fulltext 020415.docx

8/9/2019 fulltext 020415.docx

1/48

G.R. No. L-8235 March 19, 1914

ISIDRO SANTOS,plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

LEANDRA MANARANG, admii!"ra"ri#,defendant-appellee.

W. A. Kincaid and Thomas L. Hartigan for appellant.Ramon Salinas for appellee.

TRENT,J.:

Don Lucas de Ocampo died on November 18, 1906, possessed of certain real and personal

propert !"ic", b "is last !ill and testament dated #ul $6, 1906, "e left to "is t"ree c"ildren.%"e fourt" clause of t"is !ill reads as follo!s:

& also declare t"at & "ave contracted t"e debts detailed belo!, and it is m desire t"at t"ema be reli'iousl paid b m !ife and e(ecutors in t"e form and at t"e time a'reed

upon !it" m creditors.

)mon' t"e debts mentioned in t"e list referred to are t!o in favor of t"e plaintiff, &sidro *antos+

one due on )pril 1, 190, for /,000, and various ot"er described as fallin' due at different

dates t"e dates are not 'iven amountin' to t"e sum of $,/. %"e !ill !as dul probated and a

committee !as re'ularl appointed to "ear and determine suc" claims a'ainst t"e estate as mi'"tbe presented. %"is committee submitted its report to t"e court on #une $, 1908. On #ul 1,

1908, t"e plaintiff, &sidro *antos, presented a petition to t"e court as2in' t"at t"e committee be

re3uired to reconvene and pass upon "is claims a'ainst t"e estate !"ic" !ere reco'ni4ed in t"e

!ill of testator. %"is petition !as denied b t"e court, and on November $1, 1910, t"e plaintiffinstituted t"e present proceedin's a'ainst t"e administratri( of t"e estate to recover t"e sums

mentioned in t"e !ill as due "im. 5elief !as denied in t"e court belo!, and no! appeals to t"iscourt.

&n "is first assi'nment of error, t"e appellant ta2es e(ception to t"e action of t"e court in denin'

"is petition as2in' t"at t"e committee be reconvened to consider "is claim. &n support of t"is

alle'ed error counsel sa t"at it does not appear in t"e committees report t"at t"e publicationsre3uired b section 68 of t"e 7ode of 7ivil rocedure "ad been dul made. it" reference to

t"is point t"e record affirmativel s"o!s t"at t"e committee did ma2e t"e publications re3uired

b la!. &t is furt"er alle'ed t"at at t"e time t"e appellant presented "is petition t"e court "ad not

approved t"e report of t"e committee. &f t"is !ere necessar !e mi'"t sa t"at, alt"ou'" t"erecord does not contain a formal approval of t"e committees report, suc" approval must

undoubtedl "ave been made, as !ill appear from an inspection of t"e various orders of t"e court

approvin' t"e annual accounts of t"e administratri(, in !"ic" claims allo!ed a'ainst t"e estateb t"e committee !ere !ritten off in accordance !it" its report. %"is is s"o!n ver clearl from

t"e courts order of )u'ust 1, 191$, in !"ic" t"e account of t"e administratri( !as approved after

reducin'finalpaments of some of t"e claims a'ainst t"e estate to a'ree !it" t"e amounts


2/48

allo!ed b t"e committee. &t is furt"er alle'ed t"at at t"e time t"is petition !as presented t"e

administration proceedin's "ad not been terminated. %"is is correct.

&n "is petition of #ul 1, 1909, as2in' t"at t"e committee be reconvened to consider "is claims,plaintiff states t"at "is failure to present t"e said claims to t"e committee !as due to "is belief

t"at it !as unnecessar to do so because of t"e fact t"at t"e testator, in "is !ill, e(presslreco'ni4ed t"em and directed t"at t"e s"ould be paid. %"e inference is t"at "ad plaintiffs claims

not been mentioned in t"e !ill "e !ould "ave presented to t"e committee as a matter of course+t"at plaintiff !as "eld to believe b t"is e(press mention of "is claims in t"e !ill t"at it !ould be

unnecessar to present t"em to t"e committee+ and t"at "e did not become a!are of t"e necessit

of presentin' t"em to t"e committee until after t"e committee "ad made its final report.

