Wills Cases 1

8/9/2019 Wills Cases 1

1/49

G.R. No. L-4963 January 29, 1953

MARIA USON, plaintiff-appellee,vs.MARIA DEL ROSARIO, CONCE CION NE!REDA, CONRADO NE!REDA,

DOMINADOR NE!REDA, AND "AUS#INO NE!REDA, Jr., defendants-appellants.

Priscilo Evangelista for appellee. Brigido G. Estrada for appellant.

!AU#IS#A ANGELO, J. $

This is an action for recovery of the ownership and possession of five (5) parcels of land situatedin the Municipality of Labrador, Province of Pangasinan, filed by Maria son against Maria del!osario and her four children na"ed #oncepcion, #onrado, $o"inador, and %austino, surna"ed

&ebreda, who are all of "inor age, before the #ourt of %irst 'nstance of Pangasinan.

Maria son was the lawful wife of %austino &ebreda who upon his death in *5 left the landsinvolved in this litigation. %austino &ebreda left no other heir e+cept his widow Maria son.owever, plaintiff clai"s that when %austino &ebreda died in *5, his co""on-law wife Mariadel !osario too possession illegally of said lands thus depriving her of their possession anden oy"ent.

$efendants in their answer set up as special defense that on %ebruary / , 0 , Maria son andher husband, the late %austino &ebreda, e+ecuted a public docu"ent whereby they agreed toseparate as husband and wife and, in consideration of their separation, Maria son was given a

parcel of land by way of ali"ony and in return she renounced her right to inherit any other

property that "ay be left by her husband upon his death (1+hibit ).

2fter trial, at which both parties presented their respective evidence, the court rendered decisionordering the defendants to restore to the plaintiff the ownership and possession of the lands indispute without special pronounce"ent as to costs. $efendants interposed the present appeal.

There is no dispute that Maria son, plaintiff-appellee, is the lawful wife of %austino &ebreda,for"er owner of the five parcels of lands litigated in the present case. There is li ewise nodispute that Maria del !osario, one of the defendants-appellants, was "erely a co""on-law wifeof the late %austino &ebreda with who" she had four illegiti"ate children, her now co-defendants. 't li ewise appears that %austino &ebreda died in *5 "uch prior to the effectivity

of the new #ivil #ode. 3ith this bac ground, it is evident that when %austino &ebreda died in*5 the five parcels of land he was sei4ed of at the ti"e passed fro" the "o"ent of his death tohis only heir, his widow Maria son (2rticle 56, old #ivil #ode).2s this #ourt aptly said, 7The

property belongs to the heirs at the "o"ent of the death of the ancestor as co"pletely as if theancestor had e+ecuted and delivered to the" a deed for the sa"e before his death7 ('lustre vs.2laras %rondosa, 6 Phil., 0/ ). %ro" that "o"ent, therefore, the rights of inheritance of Mariason over the lands in 8uestion beca"e vested.


2/49

The clai" of the defendants that Maria son had relin8uished her right over the lands in 8uestion because she e+pressly renounced to inherit any future property that her husband "ay ac8uire andleave upon his death in the deed of separation they had entered into on %ebruary / , 0 , cannot

be entertained for the si"ple reason that future inheritance cannot be the sub ect of a contract nor can it be renounced ( Manresa, /0, si+th edition9 Tolentino on #ivil #ode, p. /9 :sorio vs.

:sorio and ;nchausti une, 5?,they are given the status and rights of natural children and are entitled to the successional rightswhich the law accords to the latter (article // * and article /@6, new #ivil #ode), and becausethese successional rights were declared for the first ti"e in the new code, they shall be givenretroactive effect even though the event which gave rise to the" "ay have occurred under the

prior legislation (2rticle //50, new #ivil #ode).

There is no "erit in this clai". 2rticle //50 above referred to provides indeed that rights whichare declared for the first ti"e shall have retroactive effect even though the event which gave riseto the" "ay have occurred under the for"er legislation, but this is so only when the new rightsdo not pre udice any vested or ac8uired right of the sa"e origin. Thus, said article provides that7if a right should be declared for the first ti"e in this #ode, it shall be effective at once, eventhough the act or event which gives rise thereto "ay have been done or "ay have occurred under the prior legislation, provided said new right does not pre udice or i"pair any vested or ac8uiredright, of the sa"e origin.7 2s already stated in the early part of this decision, the right ofownership of Maria son over the lands in 8uestion beca"e vested in *5 upon the death of her late husband and this is so because of the i"perative provision of the law which co""ands thatthe rights to succession are trans"itted fro" the "o"ent of death (2rticle 56, old #ivil #ode).

The new right recogni4ed by the new #ivil #ode in favor of the illegiti"ate children of thedeceased cannot, therefore, be asserted to the i"pair"ent of the vested right of Maria son overthe lands in dispute.

2s regards the clai" that Maria son, while her deceased husband was lying in state, in agesture of pity or co"passion, agreed to assign the lands in 8uestion to the "inor children for thereason that they were ac8uired while the deceased was living with their "other and Maria sonwanted to assuage so"ewhat the wrong she has done to the", this "uch can be said9 apart fro"the fact that this clai" is disputed, we are of the opinion that said assign"ent, if any, parta es ofthe nature of a donation of real property, inas"uch as it involves no "aterial consideration, andin order that it "ay be valid it shall be "ade in a public docu"ent and "ust be accepted either inthe sa"e docu"ent or in a separate one (2rticle 00, old #ivil #ode). 'nas"uch as this essentialfor"ality has not been followed, it results that the alleged assign"ent or donation has no valideffect.

3 1!1%:!1, the decision appealed fro" is affir"ed, without costs.


3/49

G.R. No. L-6622 Ju%y 31, 195&

In'()'a'( E)'a'( o* '+( ( (a)( MARCELO DE !ORJA. CRISAN#O DE !ORJA,

ad"inistrator-appellant,vs.JUAN DE !ORJA, E# AL., oppositors-appellees.

E. V. Filamor for appellant. Juan de Borja for himself and co-appellees.

"ELI , J. $

The case. A Buintin, %rancisco, #risanta and >uliana, all surna"ed de =or a, are legiti"atechildren of Marcelo de =or a who, upon his de"ise so"eti"e in /* or /5, left a

considerable a"ount of property. 'ntestate proceedings "ust have followed, and the pre-warrecords of the case either burned, lost or destroyed during the last war, because the record showsthat in 0? Buintin de =or a was already the ad"inistrator of the 'ntestate 1state of Marcelo de=or a.

'n the early part of 0@, Buintin de =or a died and #risanto de =or a, son of %rancisco de =or a,was appointed and too over as ad"inistrator of the 1state. %rancisco de =or a, on the otherhand, assu"ed his duties as e+ecutor of the will of Buintin de =or a, but upon petition of theheirs of said deceased on the ground that his interests were conflicting with that of his brotherCsestate he was later re8uired by the #ourt to resign as such e+ecutor and was succeeded by!ogelio Li"aco, a son-in-law of Buintin de =or a.

't also appears that on %ebruary , *?, at the hearing set for the approval of the state"ent ofaccounts of the late ad"inistrator of the 'ntestate 1state of Marcelo de =or a, then being opposed

by %rancisco de =or a, the parties sub"itted an agree"ent, which was approved by the #ourt(1+h. 2).


4/49

of the price the lands and three thousand pesos (P0,???) the price of the "achinery forirrigation9

5. The right, interests or participation that the deceased Buintin de =or a has or "ay havein #ivil #ase &o. ? of the #ourt of %irst 'nstance of &ueva 1ci a, shall be li ewise

included in the total "ass of the inheritance of the 'ntestate9

. &ot only the lands in Tabuatin but also those in #ainta co"ing fro" the now deceased1+e8uiel 2"pil shall also fro" part of the total "ass of the inheritance of the 'ntestate ofthe late Marcelo de =or a9

6. :nce the total of the inheritance of the intestate is "ade up as specified before in this2gree"ent, partition thereof will be "ade as followsD

%ro" the total "ass shall be deducted in case or in ind, Twelve Thousand Pesos(P /,???) that shall be delivered to $a. >uliana de =or a and $a. #risanta de =or a in

e8ual shares, and the rest shall be divided a"ong the four heirs, i. e., $on %rancisco de=or a, the heirs of Buintin de =or a, $a. >uliana de =or a, and $a. #risanta de =or a, ine8ual parts. (T!2&


5/49

of advances to the heirs as well as cash balance9 that they desired to e+a"ine the accounts of $r.#risanto de =or a to verify the loss and therefore prayed that the ad"inistrator be ordered todeposit with the #ler of #ourt all boo s, receipts, accounts and other papers pertaining to the1state of Marcelo de =or a. This "otion was answered by the ad"inistrator contending that the!eport referred to was already clear and enough, the inco"e as well as the e+penditures being

specified therein9 that he had to spend for the repairs of the properties of the 1state da"agedduring the >apanese occupation9 that the allegation that during the ad"inistration of Buintin de=oria the 1state reali4ed a profit of P ??,??? was not true, because instead of gain there waseven a shortage in the funds although said ad"inistrator had collected all his fees (honorarios)and co""issions corresponding to the entire period of his incu"bency9 that the obligations"entioned in said report will be li8uidated before the ter"ination of the proceedings in the sa"e"anner as it is done in any other intestate case9 that he was willing to sub"it all the receipts ofthe accounts for the e+a"ination of the interested parties before the #ler or before the #ourtitself9 that this 'ntestate could be ter"inated, the pro ect of partition having been allowed andconfir"ed by the uan de =or a and his sisters, registered their opposition saidstate"ent of accounts and prayed the #ourt to disapprove the sa"e and to appoint an account togo over the boo s of the ad"inistrator and to sub"it a report thereon as soon as possible. Theheir >uliana de =or a also for"ally offered her ob ection to the approval of the accountssub"itted by the ad"inistrator and prayed further that said ad"inistrator be re8uired to sub"it aco"plete accounting of his ad"inistration of the 1state fro" 06 to * . :n the other hand,

%rancisco de =or a and Miguel =. $ayco, as the only heir of the deceased #risanta de =or a,sub"itted to the #ourt an agree"ent to relieve the ad"inistrator fro" accounting for the periodof the >apanese occupation9 that as to the accounting fro" 06 to * , they affir"ed theirconfor"ity with the agree"ent entered into by all the heirs appearing in the =ill of 1+ceptions of >uliana de =or a9 and they have no ob ection to the approval of the state"ent of accountssub"itted by the ad"inistrator covering of the years *5 to * .

