponthelatter.
Nocostswillbeallowedinthisinstance.
Arellano,C.J.andAraullo,J.,concur.Johnson,J.,dissents.
SeparateOpinions
TORRES,J.,concurring:
Iconcurintheadmirableopinionofthemajorityofthiscourt,andasitisamatterthatconcernsthepersonalrightsandobligationsofafamilyofSpanishnationality,someoftheformerhavingbeenexercisedandthelatterhavingbeenenforcedinthiscountry,whereintheyarealiens,Ithin itnecessarytosetdownasonemoregroundforthedecision,inthepresentsuitthatthewidowofthedeceasedAldecoa,DoaIsablePalet,andherchildren,ZoiloandJoaquinIbaezdeAldecoa,beingSpaniardsborninwhatwasthenSpanishterritoryandsthechildrenofSpanishparents,broughtalongwiththemuponcomingtotheseIslandsthelawsoftheirpersonalstatuswithalltheeffectsthereof,forbygeneralag
reementofcivilizednations,whereinacompactofreciprocityhasbeenestablishedforthegreaterwelfareofsocietyandthebenefitsoftheirrespectivecitizens,thelawofpersonsaccompaniestheindividualwhomovestoaforeigncountry.
Man'sactivityisnotlimitedandcircumscribedwithinhisnativecountry.Hismanifolddealingwithotherssometimesimpelhimtoleaveitandsettleinaforeignland,andasthelawsoftheothercountriestowhichapersonmaymoveinsearchofwor ,ofimprovement,orforotherreason,arevariesanddiverse,ithasbeendeterminedbygeneralassentandcommonagreementamongcivilizednation
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
12/14
sthatthelawsrelatingtofamilyrightsandobligations,andthestatus,condition,andlegalcapacityofthepersons,accompanyapersonevenwhenhemovestoaforeigncountry;thatheiswhollyboundtoobservethelawsofhisnativeland,althoughhemayresideinanotheranddifferentcountry.Ithasbeenthusprescribedinarticle9oftheCivilCode,undertheprovisionswhereofthecitizenofonenation,asforexampletheSpanish,doesnotceasetobesuchbymovinghisresidencetotheseIslands,andtothatendthelawsgoverninghispersonalrightsaccompanyhiminhisemigrationbecausetheyaremoresuitedtohispersonalaffairs.
Althoughunderarticle10ofthesameCodepersonalpropertyissubjecttothelawsofthenationoftheownerthereofandrealpropertytothelawsofthecountryinwhichitissituated,stillthelegalandthetestamentarysuccessions,bothwithrespecttotheorderofsuccessionastotheextentoftherightsthereofandtheintrinsicvalidityoftheirprovisions,areregulatedbythelawsofthenationofthepersonwhosesuccessionisinquestion,whatevermaybethenatureofthepropertyandthecountrywhereitmaybesituate.
ThepositiverightsinconnectionwiththeprincipleofnationalityandthelawofpersonshasbeenupheldbytheSpanishsupremecourtevenbeforetheenforcementoftheCivilCode,initsdecisionofNovember6,1867,whereinthedoctrineislaiddownthatintheabsenceofaspecialtreatythelawofpersonsmustgoverntheactsthatconcernthealien'spersonincivilmatters,beingsubordinatedtothelawsinthecountryofwhichheisasubjectanddecisiveforhimofa
llthequestionsoffitness,capacity,andpersonalrights.Inanotherdecision,January29,1875,itisstatedthatthepersonallawfortheindividualisthelawofthecountrytowhichhebelongs,thatitaccompanieshimwhereverhemaymoveandregulateshispersonalrights,hiscapacitytotransmitbytestateorintestatesuccessionandthegovernanceofhismarriageandfamily.AndinthedecisionofJanuary13,1885,thefollowingwasestablished:Itisaprincipleofprivateinternationallawthatstatusandcapacityaccompanyapersonabroadandthepersonallawsofhisowncountrymustbeappliedtohim.
Theexerciseoftherightofparentalauthority,basedontheprovisionsofarticle154oftheCivilCode,isoneoftherightsgovernedbythelawsincludedin
thelawofpersons,totheeffectthatthefather,orinhisabsencethemother,eventhoughheresidesabroadwithhischildren,doesnotlosesuchrightbutcarriesitalongwithhimtothecountrywhereheresides.
Therightofgrantingemancipationonthepartofthefatherormotherwhoexercisesparentalauthorityisanotheroftherightsthathecarriesalongwithhimtotheforeigncountrywhereinheresides,becauseitisli ewiseincludedinthelawofperson,andaccompanieshimeventothecountryinwhichheintendstoresided.(Arts.314319,CivilCode.)
OnthesegroundstherecanbenoquestionthatthewidowofthedeceasedAldecoa,IsabelPalet,exercisedparentalauthorityoverherchildrenhadbyherdeceasedhusbandAldecoaandavailedherseflofaperfectlylegalrights,supportedby
theregulationsoftheirlawofpersons,asSpanish,ingrantingemancipationtohersonsZoiloandJoaquin,over18yearsold,andingivingthemherconsentsothattheymightencumbertheirrespectivesharesinrealtyorpropertywhichtheyhadinheritedfromtheirdeceasedfather,forthepurposeofmaintainingthecreditenjoyedbythecommercialfirmentitled"AldecoaandCo.,"andtoavoidprematureandunnecessaryliquidationattheinstanceoftheHong ongBan .