nder t"ese facts and circumstances, did t"e court err in refusin' to reconvene t"e committee for

t"e purpose of considerin' plaintiffs claim %"e first step to!ards t"e solution of t"is 3uestion is

to determine !"et"er plaintiffs claims !ere suc" as a committee appointed to "ear claims

a'ainst an estate is, b la!, aut"ori4ed to pass upon. nless it !as suc" a claim plaintiffs

ar'ument "as no foundation. *ection 686 empo!ers t"e committee to tr and decide claims!"ic" survive a'ainst t"e e(ecutors and administrators, even t"ou'" t"e be demandable at a

future da ;e(cept claims for t"e possession of or title to real estate.; *ection 00 provides t"atall actions commenced a'ainst t"e deceased person for t"e recover of mone, debt, or dama'es,

pendin' at t"e time t"e committee is appointed, s"all be discontinued, and t"e claims embraced

!it"in suc" actions presented to t"e committee. *ection 0< provides t"at actions to recover titleor possession of real propert, actions to recover dama'es for in=ur to person or propert, real

and personal, and actions to recover t"e possession of specified articles of personal propert,

s"all survive, and ma be commenced and prosecuted a'ainst t"e e(ecutor or administrator+ ;but

all ot"er actions commenced a'ainst t"e deceased before "is deat" s"all be discontinued and t"eclaims t"erein involved presented before t"e committee as "erein provided.; *ection 08

provides t"at a claim secured b a mort'a'e or ot"er collateral securit ma be abandoned andt"e claim prosecuted before t"e committee, or t"e mort'a'e ma be foreclosed or t"e securit berelied upon, and in t"e event of a deficienc =ud'ment, t"e creditor ma, after t"e sale of

mort'a'e or upon t"e insufficienc of t"e securit, prove suc" deficienc before t"e committee

on claims. %"ere are also certain provisions in section 6 et se3., !it" reference to t"epresentation of contin'ent claims to t"e committee after t"e e(piration of t"e time allo!ed for

t"e presentation of claims not contin'ent. Do plaintiffs claims fall !it"in an of t"ese sections

%"e are described in t"e !ill as debts. %"ere is not"in' in t"e !ill to indicate t"at an or all oft"em are contin'ent claims, claims for t"e possession of or title to real propert, dama'es for

in=ur to person or propert, real or personal, or for t"e possession of specified articles of

personal propert. Nor is it asserted b t"e plaintiff t"at t"e do. %"e conclusion is t"at t"e !ere

claims proper to be considered b t"e committee.

%"is bein' true, t"e ne(t point to determine is, !"en and under !"at circumstances ma t"e

committee be recalled to consider belated claims *ection 689 provides:

%"at court s"all allo! suc" time as t"e circumstances of t"e case re3uire for t"e creditors

to present t"eir claims t"e committee for e(amination and allo!ance+ but not, in t"e firstinstance, more t"an t!elve mont"s, or less t"an si( mont"s+ and t"e time allo!ed s"all be


3/48

stated in t"e commission. %"e court ma e(tend t"e time as circumstances re3uire, but

not so t"at t"e !"ole time s"all e(ceed ei'"teen mont"s.

&t cannot be 3uestioned t"at t"us section supersedes t"e ordinar limitation of actions providedfor in c"apter < of t"e 7ode. &t is strictl confined, in its application, to claims a'ainst t"e estate

of deceased persons, and "as been almost universall adopted as part of t"e probate la! of t"enited *tates. &t is commonl termed t"e statute of nonclaims, and its purpose is to settle t"e

affairs of t"e estate !it" dispatc", so t"at residue ma be delivered to t"e persons entitled t"ereto!it"out t"eir bein' after!ards called upon to respond in actions for claims, !"ic", under t"e

ordinar statute of limitations, "ave not et prescribed.