:n $ece"ber , * , the ad"inistrator, answered the opposition of the heir >uliana de =or a,alleging that the corresponding state"ent of accounts for the years 06, 0@, 0 , *? and* were presented and approved by the #ourt before and during the >apanese occupation, but

the records of the sa"e were destroyed in the :ffice of the #ler of that #ourt during theliberation of the province of !i4al, and his personal records were also lost during the >apaneseoccupation, when his house was burned9 that >udge PeFa who was presiding over the #ourt in*5 i"pliedly denied the petition of heirs to re8uire hi" to render an accounting for the period

fro" */ to the early part of *5, for the reason that whatever "oney obtained fro" the 1stateduring said period could not be "ade the sub ect of any ad udication it having been declared fiat"oney and without value, and ordered that the state"ent of accounts be presented only for the

period starting fro" March , *5. The ad"inistrator further stated that he was an+ious toter"inate this ad"inistration but so"e of the heirs had not yet co"plied with the conditions


6/49

i"posed in the pro ect of partition which was approved by the uliana de =or a "ust deliver to the ad"inistrator all the ewelry,ob ects of value, utensils and other personal belongings of the deceased spouses Marcelo de=or a and Tircila Buiogue, which said heir had ept and continued to retain in her possession9that the heirs of Buintin de =or a should deliver to the ad"inistrator all the lands and a docu"ent

transferring in favor of the 'ntestate the two parcels of land with a total area of 6 hectares ofcultivated land in #abanatuan, &ueva 1ci a which were in the possession of said heirs, togetherwith the house of %eliciana Mariano Gda. de uliana de =or a filed a Constancia denying possession of any ewelry belonging tothe deceased spouses Marcelo de =or a and Tarcilla Buiogue or any other personal belonging ofsaid spouses, and signified her willingness to turn over to the ad"inistrator the silver wares"entioned in Paragraph ''' of the pro ect of partition, which were the only property in her care,on the date that she would e+pect the delivery to her of her share in the inheritance fro" herdeceased parents.

:n >uly , 5?, >uan de =or a and his sisters Marcela, acoba and :li"pia,all surna"ed de =or a, as heirs of Buintin de =or a, filed a "otion for the delivery to the" of

their inheritance in the estate, tendering to the ad"inistrator a docu"ent ceding and transferringto the latter all the rights, interests and participation of Buintin de =or a in #ivil #ase &o. 6 ?of the #ourt of %irst 'nstance of &ueva 1ci a, pursuant to the provisions of the pro ect ofPartition, and e+pressing their willingness to put up a bond if re8uired to do so by the #ourt, andon >uly @, 5?, the #ourt ordered the ad"inistrator to deliver to Marcela, >uan, acoba and :li"pia, all surna"ed de =or a, all the properties ad udicated to the" in thePro ect of Partition dated %ebruary @, **, upon the latterCs filing a bond in the su" of P ?,???conditioned upon the pay"ent of such obligation as "ay be ordered by the #ourt after a hearingon the controverted accounts of the ad"inistrator. The #ourt considered the fact that the heirshad co"plied with the re8uire"ent i"posed by the Pro ect of Partition when they tendered thedocu"ent ceding and transferring the rights and interests of Buintin de =or a in theafore"entioned lands and e+pressed the necessity of ter"inating the proceedings as soon as

practicable, observing that the 1state had been under ad"inistration for over twenty-five yearsalready. The #ourt, however, deferred action on the petition filed by the special ad"inistratri+ ofthe 'ntestate 1state of >uliana de =or a until after co"pliance with the conditions i"posed by the

pro ect of partition. =ut on >uly /?, 5?, apparently before the properties were delivered to theheirs, %rancisco de =or a and Miguel =. $ayco filed a "otion infor"ing the #ourt that the two

parcels of land located in #abanatuan, &ueva 1ci a, produced so"e / ,0?? cavans of palay,a"ounting to P/ 0,??? at P ? per cavan, which were en oyed by so"e heirs9 that the


7/49

ad"inistrator #risanto de =or a had not ta en possession of the sa"e for circu"stances beyondhis control9 and that there also e+isted the su" of P6?,/?* which the for"er ad"inistrator,Buintin de =or a, received fro" properties that were redee"ed, but which a"ount did not co"einto the hands of the present, ad"inistrator because according to reliable infor"ation, sa"e wasdelivered to the heir >uliana de =or a who deposited it in her na"e at the Philippine &ational

=an . 't was, therefore prayed that the ad"inistrator be re8uired to e+ert the necessary effort toascertain the identity of the person or persons who were in possession of the sa"e a"ount and of the value of the products of the lands in Mayapyap, #abanatuan, &ueva 1ci a, and to recover thesa"e for the 'ntestate 1state.

:n >uly /@, 5?, the special ad"inistratri+ of the estate of >uliana de =or a, then deceased, filedan answer to the "otion of these two heirs, denying the allegation that said heir any product ofthe lands "entioned fro" Buintin de =or a, and infor"ed the #ourt that the Mayapyap propertyhad always been in the possession of %rancisco de =or a hi"self and prayed the court that thead"inistrator be instructed to de"and all the fruits and products of said property fro" %ranciscode =or a.

:n >uly /@, 5?, the heirs of Buintin de =or a also filed their opposition to the said "otion of%rancisco de =or a and Miguel =. $ayco on the ground that the petition was superfluous becausethe present proceeding was only for the approval of the state"ent of accounts filed by thead"inistrator9 that said "otion was i"proper because it was as ing the #ourt to order thead"inistrator to perfor" what he was duty bound to do9 and that said heirs were already barredor stopped fro" raising that 8uestion in view of their absolute ratification of and assent to thestate"ent of accounts sub"itted by the ad"inistrator.

:n 2ugust , 5?, by order of the #ourt, the properties ad udicated to >uliana de =or a in the pro ect of Partition were finally delivered to the estate of said heir upon the filing of a bond for

P/?,???. 'n that sa"e order, the #ourt denied the ad"inistratorCs "otion to reconsider the orderof >uly @, 5?, re8uiring hi" to deliver to the heirs of Buintin de =or a the propertiescorresponding to the", on the ground that there e+isted no sufficient reason to disturb said order.'t also ruled that as the petition of %rancisco de =or a and Miguel =. $ayco "ade "ention ofcertain properties allegedly belonging to the 'ntestate, said petition should properly beconsidered to gather with the final accounts of the ad"inistrator.

The ad"inistrator raised the "atter by certiorari to this Tribunal, which was, doc eted as H.!. &o. L-* 6 , and on May 0?, 5 , 3e rendered decision affir"ing the order co"plained of,finding that the >uan de =or a and sisters have co"plied with the re8uire"ent i"posed in thePro ect of Partition upon the tender of the docu"ent of cession of rights and 8uit-clai" e+ecuted

by Marcela de =or a, the ad"inistratri+ of the 1state of Buintin de =or a, and holding that thereasons advanced by the ad"inistrator in opposing the e+ecution of the order of delivery weretrivial.

:n 2ugust /6, 5 , the ad"inistrator filed his a"ended state"ent of accounts covering the period fro" March , *5, to >uly 0 , * , which showed a cash balance of P0 , ?. 2nadditional state"ent of accounts filed on 2ugust 0 , for the period of fro" 2ugust , * ,


8/49

to 2ugust 0 , 5 , showed a cash balance of P5,@5 . 6 and pending obligations in the a"ountof P , 5.?0.

The heirs of Buintin de =or a again opposed the approval of the state"ents of accounts chargingthe ad"inistrator with having failed to include the fruits which the estate should have accrued

fro" * to 5 a"ounting to P*6 ,*/ .6?, but as the other heirs see"ed satisfied with theaccounts presented by said ad"inistrator and as their group was only one of the * heirs of'ntestate 1state, they prayed that the ad"inistrator be held liable for only P , 0/.*/ which wasE* of the a"ount alleged to have been o"itted. :n :ctober *, 5 , the ad"inistrator filed areply to said opposition containing a counterclai" for "oral da"ages against all the heirs ofBuintin de =or a in the su" of P0?,??? which was ad"itted by the #ourt over the ob ection ofthe heirs of Buintin de =or a that the said pleading was filed out of ti"e.

The oppositors, the heirs of Buintin de =or a, then filed their answer to the counterclai" denyingthe charges therein, but later served interrogatories on the ad"inistrator relative to the aver"entsof said counterclai". pon receipt of the answer to said interrogatories specifying the acts upon

which the clai" for "oral da"ages was based, the oppositors filed an a"ended answercontending that inas"uch as the acts, "anifestations and pleadings referred to therein weread"ittedly co""itted and prepared by their lawyer, 2tty. 2"ador 1. Ho"e4, sa"e cannot be"ade the basis of a counterclai", said lawyer not being a party to the action, and further"ore, asthe acts upon which the clai" for "oral da"ages were based had been co""itted prior to theeffectivity of the new #ivil #ode, the provisions of said #ode on "oral da"ages could not beinvo ed. :n >anuary 5, 5/, the ad"inistrator filed an a"ended counterclai" including thecounsel for the oppositors as defendant.

There followed a "o"entary respite in the proceedings until another udge was assigned to preside over said court to dispose of the old case pending therein. :n 2ugust 5, 5/, >udge

1ncarnacion issued an order denying ad"ission to ad"inistratorCs a"ended counterclai"directed against the lawyer, 2tty. 2"ador 1. Ho"e4, holding that a lawyer, not being a party tothe action, cannot be "ade answerable for counterclai"s. 2nother order was also issued on thesa"e date dis"issing the ad"inistratorCs counterclai" for "oral da"ages against the heirs ofBuintin de =or a and their counsel for the alleged defa"atory acts, "anifestation and utterances,and stating that granting the sa"e to be "eritorious, yet it was a strictly private controversy

between said heirs and the ad"inistrator which would not in any way affect the interest of the'ntestate, and, therefore, not proper in an intestate proceedings. The #ourt stressed that to allowthe ventilation of such personal controversies would further delay the proceedings in the casewhich had already lagged for al"ost 0? years, a situation which the #ourt would notcountenance.

aving disposed of these pending incidents which arose out of the principal issue, that is, thedisputed state"ent of accounts sub"itted by the ad"inistrator, the #ourt rendered udg"ent onuliana de =or a and P0 *. to Miguel =. $ayco, but as the latter stillowed the intestate the su" of P ??, said heirs was ordered to pay instead the 0 others the su" ofP * .?5 each. 2fter considering the testi"onies of the witnesses presented by both parties and


9/49

the available records on hand, the #ourt found the ad"inistrator guilty of "alad"inistration andsentenced #risanto de =or a to pay to the oppositors, the heirs of Buintin de =or a, the su" ofP@0,006.0 , which was E* of the a"ount which the state lost, with legal interest fro" the date of the udg"ent. :n the sa"e day, the #ourt also issued an order re8uiring the ad"inistrator todeliver to the #ler of that #ourt P&= #ertificate of $eposit &o. / * for P [email protected]? which was

issued in the na"e of Buintin de =or a.