MORELAND,J.,concurring:
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
13/14
Iagreewiththejudgmentinthisdecisionbutreservemyopinionastothegroundsonwhichitisbasedandthereasoningadducedinsupportthereof.
DECISIONONMOTIONFORREHEARING.
AUGUST26,1915.
TRENT,J.:
Amotionforrehearinghasbeenmadeinthiscase.Itisurgedthatourdecisionoverloo sthefactthattheplaintiffchildrenarecitizensofthiscountry,and,hence,governedbythelawsthereof.Withoutdeterminingthepoliticalstatusoftheplaintiffs,wehaveatsomelengthendeavoredtoshowthat,clothingthemwithPhilippinecitizenship,thepresentlawofguardianship,ascontainedinourCodeofCivilProcedure,doesnotapplytothembyreasonofthesavingprovisionsofsection581.TheconcurringopinionassumestheirSpanishcitizenship,and,hence,theiramenabilitytothelawsofSapin.Wemightaddthattheadmirablebriefofcounselforthedefendantban containlengthyandstrongargumentstotheeffectthatthesechildrenarenotcitizenofthePhilippineIslands,butcitizensofSpain.ifthisbetrue,thenitmaybethatthiscaseoughttobedecidedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheSpanishCivilCode,asstatedintheconcurringopinion.Wepurposelyavoidedadiscussionofthepoliticalstatusoftheplaintiffs,basingourdecisionentirelyupontheexistinglawsoftheseIslands,asweunderstandthem.
Itisurgedthattheemancipationoftheplaintiffscouldnothavebeenvalidlymadeforthereasonthatitwasnotrecordedinapublicdocument.Thispointwasraisedinthebriefsandhasbeenalreadyansweredinourdecision.
Itisnexturgedthatthemortgageisvalidastotheplaintiffsbecausethemother'sinterestsasapartnerofthefirmweredirectlyopposedtothechildren'sinterests.Article165oftheCivilCodeisquotedinsupportofthiscontention.Thisarticleisclearlylimitedbyitsownwordstochildren"notemancipated."Article317confersfullcapacityuponanemancipatedchildtocontrolhispersonandpropertywiththelimitationsstated.Oneoftheseistheencumbranceofhisrealproperty,whichmaynotbedonewithouttheconsentoftheparentorinhisorherabsence,ofthetutor.TheresolutionsoftheDireccionGeneralde
losRegistros(Nov.4,1896;Jan.7,1907;andJan.30,1911)distinctlyholdthataformallyemancipatedchildmayparticipateinthedivisionofaninheritancewiththeparent'sconsent,evenwhenthelatterisalsointerested.Certainly,thedivisionofanundividedinheritancebetweentheparentandtheemancipatedchildisasstrongacaseofconflictinginterestsasisthecaseatbar.Manresaendeavorstoapplyarticle165toarticle317byanalogy,andcitestheresolutionofNovember19,1898insupportofthiscontention.Thatcase,however,wasnotoneofformalemancipation,butofemancipationbymarriage,andthelandcourtexpresslyhelditwasgovernedbyarticles315and59oftheCivilCodeandnotbyarticle317.ThecaseofNovember14,1896,oneofformalemancipationandcitedabovewasexpresslydistinguishedintheresolutionofNovember19,1898,uponwhichManresarelies.Forthatmatter,article165isnowherecitedordiscussedinthelastmentionedresolution.Wedonotfeelauthorizedtoaddto
thoselimitationsuponthecapacityofaformallyemancipatedchildinviewofthedecisionsofthehighestauthoritiesonthepointtowhichwehavereferredabove.
Itisurged,;lastly,thatthemortgagecontractisvoidastotheplaintiffsbyreasonofalac ofconsideration.ItisassertedthattheyexecutedthemortgageundertheimpressionthattheywerepartnersinthefirmofAldecoaandCo.,when,asdecidedbyafinaljudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstances,thewerenotsuchpartners.Article1276oftheCivilCodeprovides:
-
7/31/2019 Untitledsdf
14/14
Astatementofafalseconsiderationincontractsshallrenderthemvoid,unlessitbeproventhattheywerebasedonanotherrealandlicitone.
Bythesamejudgmentwhichreleasedtheplaintiffsfromtheirobligationsaspartnersofthefirm,theyweredeclaredcreditorsofthatfirm.Herewasavalidandsubsistingconsiderationforthemortgage;thecreditor'sdesiretopreservethefirmintactinthehopeofrecoveringfromitinduecoursetheirtotalcredits.Itseemsclearthatitwastheobjectofthemotherandtheplaintiffchildrentothussavethebusiness,anditmatterslittlethattheplaintiffswerecreditorsandnotpartners.
Weseenoreasonfordisturbingthedecisionheretoforerendered.Motiondenied.
Arellano,C.J.,TorresandAraullo,JJ.,concur.Carson,J.,reserveshisvote.
TheLawphilProject-ArellanoLawFoundation