%"e ob=ect of t"e la! in fi(in' a definite period !it"in !"ic" claims must be presented isto insure t"e speed settlin' of t"e affairs of a deceased person and t"e earl deliver of

t"e propert of t"e estate in t"e "ands of t"e persons entitled to receive it. >state of De

Dios, $ "il. 5ep., /


4/48

cited, fraud !ould undoubtedl "ave t"e same effect. %"ese e(ceptions to t"e operation of t"e

statute are, of course, founded upon t"e "i'"est principles of e3uit. ?ut !"at is t"e plea of t"e

plaintiff in t"is case *impl t"is: %"at "e !as laborin' under a mista2e of la! @ a mista2e!"ic" could easil "ave been corrected "ad "e sou'"t to inform "imself+ a lac2 of information as

to t"e la! 'overnin' t"e allo!ance of claims a'ainst estate of t"e deceased persons !"ic", b

proper dili'ence, could "ave been remedied in ample to present t"e claims to t"e committee.laintiff finall discovered "is mista2e and no! see2s to assert "is ri'"t !"en t"e "ave been

lost t"rou'" "is o!n ne'li'ence.Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. e conclude t"at t"e learned

trial court made no error in refusin' to reconvene t"e committee for t"e purpose of considerin'plaintiffs claims a'ainst t"e estate.

&n "is second assi'nment of error t"e appellant insists t"at t"e court erred in dismissin' "is

petition filed on November $1, 1910, !"erein "e as2s t"at t"e administratri( be compelled to pa

over to "im t"e amounts mentioned in t"e !ill as debts due "im. e concede all t"at is implied int"e ma(im, dicat testor et erit lex. ?ut t"e la! imposes certain restrictions upon t"e testator, not

onl as to t"e disposition of "is estate, but also as to t"e manner in !"ic" "e ma ma2e suc"

disposition. )s stated in 5ood on ills, sec. 1$: ;*ome 'eneral rules "ave been irrevocablestablis"ed b t"e polic of t"e la!, !"ic" cannot be e(ceeded or trans'ressed b an intention

of t"e testator, be it ever so clearl e(pressed.;

&t ma be safel asserted t"at no respectable aut"orit can be found !"ic" "olds t"at t"e !ill of

t"e testator ma override positive provisions of la! and imperative re3uirements of publicpolic. a'e on ills, sec. 61.

&mpossible conditions and t"ose contrar to la! and 'ood morals s"all be considered as

not imposed, . . . )rt. 9$, 7ivil 7ode.

7oncedin' for t"e moment t"at it !as t"e testators desire in t"e present case t"at t"e debts listedb "im in "is !ill s"ould be paid !it"out referrin' t"em to a committee appointed b t"e court,can suc" a provision be enforced Aa t"e provisions of t"e 7ode of 7ivil rocedure relatin' to

t"e settlement of claims a'ainst an estate b a committee appointed b t"e court be superseded

b t"e contents of a !ill

&t is evident from t"e brief outline of t"e sections referred to above t"at t"e 7ode of 7ivilrocedure "as establis"ed a sstem for t"e allo!ance of claims a'ainst t"e estates of decedents.

%"ose are at least t!o restrictions imposed b la! upon t"e po!er of t"e testator to dispose of "is

propert, and !"ic"pro tantorestrict t"e ma(im t"at ;t"e !ill of t"e testator la!: 1 Bis estateis liable for all le'al obli'ations incurred b "im+ and $ "e can not dispose of or encumber t"e

le'al portion due "is "eirs b force of la!. %"e former ta2e precedence over t"e latter. *ec. 60,

7ode 7iv, roc. &n case "is estate is sufficient t"e must be paid. *ec,


5/48

&f it is unnecessar to present suc" claim to t"e committee, t"e source of nonclaims is not

applicable. &t is not barred until from four to ten ears, accordin' to its classification in c"apter meterio *in'son, and !"ic" t"epossessedpro indiviso, are 'overned b sections 181 to 196 of t"e 7ode of 7ivil rocedure.

No provision of t"e said sections aut"ori4es an administrator of t"e propert of an intestate to

brin' an action demandin' t"e partition of real estate o!nedpro indivisob t"e deceased, !"ose

propert "e is administerin', and b anot"er person.