The ad"inistrator, $r. #risanto de =or a, gave notice to appeal fro" the lower #ourtCs orders of2ugust 5, 5/, the decision of


10/49

acting in representation of another A such as trustees A in their individual capacities (#ha"bersvs. #a"eron, / %ed. !ules


11/49

'''. and 'G. A This appeal arose fro" the opposition of the heirs of Buintin de =or a to theapproval of the state"ents of accounts rendered by the ad"inistrator of the 'ntestate 1state ofMarcelo de =or a, on the ground that certain fruits which should have been accrued to the estatewere unaccounted for, which charge the ad"inistrator denied. 2fter a protracted and e+tensivehearing on the "atter, the #ourt, finding the ad"inistrator, $r. #risanto de =or a, guilty of

certain acts of "alad"inistration, held hi" liable for the pay"ent to the oppositors, the heirs ofBuintin de =or a, of E* of the unreported inco"e which the estate should have received. Theevidence presented in the court below bear out the following factsD

(a) The estate owns a -door building, &os. 5* , 5*0, 5*5, 5*6, 5* and 55 in 24carraga


12/49

*"anuary'December

P1,!00 00 "anuary'December

P4,080 00

*6"anuary P100 00 "anuary P380 00%ebruary 100 00 %ebruary 380 00March 180 00 March 1'15 190 00

A&ril'December 1,140 00 March 1#'December

4,085 00

P1,8!0 00 P5,035 00*@

"anuary'December

P1,9!0 00 "anuary'December

P5,150 00

*

"anuary'(o)ember 15

P1,#80 00 "anuary'December

P4,315 00

%ro" the testi"ony of said witness, it appears that fro" *5 to &ove"ber 5, * , he paid atotal of P/@,/?? for the lease of $oor &o. 5*0 and the base"ent of $oor &o. 5* . Thesefigures were not controverted or disputed by the ad"inistrator but clai" that said tenantsubleased the apart"ents occupied by Pedro 1nri8ue4 and


13/49

to $ece"ber 0 , * , but also for a deficit of P ?,5/5 or a total of P /*,6 ?. The record shows,however that the upper floor of $oor &o. 5* was vacant in uly 6, 5 , herein appellant invited hi" to


14/49

go to his house in Pateros, !i4al, and while in said house, he was instructed by appellant totestify in court ne+t day that he was the overseer of the Mayapyap property for Buintin de =or afro" 06- **, delivering the yearly proceeds of ,??? cavanes of Palay to !ogelio Li"aco9that he did not need to be afraid because both Buintin de =or a and !ogelio Li"aco were alreadydead. =ut as he new that the facts on which he was to testify were false, he went instead to the

house of one of the daughters of Buintin de =or a, who, together with her brother, 2tty. >uan de=or a, acco"panied hi" to the house of the counsel for said oppositors before who" his sworndeclaration was ta en (1+h. 0).

:ther witnesses, i.e., 'sidro =enuya, %ederico #o o, 1"ilio de la #ru4 and 1rnesto Mangulabnan,testified that they were so"e of the tenants of the Mayapyap property9 that they were payingtheir shares to the overseers of %rancisco de =or a and so"eti"es to his wife, which thead"inistrator was not able to contradict, and the lower #ourt found no reason why thead"inistrator would fail to ta e possession of this property considering that this was even thesub ect of the agree"ent of %ebruary , *?, e+ecuted by the heirs of the 'ntestate.

The lower #ourt, giving due credence to the testi"onies of the witnesses for the oppositors,co"puted the loss the estate suffered in the for" of unreported inco"e fro" the rice lands for ?years at P 6,??? ( ,6?? a year)and the a"ount of P*,??? fro" the re"aining portion of the landnot devoted to rice cultivation which was being leased at P/? per hectare. #onse8uently, the#ourt held the ad"inistrator liable to appellees in the su" of P 6,65? which is E* of the totala"ount which should have accrued to the estate for this ite".

=ut if 3e e+clude the 0 years of occupation, the inco"e for 6 years would be P* , ?? for thericelands and P/,@?? (at P*?? a year) for the re"aining portion not developed to rice cultivationor a total of P*@,6??, E* of which is P'#$'() which 3e hold the ad"inistrator liable to theoppositors.

(c) The acienda >ala ala located in said town of !i4al, was divided into 0 partsD the Puntasection belonged to Marcelo de =or a, the =ago"bong pertained to =ernardo de =or a and%rancisco de =or a got the >ala ala proper. %or the purpose of this case, we will ust deal with that

part called >unta. This property has an area of ,0*5, hectares, / ares and / centares (1+h. 0 ) of which, according to the surveyor who "easured the sa"e, /?? hectares were of cultivated ricefields and ?? hectares dedicated to the planting of upland rice. 't has also ti"berland and forestwhich produce considerable a"ount of trees and firewoods. %ro" the said property which has anassessed value of P 5,??? and for which the estates pay real estate ta+ of P ,5?? annually, thead"inistrator reported the followingD

*ear +ncome

-&enditure.not includin/administration

s fees1945 P#!5 00 P1,310 4!194# 1,800 00 3,4$1 00194$ !,550 00 !,91! 91


15/49

1948 1,8!8 00 3,311 881949 3,!04 50 4,$9! 091950 !,08! 00 !,940 91

P1!,089 50 P18,$39 !1

This state"ent was assailed by the oppositors and to substantiate their charge that thead"inistrator did not file the true inco"e of the property, they presented several witnesses whotestified that there were about /?? tenants wor ing therein9 that these tenants paid to #risanto de=or a rentals at the rate of cavanes of palay per hectare9 that in the years of *0 and **, the>apanese were the ones who collected their rentals, and that the estate could have received noless than ,??? cavanes of palay yearly. 2fter the ad"inistrator had presented witnesses to refutethe facts previously testified to by the witnesses for the oppositors, the #ourt held that the reportof the ad"inistrator did not contain the real inco"e of the property devoted to rice cultivation,which was fi+ed at ,??? cavanes every year A for * , */, *5, * , *6, *@, *and 5?, or a total of @,??? cavanes valued at P60,???. =ut as the ad"inistrator accounted forthe su" of P , 55 collected fro" rice harvests and if to this a"ount we add the su" ofP@,60 ./? for e+penses, this will "a e a total of P ,@ *./?, thus leaving a deficit ofP50, ?5.@?, J of which will be P 0,/6 .*5 which the ad"inistrator is held liable to pay the heirsof Buintin de =or a.

't was also proved during the hearing that the forest land of this property yields considerablea"ount of "ar etable firewoods. Ta ing into consideration the testi"onies of witnesses for both

parties, the #ourt arrived at the conclusion that the ad"inistrator sold to Hregorio avier wor ed as a tenant in the land of >uliana de =or a which is near the land belongingto the 'ntestate, the / properties being separated only by a river. 2s tenant of >uliana de =or a, henew the tenants wor ing on the property and also nows that both lands are of the sa"e class,and that an area acco""odating one cavan of seedlings yields at "ost ?? cavanes and ?cavanes at the least. The ad"inistrator failed to overco"e this testi"ony. The lower #ourtconsidering the facts testified to by this witness "ade a finding that the property belonging tothis 'ntestate was actually occupied by several persons acco""odating 0 K cavanes ofseedlings9 that as for every cavan of seedlings, the land produces ? cavanes of palay, the wholearea under cultivation would have yielded @ ? cavanes a year and under the 5?-5? sharingsyste" (which was testified by witness >avier), the estate would have received no less than *?5cavanes every year. &ow, for the period of 6 years A fro" * to 5?, e+cluding the 0 yearsof war A the corresponding earning of the estate should be /,@05 cavanes, out of which the *?5cavanes fro" the harvest of * is valued at P ,/ 5 and the rest /,*0? cavanes at P ? is valued


16/49

at P/*,0??, or all in all P/5,5 5. 'f fro" this a"ount the reported inco"e of P /, ?* is deducted,there will be a balance of P 0,* . ? E* of which or P*$*)#.() the ad"inistrator is held liableto pay to the oppositors.

(e) The records show that the ad"inistrator paid surcharges and penalties with a total of P @@.65

for his failure to pay on ti"e the ta+es i"posed on the properties under his ad"inistration. eadvanced the reason that he lagged in the pay"ent of those ta+ obligations because of lac ofcash balance for the estate. The oppositors, however, presented evidence that on :ctober / ,0 , the ad"inistrator received fro" >uliana de =or a the su" of P/?,*65. 6 together with

certain papers pertaining to the intestate (1+h. *),aside fro" the chec s in the na"e of Buintin de=or a. Li ewise, for his failure to pay the ta+es on the building at 24carraga for *6, *@ and* , said property was sold at public auction and the ad"inistrator had to redee" the sa"e at

P0,/ 5.*@, although the a"ount that should have been paid was only P/, 6./ . The estatetherefore suffered a loss of P*(%.## . 2ttributing these surcharges and penalties to the negligenceof the ad"inistrator, the lower #ourt ad udged hi" liable to pay the oppositors J of P ,0 . 6,the total loss suffered by the 'ntestate, or P*+'.(+ .

( f ) anuary @, *0, purportedly issued by >udge uliana de =or a in her drawer in the 7casa solariega7 in Paterosand hence was not in his safe when his house, together with the safe, was burned. This line ofreasoning is really sub ect to doubt and the lower #ourt opined, that it runs counter to theordinary course of hu"an behaviour for an ad"inistrator to leave in the drawer of the 7aparador7of >uliana de =or a the "oney and other docu"ents belonging to the estate under hisad"inistration, which delivery has receipted for, rather than to eep it in his safe together withthe alleged P 5,??? also belonging to the 'ntestate. The subse8uent orders of >udge Platon also

put the defense of appellant to bad light, for on Fe,ruar! $ ' +* , the #ourt re8uired #risanto de=or a to appear before the #ourt of e+a"ination of the other heirs in connection with thereported loss, and on March , *0, authori4ed the lawyers for the other parties to inspect thesafe allegedly burned (1+h. 05). 't is inconceivable that >udge Platon would still order theinspection of the safe if there was really an order approving the loss of those P 5,???. 3e "ustnot forget, in this connection, that the records of this case were burned and that at the ti"e of the


17/49

hearing of this incident in 5 , >udge Platon was already dead. The lower #ourt also found noreason why the ad"inistrator should eep in his such a"ount of "oney, for ordinary prudencewould dictate that as an ad"inistration funds that co"e into his possession in a fiduciarycapacity should not be "ingled with his personal funds and should have been deposited in the=an in the na"e of the intestate. The ad"inistrator was held responsible for this loss and

ordered to pay J thereof, or the su" of P0,65?.

( g ) nauthori4ed e+penditures A

. The report of the ad"inistrator contained certain su"s a"ounting to P/, 0? paid to andreceipted by >uanita G. >arencio the ad"inistratorCs wife, as his private secretary. 'n e+plainingthis ite", the ad"inistrator alleged that he needed her services to eep receipts and records forhi", and that he did not secure first the authori4ation fro" the court before "a ing thesedisburse"ents because it was "erely a pure ad"inistrative function.

The eeping of receipts and retaining in his custody records connected with the "anage"ent of

the properties under ad"inistration is a duty that properly belongs to the ad"inistrator, necessaryto support the state"ent of accounts that he is obliged to sub"it to the court for approval. 'f everhis wife too charge of the safe eeping of these receipts and for which she should beco"pensated, the sa"e should be ta en fro" his fee. This disburse"ent was disallowed by the#ourt for being unauthori4ed and the ad"inistrator re8uired to pay the oppositors J, thereof or

P)*#.)& .

/. The salaries of Pedro 1nri8ue4, as collector of the 24carraga property9 of =riccio Matien4oand Leoncio Pere4, as encargados, and of Gicente Panganiban and er"inigildo Macetas asforest-guards were found ustified, although un authori4ed, as they appear to be reasonable andnecessary for the care and preservation of the 'ntestate.

0. The lower #ourt disallowed as un ustified and unnecessary the e+penses for salaries paid tospecial police"en a"ounting to P ,5? . 2ppellant contended that he sought for the services ofMacario a"ungol and others to act as special police"en during harvest ti"e because "ost ofthe wor ers tilting the Punta property were not natives of >ala ala but of the neighboring townsand they were li ely to run away with the harvest without giving the share of the estate if theywere not policed. This ind of reasoning did not appear to be convincing to the trial udge as thecause for such fear see"ed to e+ist only in the i"agination. Hranting that such ind of situatione+isted, the proper thing for the ad"inistrator to do would have been to secure the previousauthori4ation fro" the #ourt if he failed to secure the help of the local police. e should be heldliable for this unauthori4ed e+penditure and pay the heirs of Buintin de =or a J thereof or

P*((.#) .

*. %ro" the year */ when his house was burned, the ad"inistrator and his fa"ily too shelterat the house belonging to the 'ntestate nown as 7casa solariega7 which, in the Pro ect ofPartition was ad udicated to his father, %rancisco de =or a. This property, however, re"ainedunder his ad"inistration and for its repairs he spent fro" *5- 5?, P * 5, *, duly receipted.


18/49

&one of these repairs appear to be e+traordinary for the receipts were for nipa, for carpenters andthatchers. 2lthough it is true that !ule @5, section / provides thatD


19/49

. :n the e+penses for planting in the #ainta ricefieldsD A 'n his state"ent of accounts, appellantreported to have incurred a total e+pense of P5, 66 for the planting of the ricefields in #ainta,!i4al, fro" the agricultural year *5-* to 5?-5 . 't was proved that the prevailing sharingsyste" in this part of the country was on 5?-5? basis. 2ppellant ad"itted that e+penses for

planting were advanced by the estate and li8uidated after each harvest. =ut the report, e+cept for

the agricultural year 5? contained nothing of the pay"ents that the tenants should have "ade.'f the total e+penses for said planting a"ounted to P5, 66, K thereof or P/, @@.5? should have been paid by the tenants as their share of such e+penditures, and as P 5 was reported by thead"inistrator as paid bac in 5?, there still re"ains a balance of P/,?/0.5? unaccounted for.%or this shortage, the ad"inistrator is responsible and should pay the oppositors J thereof or

P)&).%( .

6. :n the transportation e+penses of the ad"inistratorD A 't appears that fro" the year *5 to5 , the ad"inistrator charged the estate with a total of P5, 6? for transportation e+penses. The

un receipted disburse"ents were correspondingly ite"i4ed, a typical e+a"ple of which is asfollowsD

5?Hastos de via e del ad"inistrador %ro"

PaterosToPasi/

50 -P4 00 P!00 00

ToManila

50 -P10 00 P500 00

Toainta 8 - P8 00 P#4 00

To"ala:ala 5 -P35 00 P1$5 00P399 00

(1+hibit 3-5*).

%ro" the report of the ad"inistrator, 3e are being "ade to believe that the 'ntestate estate is alosing proposition and assu"ing arguendo that this is true, that precarious financial conditionwhich he, as ad"inistrator, should now, did not deter #risanto de =or a fro" charging to thedepleted funds of the estate co"paratively big a"ounts for his transportation e+penses. 2ppellanttried to ustify these charges by contending that he used his own car in "a ing those trips to

Manila, Pasig and #ainta and a launch in visiting the properties in >ala ala, and they were for thegasoline consu"ed. This rather unreasonable spending of the estateCs fund pro"pted the #ourt toobserve that one will have to spend only P?.*? for transportation in "a ing a trip fro" Pateros toManila and practically the sa"e a"ount in going to Pasig. %ro" his report for * alone,appellant "ade a total of 6 trips to these places or an average of one trip for every 0 E/ days.;et 3e "ust not forget that it was during this period that the ad"inistrator failed or refused tota e cogni4ance of the prevailing rentals of co""ercial places in Manila that caused certain lossto the estate and for which he was accordingly held responsible. %or the reason that the alleged


20/49

disburse"ents "ade for transportation e+penses cannot be said to be econo"ical, the lower#ourt held that the ad"inistrator should be held liable to the oppositors for J thereof or the su"of P ,/ /.5?, though 3e thin that this su" should still be reduced to P)&&.

@. :ther e+pensesD

The ad"inistrator also ordered *? boo lets of printed contracts of lease in the na"e of theacienda >ala ala which cost P 5?. 2s the said hacienda was divided into 0 parts one belongingto this 'ntestate and the other two parts to %rancisco de =oria and =ernardo de =or a, ordinarilythe 'ntestate should only shoulder E 0 of the said e+pense, but as the tenants who testifiedduring the hearing of the "atter testified that those printed for"s were not being used,the #ourt ad udged the ad"inistrator personally responsible for this a"ount. Therecords reveal, that this printed for" was not utili4ed because the tenants refused tosign any, and 3e can presu"e that when the ad"inistrator ordered for the printing ofthe sa"e, he did not foresee this situation. 2s there is no showing that said printedcontracts were used by another and that they are still in the possession of thead"inistrator which could be utili4ed anyti"e, this disburse"ent "ay be allowed.

The report also contains a receipt of pay"ent "ade to Mr.


21/49

sheriffs e:-officio . The ad"inistrator was therefore ordered by the lower #ourt to payJ of said a"ount or P ? to the oppositors.

The ad"inistrator included in his !eport the su" of P55? paid to 2tty. %ila"or for his professional services rendered for the defense of the ad"inistrator in H.!. &o. L-* 6 , which was decided against hi", with costs. The lower #ourt disallowed thisdisburse"ent on the ground that this #ourt provided that the costs of that litigationshould not be borne by the estate but by the ad"inistrator hi"self, personally.

#osts of a litigation in the


22/49

The lower #ourt ordered the ad"inistrator to deliver to the oppositors the a"ount ofP ,0 5. ? and P0 *. each to %rancisco de =or a and the estate of >uliana de =or a,

but as 3e have arrived at the co"putation that the three heirs not idebted to the'ntestate ought to receive P**. each out of the a"ount of P 0*. @, the oppositorsare entitled to the su" of P ,?@?. A the a"ount deducted fro" the" as ta+es butwhich the #ourt ordered to be returned to the" A plus P**. or a total of P , /5. ?.'t appearing however, that ina >oint Motion dated &ove"ber /6, 5/, duly approved

by the #ourt, the parties agreed to fi+ the a"ount at P , /5.5@, as the a"ount due andsaid heirs have already received this a"ount in satisfaction of this ite", no other su"can be chargeable against the ad"inistrator.

( f ) The probate #ourt also ordered the ad"inistrator to render an accounting of hisad"inistration during the >apanese occupation on the ground that although appellant"aintained that whatever "oney he received during that period is worthless, sa"ehaving been declared without any value, yet during the early years of the war, orduring */-*0, the Philippine peso was still in circulation, and articles of pri"enecessity as rice and firewood co""anded high prices and were paid with ewels orother valuables.

=ut 3e "ust not forget that in his order of $ece"ber , *5, >udge PeFa re8uiredthe ad"inistrator to render an accounting of his ad"inistration only fro" March ,*5, to $ece"ber of the sa"e year without ordering said ad"inistrator to include

therein the occupation period. 2lthough the #ourt below "entioned the condition then prevailing during the war-years, 3e cannot si"ply presu"e, in the absence of proof tothat effect, that the ad"inistrator received such valuables or properties for the use orin e+change of any asset or produce of the 'ntestate, and in view of theafore"entioned order of >udge PeFa, which 3e find no reason to disturb, 3e see no

practical reason for re8uiring appellant to account for those occupation years wheneverything was affected by the abnor"al conditions created by the war. The records of the Philippine &ational =an show that there was a current account ointly in thena"es of #risanto de =or a and >uanita G. >arencio, his wife, with a balance ofP0 ,65?.05 in >apanese "ilitary notes and ad"ittedly belonging to the 'ntestate and3e do not believe that the oppositors or any of the heirs would be interested in anaccounting for the purpose of dividing or distributing this deposit.