28/48

&n t"e above cited sections, t"e la! refers to a coparcener, co"eir, or ot"er person interested in

t"e undivided propert "eld, because an one suc" persons is a real part concerned in t"e

partition. &n cases li2e t"e present, !"ere t"e propert is "eld b a person, not as a co"eir but as

t"e e(clusive o!ner, t"e ri'"t of action for partition, !"ic" supposes =oint o!ners"ip and

communit of propert, pertains onl to t"e "eirs of t"e late 7iriaco %ion'son, not to t"e

administrator !"o, !"en claimin' t"e division of real estate not included in t"e inventor, or

!"ic" "e did not ta2e c"ar'e of on commencin' to e(ercise office, but !"ic" is alle'ed to belon'

to t"e estate, is not aut"ori4ed to represent t"e intestate succession of t"e propert administered

b "im+ because t"e latter, as successors to t"e deceased, are t"e onl parties !"o ma maintain

suc" an action for partition of real estate "eldpro indivisob co"eirs or o!ners in common. %"e

matter s"ould be decided in accordance !it" t"e provisions contained in t"e first part of t"e 7ode

of 7ivil rocedure.

Onl in t"e event t"at one of t"e parties in interest !ere a minor, could "e be represented b "is

'uardian, tutor or curatorad litem, !it" t"e courts approval, to institute an action for t"epartition of t"e propert or appear t"erein, under t"e provisions of section 19/ of t"e said code.

&t is to be noted t"at in dealin' !it" t"e partition of propert, t"e la! mentions t"e personalit of

t"e 'uardian or curator !"o represents a minor, but no mention is made of t"e e(ecutor or

administrator, inasmuc" as t"e partition of propert !"ic", as a matter of fact, does not form a

part of t"e in"eritance, can not be re'ulated b t"e sections of t"e 7ode of 7ivil rocedure !"ic"

refer to special proceedin's in connection !it" testate or intestate estates, but b t"ose of t"e

c"apter on partition of real propert.

it" re'ard to t"e renderin' of accounts, t"e demand t"erefore presupposes t"at t"e action forpartition brou'"t b t"e administrator !as in accordance !it" t"e la! and t"at t"e same could be

'ranted b t"e court belo!+ once t"e latter is dismissed, it follo!s t"at t"e former s"ould

li2e!ise be denied.

%"erefore, it is our opinion t"at t"e =ud'ment appealed from s"ould be and is "ereb reversed,

and t"at t"e administrator of t"e intestate estate of 7iriaco %ion'son "as no ri'"t to brin' an

action claimin' t"e partition of real estate on t"e 'round t"at one moiet of t"e same belon's to

t"e estate of t"e deceased. No special rulin' is made as to t"e costs in eit"er instance. *o ordered.

Arellano, .!., 4apa, arson, Willard and Trace#, !!., concur.

G.R. No. L-&5 March 25, 1912


29/48

RODRIGO AL0ANO, admii!"ra"or o) "h$ $!"a"$ o) "h$ d$c$a!$d Si$rio A6"ara%,

plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

*ORNELIO AGTARA7, ET AL.,plaintiffs-appellants.

A. Adiarte for appellants.I. 5itanga for appellee.

ARELLANO, C.J.:

Lucio )'tarap o!ned several parcels of a'ricultural land in Laoa', rovince of &locos Norte, andat "is deat" left four sons, one of !"om, *ilverio, died on t"e 10t" of *eptember, 190.

pon t"e deat" of *ilverio )'tarap, "is !ido!, #uana Domin'o, be'an special proceedin's for

settlement of t"e intestate estate of "er deceased "usband b petitionin' for an administrator and

5odri'o )lbano !as appointed.

)s suc" administrator 5odri'o )lbano instituted a civil action improperl entitled ;in t"e matter

of t"e claim for t"e !ido!s le'al portion; a'ainst t"e ot"er t"ree "eirs of Lucio )'tarap, !"o

are t"e t!o sons of "is, called 7ornelio and Nicolas and a 'randson named Aelecio )'tarap+improperl so entitled, because in t"e present civil action t"e matter involved is a claim in favor

of t"e intestate estate to certain propert belon'in' to t"e decedent, a'ainst t"e t"ree "eirs of t"e

said Lucio )'tarap, !"o "ave ta2en t"emselves all t"e estate left b t"e latter, includin' t"e

fourt" part !"ic" belon's to *ilverio )'tarap, li2e!ise a son of Lucio )'tarap. %"erefore t"esub=ect matter of t"is action can onl be t"is coo!ners"ip, if it e(ists, in !"ic" t"e "ereditar

estate !as left, and, if it does so e(ist, t"e partition of t"e propert amon' t"e four la!ful

coo!ners, t"e "eirs of Lucio )'tarap, and !it"dra!al of *ilverios portion in order to transfer it

to "is intestate estate.