( g ) :n the su" of P 0,/ * for ad"inistratorCs feesD

't is not disputed that the ad"inistrator set aside for hi"self and collected fro" theestate the su" of P 0,/ * as his fees fro" *5 to 5 at the rate of P/,*?? a year.There is no controversy as to the fact that this appropriated a"ount was ta en withoutthe order or previous approval by the probate #ourt. &either is there any doubt thatthe ad"inistration of the 'ntestate estate by #risanto de =or a is far fro" satisfactory.


23/49

;et it is a fact that #risanto de =or a e+ercised the functions of an ad"inistrator and isentitled also to a certain a"ount as co"pensation for the wor and services he hasrendered as such. &ow, considering the e+tent and si4e of the estate, the a"ountinvolved and the nature of the properties under ad"inistration, the a"ount collected

by the ad"inistrator for his co"pensation at P/?? a "onth is not unreasonable andshould therefore be allowed.

't "ight be argued against this disburse"ent that the records are replete with instancesof highly irregular practices of the ad"inistrator, such as the pretended ignorance ofthe necessity of a boo or ledger or at least a list of chronological and dated entries of"oney or produce the 'ntestate ac8uired and the a"ount of disburse"ents "ade forthe sa"e properties9 that ad"ittedly he did not have even a list of the na"es of thelessees to the properties under his ad"inistration, nor even a list of those who owed

bac rentals, and although 3e certainly agree with the probate #ourt in findingappellant guilty of acts of "alad"inistration, specifically in "i+ing the funds of theestate under his ad"inistration with his personal funds instead of eeping a currentaccount for the 'ntestate in his capacity as ad"inistrator, 3e are of the opinion thatdespite these irregular practices for which he was held already liable and "ade inso"e instances to rei"burse the 'ntestate for a"ounts that were not properlyaccounted for, his clai" for co"pensation as ad"inistratorCs fees shall be as they arehereby allowed.

2ecapitulation . A Ta ing all the "atters threshed herein together, the ad"inistrator isheld liable to pay to the heirs of Buintin de =or a the followingD

nder Paragraphs ''' and 'GD

.a; P$,084 !$

.b; 1!,1$5 00

.c; 1#,113 95

.d; 3,35! $5

.e; 341 $4

.f; 3,$50 00

./; 1 53! 50 ! 3$$ !5 3 3## !8


24/49

4 8#9 9! 5 505 8$ # 500 00 $'a

b 93 $5 c 10 00 d

13$ 50

P4#,!10 00

'n view of the foregoing, the decision appealed fro" is "odified by reducing thea"ount that the ad"inistrator was sentenced to pay the oppositors to the su" ofP* ,/ ?.6@ (instead of P@0,006.0 ), plus legal interests on this a"ount fro" the dateof the decision appealed fro", which is hereby affir"ed in all other respects. 3ithout

pronounce"ent as to costs. 't is so ordered.


25/49

G.R. No. L-41715 June 18, 1976

ROSALIO BONILLA (a minor) SAL A!ION BONILLA (a minor) an" #ON!IANO

BONILLA ($%eir &a$%er) '%o re re en$ $%e minor , &etitioners,)sL*ON BAR!*NA, +A I+A ARIAS BALL*NA, *S#*RAN A BAR!*NA, +AN *LBAR!*NA, AG S/INA N*RI, 'i"o' o& J LIAN /A+A0O an" ON. L*O#OL2OGIRON*LLA o& $%e !our$ o& 3ir $ In $an e o& A ra, res&ondents .

Federico Paredes for petitioners.

Demetrio V. Pre for private respondents.

+AR/IN, J:

This is a &etition for re)ie7 1 of the


26/49

6ence, this &etition for re)ie7

The ourt re)erses the res&ondent ourt and sets aside its order dismissin/ the com&laint in i)il ase(o 85# and its orders denyin/ the motion for reconsideration of said order of dismissal hile it is truethat a &erson 7ho is dead cannot sue in court, yet he can be substituted by his heirs in &ursuin/ the caseu& to its com&letion The records of this case sho7 that the death of %ortunata =arcena too2 &lace on "uly

9, 19$5 7hile the com&laint 7as filed on March 31, 19$5 This means that 7hen the com&laint 7as filedon March 31, 19$5, %ortunata =arcena 7as still ali)e, and therefore, the court had ac@uired :urisdictiono)er her &erson +f thereafter she died, the >ules of ourt &rescribes the &rocedure 7hereby a &arty 7hodied durin/ the &endency of the &roceedin/ can be substituted Bnder ?ection 1#, >ule 3 of the >ules ofourt 7hene)er a &arty to a &endin/ case dies it shall be the duty of his attorney to inform the court&rom&tly of such death and to /i)e the name and residence of his e-ecutor, administrator, /uardian orother le/al re&resentati)es This duty 7as com&lied 7ith by the counsel for the deceased &laintiff 7henhe manifested before the res&ondent ourt that %ortunata =arcena died on "uly 9, 19$5 and as2ed for the&ro&er substitution of &arties in the case The res&ondent ourt, ho7e)er, instead of allo7in/ thesubstitution, dismissed the com&laint on the /round that a dead &erson has no le/al &ersonality to sueThis is a /ra)e error Article $$$ of the i)il ode &ro)ides that the ri/hts to the succession aretransmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent %rom the moment of the death of thedecedent, the heirs become the absolute o7ners of his &ro&erty, sub:ect to the ri/hts and obli/ations ofthe decedent, and they cannot be de&ri)ed of their ri/hts thereto e-ce&t by the methods &ro)ided for byla7 The moment of death is the determinin/ factor 7hen the heirs ac@uire a definite ri/ht to theinheritance 7hether such ri/ht be &ure or contin/ent 4 The ri/ht of the heirs to the &ro&erty of thedeceased )ests in them e)en before :udicial declaration of their bein/ heirs in the testate or intestate&roceedin/s 5 hen %ortunata =arcena, therefore, died her claim or ri/ht to the &arcels of land inliti/ation in i)il ase (o 85#, 7as not e-tin/uished by her death but 7as transmitted to her heirs u&onher death 6er heirs ha)e thus ac@uired interest in the &ro&erties in liti/ation and became &arties ininterest in the case There is, therefore, no reason for the res&ondent ourt not to allo7 their substitutionas &arties in interest for the deceased &laintiff

Bnder ?ection 1$, >ule 3 of the >ules of ourt after a &arty dies and the claim is not therebye-tin/uished, the court shall order, u&on &ro&er notice, the le/al re&resentati)e of the deceased to a&&ear and be substituted for the deceased, 7ithin such time as may be /ranted The @uestion as to 7hetheran action sur)i)es or not de&ends on the nature of the action and the dama/e sued for 6 +n the causes ofaction 7hich sur)i)e the 7ron/ com&lained affects &rimarily and &rinci&ally &ro&erty and &ro&erty ri/hts,the in:uries to the &erson bein/ merely incidental, 7hile in the causes of action 7hich do not sur)i)e thein:ury com&lained of is to the &erson, the &ro&erty and ri/hts of &ro&erty affected bein/ incidental 7 %ollo7in/ the fore/oin/ criterion the claim of the deceased &laintiff 7hich is an action to @uiet title o)er the&arcels of land in liti/ation affects &rimarily and &rinci&ally &ro&erty and &ro&erty ri/hts and therefore isone that sur)i)es e)en after her death +t is, therefore, the duty of the res&ondent ourt to order the le/alre&resentati)e of the deceased &laintiff to a&&ear and to be substituted for her =ut 7hat the res&ondentourt did, u&on bein/ informed by the counsel for the deceased &laintiff that the latter 7as dead, 7as todismiss the com&laint This should not ha)e been done for under the same ?ection 1$, >ule 3 of the>ules of ourt, it is e)en the duty of the court, if the le/al re&resentati)e fails to a&&ear, to order theo&&osin/ &arty to &rocure the a&&ointment of a le/al re&resentati)e of the deceased +n the instant casethe res&ondent ourt did not ha)e to bother orderin/ the o&&osin/ &arty to &rocure the a&&ointment of ale/al re&resentati)e of the deceased because her counsel has not only as2ed that the minor children besubstituted for her but also su//ested that their uncle be a&&ointed as /uardian ad litem for thembecause their father is busy in Manila earnin/ a li)in/ for the family =ut the res&ondent ourt refused there@uest for substitution on the /round that the children 7ere still minors and cannot sue in court This isanother /ra)e error because the res&ondent ourt ou/ht to ha)e 2no7n that under the same ?ection 1$,>ule 3 of the >ules of ourt, the court is directed to a&&oint a /uardian ad litem for the minor heirsPrecisely in the instant case, the counsel for the deceased &laintiff has su//ested to the res&ondent ourtthat the uncle of the minors be a&&ointed to act as /uardian ad litem for them Bn@uestionably, theres&ondent ourt has /ra)ely abused its discretion in not com&lyin/ 7ith the clear &ro)ision of the >ules


27/49

of ourt in dismissin/ the com&laint of the &laintiff in i)il ase (o 85# and refusin/ the substitution of&arties in the case

+( C+


28/49

G.R. No. L-411&1 Ju%y 23, 19/&

IN#ES#A#E ES#A#E O" #0E LA#E I#O !ORROMEO, A#ROCINIO

!ORROMEO-0ERRERA, petitioner,vs."OR#UNA#O !ORROMEO an 0ON. "RANCISCO . !URGOS, Ju ( o* '+( Cour' o*" r)' In)'an ( o* C( u, !ran + II, respondents.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+

No. L-55 Ju%y 23, 19/&

IN #0E MA##ER O" #0E ES#A#E O" I#O !ORROMEO, DECEASED, ILAR N.!ORROMEO, MARIA !. U#ONG, "EDERICO . !ORROMEO, JOSE !ORROMEO,

CONSUELO !. MORALES, AND CANU#O . !ORROMEO, JR., heirs-appellants,vs."OR#UNA#O !ORROMEO, clai"ant-appellee.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+

No. L-62/95 Ju%y 23, 19/&

JOSE CUENCO !ORROMEO, petitioner,vs.0ONORA!LE COUR# O" A EALS, 0ON. "RANCISCO . !URGOS, A) r() n

Ju ( o* '+( 7no8 R( ona% #r a% Cour', !ran + , R( on II, RICARDO . RE:ES, a)A ; n )'ra'or o* '+( E)'a'( o* 'o !orro;(o n S . ro . No. 916-R, NUMERIANO G.ES#EN


29/49

No. L-65995 Ju%y 23, 19/&

E#RA !ORROMEO, I#ALIANA !ORROMEO, AMELINDA !ORROMEO, anJOSE CUENCO !ORROMEO, petitioners,vs.

0ONORA!LE "RANCISCO . !URGOS, r() n Ju ( o* !ran + , R( ona% #ra%Cour' o* C( u> RICARDO . RE:ES, A ; n )'ra'or o* '+( E)'a'( o* I#O !ORROMEOn S . ro . No. 916-R> an DOMINGO L. AN#IGUA, respondents.

GU#IERREose >un8uera filed with the #ourt of %irst 'nstance of #ebu a petition for the probate of a one page docu"ent as the last will and testa"ent left by the said deceased, devisingall his properties to To"as, %ortunato and 2"elia, all surna"ed =orro"eo, in e8ual andundivided shares, and designating >un8uera as e+ecutor thereof. The case was doc eted asose Ma. =orro"eo and #os"e =orro"eo filed a petition for declaration of heirs and deter"ination of heirship. There was no oppositionfiled against said petition.


30/49

/. :n &ove"ber / , 6, Gitaliana =orro"eo also filed a petition for declaration as heir.The heirs of >ose Ma. =orro"eo and #os"e =orro"eo filed an opposition to this petition.

0. :n $ece"ber 0, 6, >ose =arcenilla, >r., 2necita :ca"po de #astro, !a"on:ca"po, Lourdes :ca"po, 1lena :ca"po, 'sagani Morre, !osario Morre, 2urora Morre,

Lila Morre, La"berto Morre, and Patricia Morre, filed a petition for declaration of heirsand deter"ination of shares. The petition was opposed by the heirs of >ose and #os"e=orro"eo.

*. :n $ece"ber /, @, Maria =orro"eo 2tega, Lu4 =orro"eo, er"enegilda=orro"eo &onnen a"p, !osario =orro"eo, and %e =orro"eo Buero4 filed a clai". >ose#uenco =orro"eo, #rispin =orro"eo, Gitaliana =orro"eo and the heirs of #arlos=orro"eo represented by >ose Tala" filed oppositions to this clai".

3hen the afore"entioned petitions and clai"s were heard ointly, the following facts wereestablishedD

. Ma+i"o =orro"eo and er"enegilda Halan, husband and wife (the latter having predeceasedthe for"er), were survived by their eight (@) children, na"ely,

>ose Ma. =orro"eo

#os"e =orro"eo

Pantaleon =orro"eo

Gito =orro"eo

Paulo =orro"eo

2necita =orro"eo

Buirino =orro"eo and

>ulian =orro"eo

/. Gito =orro"eo died a widower on March 0, 5/, without any issue, and all his brothers andsisters predeceased hi".

0. GitoCs brother Pantaleon =orro"eo died leaving the following childrenD

a. 's"aela =orro"eo,who died on :ct. , 0

b. Teofilo =orro"eo, who died on 2ug. , 55, or 0 years after the death of Gito=orro"eo. e was "arried to !e"edios #uenco =orro"eo, who died on March /@,

@. e had an only son-2tty. >ose #uenco =orro"eo one of the petitioners herein.


31/49

c. #rispin =orro"eo, who is still alive.

*. 2necita =orro"eo, sister of Gito =orro"eo, died ahead of hi" and left an only daughter,2urora =. :ca"po, who died on >an. 0?, 5? leaving the following childrenD

a. 2necita :ca"po #astro

b. !a"on :ca"po

c. Lourdes :ca"po

d. 1lena :ca"po, all living, and

e. 2ntonieta :ca"po =arcenilla (deceased), survived by clai"ant >ose =arcenilla, >r.

5. #os"e =orro"eo, another brother of Gito =orro"eo, died before the war and left the

following childrenD

a. Marcial =orro"eo

b. #arlos =orro"eo,who died on >an. @, 5,survived by his wife, !e"edios 2lfonso,and his only daughter, 2"elinda =orro"eo Tala"

c. 2suncion =orro"eo

d. %lorentina =orro"eo, who died in *@.

e. 2"ilio =orro"eo, who died in **.

f. #ar"en =orro"eo, who died in /5.

The last three died leaving no issue.

. >ose Ma. =orro"eo, another brother of Gito =orro"eo, died before the war and left thefollowing childrenD

a. 1+e8uiel =orro"eo,who died on $ece"ber / , *

b. #anuto =orro"eo, who died on $ec. 0 , 5 , leaving the following childrenD

aa. %ederico =orro"eo

bb. Marisol =orro"eo (Maria =. Putong, !ec. p. @5)

cc. #anuto =orro"eo, >r.


32/49

dd. >ose =orro"eo

ee. #onsuelo =orro"eo

ff. Pilar =orro"eo

gg. uly, *@

d. Matilde =orro"eo, who died on 2ug. , *

e. 2ndres =orro"eo, who died on >an. 0, /0, but survived by his childrenD

aa. Maria =orro"eo 2tega

bb. Lu4 =orro"eo

cc. er"enegilda =orro"eo &onnen a"p

dd. !osario =orro"eo

ee. %e =orro"eo Buero4

:n 2pril ?, , the trial court, invo ing 2rt. 6/ of the #ivil #ode, issued an order declaring

the following, to the e+clusion of all others, as the intestate heirs of the deceased Gito =orro"eoD

. >ose #uenco =orro"eo

/. >udge #rispin =orro"eo

0. Gitaliana =orro"eo

*. Patrocinio =orro"eo errera

5.


33/49

The court also ordered that the assets of the intestate estate of Gito =orro"eo shall be dividedinto *E and 5E groups and distributed in e8ual and e8uitable shares a"ong the abovena"eddeclared intestate heirs.

:n 2pril / and 0?, , the declared heirs, with the e+ception of Patrocinio =. errera, signed

an agree"ent of partition of the properties of the deceased Gito =orro"eo which was approved by the trial court, in its order of 2ugust 5, . 'n this sa"e order, the trial court ordered thead"inistrator, 2tty >esus Haboya, >r., to partition the properties of the deceased in the way and"anner they are divided and partitioned in the said 2gree"ent of Partition and further orderedthat *?O of the "ar et value of the *E and 5E of the estate shall be segregated. 2ll attorneyCsfees shall be ta en and paid fro" this segregated portion.

:n 2ugust /5, 6/, respondent %ortunato =orro"eo, who had earlier clai"ed as heir under theforged will, filed a "otion before the trial court praying that he be declared as one of the heirs ofthe deceased Gito =orro"eo, alleging that he is an illegiti"ate son of the deceased and that in thedeclaration of heirs "ade by the trial court, he was o"itted, in disregard of the law "a ing hi" a

forced heir entitled to receive a legiti"e li e all other forced heirs. 2s an ac nowledgedillegiti"ate child, he stated that he was entitled to a legiti"e e8ual in every case to four-fifths ofthe legiti"e of an ac nowledged natural child.

%inding that the "otion of %ortunato =orro"eo was already barred by the order of the courtdated 2pril /, declaring the persons na"ed therein as the legal heirs of the deceased Gito=orro"eo, the court dis"issed the "otion on >une /5, 60.

%ortunato =orro"eo filed a "otion for reconsideration. 'n the "e"orandu" he sub"itted tosupport his "otion for reconsideration, %ortunato changed the basis for his clai" to a portion ofthe estate. e asserted and incorporated a 3aiver of ereditary !ights dated >uly 0 , 6,

supposedly signed by Pilar &. =orro"eo, Maria =. Putong, >ose =orro"eo, #anuto G. =orro"eo,>r.,


34/49

'n the present petition, the petitioner see s to annul and set aside the trial courtCs order dated$ece"ber /*, 6*, declaring respondent %ortunato =orro"eo entitled to 5E of the estate ofGito =orro"eo and the >uly 6, 65 order, denying the "otion for reconsideration.

The petitioner argues that the trial court had no urisdiction to ta e cogni4ance of the clai" of

respondent %ortunato =orro"eo because it is not a "oney clai" against the decedent but a clai"for properties, real and personal, which constitute all of the shares of the heirs in the decedentCsestate, heirs who allegedly waived their rights in his favor. The clai" of the private respondentunder the waiver agree"ent, according to the petitioner, "ay be li ened to that of a creditor ofthe heirs which is i"proper. e alleges that the clai" of the private respondent under the waiveragree"ent was filed beyond the ti"e allowed for filing of clai"s as it was filed only so"eti"e in60, after there had been a declaration of heirs (2pril ?, ), an agree"ent of partition

(2pril 0?, ), the approval of the agree"ent of partition and an order directing thead"inistrator to partition the estate (2ugust 5, ), when in a "ere "e"orandu", thee+istence of the waiver agree"ent was brought out.

't is further argued by the petitioner that the docu"ent entitled 7 waiver of ereditary !ights7e+ecuted on >uly 0 , 6, aside fro" having been cancelled and revo ed on >une / , @, byTo"as L. =orro"eo, %ortunato =orro"eo and 2"elia =orro"eo, is without force and effect

because there can be no effective waiver of hereditary rights before there has been a validacceptance of the inheritance the heirs intend to transfer. Pursuant to 2rticle ?*0 of the #ivil#ode, to "a e acceptance or repudiation of inheritance valid, the person "ust be certain of thedeath of the one fro" who" he is to inherit and of his right to the inheritance. uly 0 , 6, the signatories to the waiverdocu"ent were certain that Gito =orro"eo was already dead as well as of their rights to theinheritance as shown in the waiver docu"ent itself.

3ith respect to the issue of urisdiction of the trial court to pass upon the validity of the waiverof hereditary rights, respondent =orro"eo asserts that since the waiver or renunciation ofhereditary rights too place after the court assu"ed urisdiction over the properties of the estate it

parta es of the nature of a partition of the properties of the estate needing approval of the court because it was e+ecuted in the course of the proceedings. lie further "aintains that the probatecourt loses urisdiction of the estate only after the pay"ent of all the debts of the estate and there"aining estate is distributed to those entitled to the sa"e.


35/49

The prevailing urisprudence on waiver of hereditary rights is that 7the properties included in ane+isting inheritance cannot be considered as belonging to third persons with respect to the heirs,who by fiction of law continue the personality of the for"er. &or do such properties have thecharacter of future property, because the heirs ac8uire a right to succession fro" the "o"ent ofthe death of the deceased, by principle established in article 56 and applied by article of the

#ivil #ode, according to which the heirs succeed the deceased by the "ere fact of death. More or less, ti"e "ay elapse fro" the "o"ent of the death of the deceased until the heirs enter into possession of the hereditary property, but the acceptance in any event retroacts to the "o"ent ofthe death, in accordance with article @ of the #ivil #ode. The right is vested, althoughconditioned upon the ad udication of the corresponding hereditary portion.7 (:sorio v. :sorioand ;nchausti une / , @, the petitioner, a"ong others, signed a docu"ent entitled$eed of 2ssign"ent7 purporting to transfer and assign in favor of the respondent and To"as and2"elia =orro"eo all her (Patrocinio =. erreraCs) rights, interests, and participation as anintestate heir in the estate of the deceased Gito =orro"eo. The stated consideration for saidassign"ent was P ??,???.??9 (*) :n the sa"e date, >une / , @, the respondent To"as, and2"elia =orro"eo (assignees in the afore"entioned deed of assign"ent) in turn e+ecuted a7$eed of !econveyance7 in favor of the heirs-assignors na"ed in the sa"e deed of assign"ent.The stated consideration was P5?,???.??9 (5) 2 #ancellation of $eed of 2ssign"ent and $eed of


36/49

!econveyance was signed by To"as =orro"eo and 2"elia =orro"eo on :ctober 5, @,while %ortunato =orro"eo signed this docu"ent on March /*, .

3ith respect to the issue of urisdiction, we hold that the trial court had urisdiction to pass uponthe validity of the waiver agree"ent. 't "ust be noted that in uly 0 , 6,Pilar =orro"eo and her children did not yet possess or own any hereditary right in the intestateestate of the deceased Gito =orro"eo because said hereditary right was only ac8uired and owned

by the" on 2pril ?, , when the estate was ordered distributed.

They further argue that in conte"plation of law, there is no such contract of waiver of hereditaryright in the present case because there was no ob ect, which is hereditary right, that could be thesub ect "atter of said waiver, and, therefore, said waiver of hereditary right was not only nulland void a, initio but was ine+istent.

3ith respect to the issue of urisdiction, the appellants contend that without any for"al pleading

filed by the lawyers of %ortunato =orro"eo for the approval of the waiver agree"ent andwithout notice to the parties concerned, two things which are necessary so that the lower courtwould be vested with authority and urisdiction to hear and decide the validity of said waiveragree"ent, nevertheless, the lower court set the hearing on


37/49

The appellee on the other hand, "aintains that by waiving their hereditary rights in favor of%ortunato =orro"eo, the signatories to the waiver docu"ent tacitly and irrevocably accepted theinheritance and by virtue of the sa"e act, they lost their rights because the rights fro" that"o"ent on beca"e vested in %ortunato =orro"eo.

't is also argued by the appellee that under 2rticle ?*0 of the #ivil #ode there is no need for a person to be declared as heir first before he can accept or repudiate an inheritance. 3hat isre8uired is that he is certain of the death of the person fro" who" he is to inherit, and of hisright to the inheritance. 2t the ti"e of the signing of the waiver docu"ent on >uly 0 , 6, thesignatories to the waiver docu"ent were certain that Gito =orro"eo was already dead and theywere also certain of their right to the inheritance as shown by the waiver docu"ent itself.

:n the allegation of the appellants that the lower court did not ac8uire urisdiction over the clai" because of the alleged lac of a pleading invo ing its urisdiction to decide the clai", theappellee asserts that on 2ugust /0, 60, the lower court issued an order specifically calling onall oppositors to the waiver docu"ent to sub"it their co""ents within ten days fro" notice and

setting the sa"e for hearing on uly 0 ,

6, so"e of the heirs had allegedly already waived or sold their hereditary rights to therespondent.

The agree"ent on how the estate is to be distributed, the >une / , @ deed of assign"ent, thedeed of reconveyance, and the subse8uent cancellation of the deed of assign"ent and deed ofreconveyance all argue against the purported waiver of hereditary rights.

#oncerning the issue of urisdiction, we have already stated in H.!. &o. * 6 that the trial courtac8uired urisdiction to pass upon the validity of the waiver agree"ent because the trial courtCs

urisdiction e+tends to "atters incidental and collateral to the e+ercise of its recogni4ed powersin handling the settle"ent of the estate.

The 8uestioned order is, therefore,


38/49

G.2. 6o. #% )

2 "otion dated 2pril /@, 6/, was filed by 2tty. !aul M. udge %rancisco P. =urgos failed or refused to resolve the aforesaid"otions, petitioner >ose #uenco =orro"eo-filed a petition for "anda"us before the #ourt of2ppeals to co"pel the respondent udge to ter"inate and close une *, 6 , pursuant to the resolution and restraining order issued by the #ourt of2ppeals en oining hi" to "aintain status 8uo on the case.

2s stated in H.!. &o. * 6 , on 2pril / and 0?, , the declared heirs, with the e+ception ofPatrocinio =. errera, signed an agree"ent of partition of the properties of the deceased Gito=orro"eo which was approved by the trial court, in its order dated 2ugust 5, . 'n this sa"eorder, the trial court ordered the ad"inistrator, 2tty. >esus Haboya, >r., to partition the propertiesof the deceased in the way and "anner they are divided and partitioned in the said 2gree"ent ofPartition and further ordered that *?O of the "ar et value of the *E and 5E of the estate shall besegregated and reserved for attorneyCs fees.

2ccording to the "anifestation of >udge %rancisco =urgos dated >uly 5, @/, (p. 6, !ollo, H.!. &o. * 6 ) his court has not finally distributed to the nine ( ) declared heirs the propertiesdue to the following circu"stancesD

. The courtCs deter"ination of the "ar et value of the estate in order to segregate the*?O reserved for attorneyCs fees9


39/49

/. The order of $ece"ber /*, 6*, declaring %ortunato =orro"eo as beneficiary of the5E of the estate because of the waiver agree"ent signed by the heirs representing the 5Egroup which is still pending resolution by this #ourt (H.!. &o. * 6 )9

0. The refusal of ad"inistrator >ose #uenco =orro"eo to render his accounting9 and

*. The clai" of Marcela Gillegas for E/ of the estate causing annotations of notices of lis pendens on the different titles of the properties of the estate.

une 5, @0, re8uired the udge of the #ourt of %irst'nstance of #ebu, =ranch , to e+pedite the deter"ination of udge of the !egional trial #ourt of #ebu for re-raffling9 and

0. H.!. &o. 5 5, granting the petition to restrain the respondents fro" further acting onany and all incidents in une 5, @0. This "ust be effected with all

deliberate speed.G.2. 6o. *%'%

:n >une , 6 , respondents >ose #uenco =orro"eo and Petra ?. =orro"eo filed a "otion forinhibition in the #ourt of %irst 'nstance of #ebu, =ranch , presided over by >udge %rancisco P.=urgos to inhibit the udge fro" further acting in


40/49

+ + + + + + + + +

. To eep the agitation to sell "oving, 2tty. 2ntigua filed a "otion for the production ofthe certificates of title and to deposit the sa"e with the =ranch #ler of #ourt,

presu"ably for the ready inspection of interested buyers. ose #uenco =orro"eo. 2"ong theharass"ents e"ployed by 2tty 2ntigua et al. are the pending "otions for the re"oval ofad"inistrator >ose #uenco =orro"eo, the subpoena duces tecum issued to the ban whichsee s to invade into the privacy of the personal account of >ose #uenco =orro"eo, andthe other "atters "entioned in paragraph @ hereof. More harass"ent "otions aree+pected until the herein "ovants shall finally yield to the proposed sale. 'n such asituation, the herein "ovants beg for an entirely independent and i"partial udge to passupon the "erits of said incidents.

. udge continue to sit and ta e cogni4ance of this proceeding, including the incidents above-"entioned, he is liable to be "isunderstood as being biased in favor of 2tty 2ntigua, et al. and pre udiced against the herein "ovants.'ncidents which "ay create this i"pression need not be enu"erated herein. (pp. 0 -* ,!ollo)


41/49

The "otion for inhibition was denied by >udge %rancisco P. =urgos. Their "otion forreconsideration having been denied, the private respondents filed a petition for certiorari andEor

prohibition with preli"inary in unction before the 'nter"ediate 2ppellate #ourt.

'n the appellate court, the private respondents alleged, a"ong others, the followingD

+ + + + + + + + +

. 3ith all due respect, petitioners regret the necessity of having to state herein thatrespondent on. %rancisco P. =urgos has shown undue interest in pursing the saleinitiated by 2tty. $o"ingo L. 2ntigua, et al. ose #uenco =orro"eo and the late


42/49

#rispin =orro"eo. udge %rancisco P. =urgos fro" ta ing further cogni4ance

of udge %rancisco P. =urgos fro" furtherhearing the case of 'ntestate 1state of Gito =orro"eo and orders the re"and of the case to the1+ecutive >udge of the !egional Trial #ourt of #ebu for re-raffling.

The principal issue in this case has beco"e "oot and acade"ic because >udge %rancisco P.=urgos decided to retire fro" the !egional Trial #ourt of #ebu so"eti"e before the latest

reorgani4ation of the udiciary. owever, we decide the petition on its "erits for the guidance ofthe udge to who" this case will be reassigned and others concerned.

The petitioners deny that respondent >ose #uenco =orro"eo has been harassed. They contendthat >udge =urgos has benn shown unusual interest in the proposed sale of the entire estate forP ,6??,???.?? in favor of the buyers of 2tty. 2ntigua. They clai" that this disinterest is shown

by the udgeCs order of March /, 6 assessing the property of the estate at P 5,???,???.??.They add that he only ordered the ad"inistrator to sell so "uch of the properties of the estate to

pay the attorneyCs fees of the lawyers-clai"ants. To the", the inhibition of >udge =urgos wouldhave been unreasonable because his orders against the failure of >ose #uenco =orro"eo, asad"inistrator, to give an accounting and inventory of the estate were all affir"ed by the appellate

court. They clai" that the respondent court, should also have ta en udicial notice of theresolution of this #ourt directing the said udge to 7e+pedite the settle"ent and ad udication ofthe case7 in H.!. &o. 5*/0/. 2nd finally, they state that the dis8ualification of udge =urgoswould delay further the closing of the ad"inistration proceeding as he is the only udge who isconversant with the *6 volu"es of the records of the case.

!espondent >ose #uenco =orro"eo, to show that he had been harassed. countered that >udge=urgos appointed !icardo G. !eyes as co-ad"inistrator of the estate on :ctober , 6/, yet=orro"eo was singled out to "a e an accounting of what t he was supposed to have received asrentals for the land upon which the >uliana Trade #enter is erected, fro" >anuary, 66 to%ebruary @/, inclusive, without "entioning the withholding ta+ for the =ureau of 'nternal!evenue. 'n order to bolster the agitation to sell as proposed by $o"ingo L. 2ntigua, >udge=urgos invited 2ntonio =arredo, >r., to a series of conferences fro" %ebruary / to /@, 6 .$uring the conferences, 2tty. 2ntonio =arredo, >r., offered to buy the shares of the heirs-distributees presu"ably to cover up the pro ected sale initiated by 2tty. 2ntigua.

:n March /, 6 , or two days after the conferences, a "otion was filed by petitioner $o"ingoL. 2ntigua praying that >ose #uenco =orro"eo be re8uired to file an inventory when he hasalready filed one to account for cash, a report on which the ad"inistrators had already renderedD


43/49

and to appear and be e+a"ined under oath in a proceeding conducted by >udge =urgos lt wasalso prayed that subpoena duces tecum be issued for the appearance of the Manager of the#onsolidated =an and Trust #o., bringing all the ban records in the na"e of >ose #uenco=orro"eo ointly with his wife as well as the appearance of heirs-distributees 2"elinda=orro"eo Tala" and another heir distributee Gitaliana =orro"eo. ose #uenco =orro"eo.

:n the following day, March 0, 6 , 2tty Haudioso v. Gillagon4alo in behalf of the heirs ofMarcial =orro"eo who had a co""on cause with 2tty =arredo, >r., oined petitioner $o"ingo

L. 2ntigua by filing a "otion for relief of the ad"inistrator.

:n March 5, 6 , 2tty. Gillagon4alo filed a re8uest for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to private respondent >ose #uenco =orro"eo to bring and produce all the owners7 copies of thetitles in the court presided order by >udge =urgos.

#onse8uently. the =ranch #ler of #ourt issued a subpoena duces tecum co""anding 2tty. >ose#uenco =orro"eo to bring and produce the titles in court.

2ll the above-incidents were set for hearing on >une 6, 6 but on >une *, 6 , before thedate of the hearing, >udge =urgos issued an order denying the private respondentsC "otion for

reconsideration and the "otion to 8uash the subpoena. 'avvphi'

't was further argued by the private respondents that if , udge %rancisco P. =urgos is not inhibitedor dis8ualified fro" trying


44/49

and probity in favor or of either partly or incite such state of "ind, he should conduct acareful self-e+a"ination. e should e+ercise his discretion in a way that the peopleCs faithin the #ourts of >ustice is not i"paired, 7The better course for the >udge under suchcircu"stances is to dis8ualify hi"self 7That way he avoids being "isunderstood, hisreputation for probity and ob ectivity is preserve ed. what is "ore i"portant, the 'deal of

i"partial ad"inistration of ustice is lived up to.

'n this case, the fervent distrust of the private respondents is based on sound reasons. 2s 1arlierstated, however, the petition for review see ing to "odify the decision of the 'nter"ediate2ppellate #ourt insofar as it dis8ualifies and inhibits >udge %rancisco P. =urgos fro" furtherhearing the 'ntestate 1state of Gito =orro"eo case and ordering the re"and of the case to the1+ecutive >udge of the !egional Trial #ourt for re-raffling should be $1&'1$ for the decision isnot only valid but the issue itself has beco"e "oot and acade"ic.

G.2. 6o. ) )

The petitioners see to restrain the respondents fro" further acting on any and all incidents inudge was dis8ualified by the appellate court be declared null and void andwithout force and effect whatsoever.

The petitioners state that the respondent >udge has set for hearing all incidents in uly @, @ , in H.!. &o. 5*/0/ directed the respondent >udge toe+pedite the settle"ent and li8uidation of the decedentCs estate. They clai" that this resolution,which was already final and e+ecutory, was in effect reversed and nullified by the 'nter"ediate2ppellate #ourt in its case-2# H.!.-&o.

udge %rancisco P. =urgos fro" ta ing further cogni4ance of


45/49

$ue to our affir"ance of the decision of the 'nter"ediate 2ppellate #ourt in H.!. &o. 0@ @, wegrant the petition.

3 1!1%:!1, A

( ) 'n H.!. &o. * 6 , the order of the respondent udge dated $ece"ber /*, 6*,declaring the respondent entitled to 5E of the estate of the late Gito =orro"eo and theorder dated >uly 6, 65, denying the petitionerCs "otion for reconsideration of theafore"entioned order are hereby udge %rancisco P. =urgos fro" further acting in H.!. &o. 0@ @ is M::T and2#2$1M'#D

(5) 'n H.!, &o, /@ 5, the trial court is hereby ordered to speedily ter"inate the close

une 5, @09and

( ) The portion of the :rder of 2ugust 5, , segregating *?O of the "ar et value ofthe estate fro" which attorneyCs fees shall be ta en and paid should be, as it is hereby$1L1T1$. The lawyers should collect fro" the heirs-distributees who individually hiredthe", attorneyCs fees according to the nature of the services rendered but in a"ountswhich should not e+ceed "ore than /?O of the "ar et value of the property the latterac8uired fro" the estate as beneficiaries.


46/49

G.R. No. 129 / January 13, 2 4

#EODORA A. RIO"ERIO, ERONICA O. EANGELIS#A a)) )'( y +(r +u) an

r. died without a will in 2ngeles #ity leaving several personal and real properties located in 2ngeles #ity, $agupan #ity and aloo an #ity. 0 e alsoleft a widow, respondent 1speran4a P. :rfinada, who" he "arried on >uly , ? and withwho" he had seven children who are the herein respondents, na"elyD Lourdes P. :rfinada,

2lfonso 7#lyde7 P. :rfinada, &ancy P. :rfinada- appenden, 2lfonso >a"es P. :rfinada,#hristopher P. :rfinada, 2lfonso Mi e P. :rfinada (deceased) and 2ngelo P. :rfinada. *

2part fro" the respondents, the de"ise of the decedent left in "ourning his para"our and theirchildren. They are petitioner Teodora !iofero, who beca"e a part of his life when he entered intoan e+tra-"arital relationship with her during the subsistence of his "arriage to 1speran4aso"eti"e in 5, and co-petitioners Geronica 5, 2lberto and !owena.

:n &ove"ber *, 5, respondents 2lfonso >a"es and Lourdes :rfinada discovered that on>une / , 5, petitioner Teodora !ioferio and her children e+ecuted an E:trajudicial 7ettlement of Estate of a eceased Person "ith =uitclaim involving the properties of the estate of the

decedent located in $agupan #ity and that accordingly, the !egistry of $eeds in $agupan issued#ertificates of Titles &os. 0 @0, 0 @* and 0 @5 in favor of petitioners Teodora !ioferio,Geronica :rfinada-1vangelista, 2lberto :rfinada and !owena :rfinada- ngos. !espondentsalso found out that petitioners were able to obtain a loan of P6??,???.?? fro" the !ural =an ofMangaldan 'nc. by e+ecuting a 2eal Estate 4ortgage over the properties sub ect of the e+tra-

udicial settle"ent. 6


47/49

:n $ece"ber , 5, respondent 2lfonso 7#lyde7 P. :rfinada ''' filed a Petition for 9etters of 3dministration doc eted as r. beissued to hi". @

:n $ece"ber *, 5, respondents filed a Complaint for the 3nnulment>2escission of E:tra Judicial 7ettlement of Estate of a eceased Person "ith =uitclaim$ 2eal Estate 4ortgage andCancellation of Transfer Certificate of Titles "ith 6os. * %*$ * %) and * %+ and 1ther

2elated ocuments with $a"ages against petitioners, the !ural =an of Mangaldan, 'nc. and the!egister of $eeds of $agupan #ity before the !egional Trial #ourt, =ranch */, $agupan #ity.

:n %ebruary 5, , petitioners filed their 3ns"er to the aforesaid co"plaint interposing thedefense that the property sub ect of the contested deed of e+tra- udicial settle"ent pertained tothe properties originally belonging to the parents of Teodora !iofero ? and that the titles thereofwere delivered to her as an advance inheritance but the decedent had "anaged to register the" inhis na"e. Petitioners also raised the affir"ative defense that respondents are not the real

parties-in-interest but rather the 1state of 2lfonso :. :rfinada, >r. in view of the pendency of thead"inistration proceedings. / :n 2pril / , , petitioners filed a 4otion to 7et 3ffirmative efenses for ;earing 0 on the aforesaid ground.

The lower court denied the "otion in its 1rder * dated >une /6, , on the ground thatrespondents, as heirs, are the real parties-in-interest especially in the absence of an ad"inistratorwho is yet to be appointed in


48/49

estate of the decedent and not the respondents. 't "ust be stressed that the holding of a preli"inary hearing on an affir"ative defense lies in the discretion of the court. This is clearfro" the !ules of #ourt, thusD


49/49

2ll told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have no legal standing to sue for the recovery of property of the estateduring the pendency of ad"inistration proceedings has three e+ceptions, the third being when there is no appointedad"inistrator such as in this case.

2s the appellate court did not co""it an error of law in upholding the order of the lower court, recourse to this#ourt is not warranted.

3 1!1%:!1, the petition for review is $1&'1$. The assailed decision and resolution of the #ourt of 2ppeals arehereby 2%%'!M1$. &o costs.

Wills Cases 1

Documents

Transcript of Wills Cases 1