%"e follo!in' are pertinent facts in t"is case: 1 &t is proven t"at Lucio )'tarap is t"e le'itimate

fat"er of *ilverio, 7ornelio, and Nicolas )'tarap and t"e 'randfat"er of Aelecio )'tarap, $ it is

admitted t"at Lucio )'tarap died leavin' propert+


30/48

%"e plaintiff also as2ed for t"e portion of t"e products of t"e coo!ners"ip correspondin' to

*ilverio )'tarap, but t"e trial court i'nored t"is re3uest, as !ell as t"at for some cattle included

in t"e complaint, and t"at t"e plaintiff "as not appealed !it" re'ard to t"is omission, so it neednot be considered "ere.

%"e =ud'ment ri'"tl sas t"at aftert"e proper proceedin's under t"e la!, t"ere ma bead=udicated to t"e !ido! and ot"er "eirs of *ilverio )'tarap, in due-proportion, t"e fourt" part

!"ic" t"e defendants s"ould deliver to t"e administrator of t"e intestate estate of t"e said*ilverio )'tarap+ but not in t"is action. %"e necessar procedure !ill be t"e special proceedin's

in t"e intestate estate of *ilverio )'tarap, in !"ic" ma properl be presented t"e claim of t"e

administrator of t"e said intestate estate on "ehalfof #uana Domin'o for "er le'al portion as!ido!,; as !ell as t"e proceedin's for provin' t"at >u'enia )'tarap is a le'itimate dau'"ter in

order to "ave "er declared t"e sole "eir of t"e !"ole of t"e said fourt" part of t"e propert !"ic"

corresponds to "im !"om s"e calls "er le'itimate fat"er. &n t"e trial "eld for suc" purpose it !illbe determined !"o are t"e "eirs of t"e intestate estate of *ilverio )'tarap+ !"et"er s"e !"o calls

"erself "is le'itimate dau'"ter, >u'enia )'tarap+ or "is brot"er 7ornelio and Nicolas and "is

nep"e! Aelecio, all surnamed )'tarap.

%"e la!ful usufruct pertainin' to t"e !ido! !ill depend upon !"et"er t"e alle'ed dau'"ter ort"e brot"ers and nep"e! of t"e deceased are entitled to t"e in"eritance, for if s"e !"o claims to

be t"e dau'"ter, >u'enia )'tarap be declared t"e sole "eir of t"e deceased *ilverio )'tarap, t"e

!ido!s s"are !ould be different from !"at it !ould if t"e defendants in t"is case, as brot"ersand nep"e! of t"e deceased *ilverio )'tarap, are declared to be t"e sole "eirs-in accordance

!it" t"e various provisions of t"e 7ivil 7ode in t"is respect.

Onl in suc" special proceedin's, !"erein t"e necessar orders can be issued and e(ecuted, can

findin's be made as to !"o are t"e "eirs and !"at t"e portions belon' to t"em, t"e nature of t"eir

titles, and in case of usufruct !"at part pertains to eac".

%"e =ud'ment appealed from is affirmed, !it" t"e costs of t"is instance a'ainst t"e appellants.

Torres, 4apa, !ohnson, arson and Trent, !!., concur.

S$%ara"$ O%iio!

MORELAND,J., dissentin':

%"e real estate !"ic" constitutes t"e sub=ect matter of t"is action descended, on t"e deat" ofLucio )'tarap, to four "eirs *ilverio, 7ornelio, Nicolas, and Aelecio, !"ose interests are "erein

liti'ation. Later *ilverio died, leavin', it is claimed, a !ife and c"ild. %"ere !ere no debts. No

one !as in an sense interested in t"e propert save t"e "eirs. %"e propert !as never dividedamon' t"e "eirs.


31/48

&t is asserted, as the sole reason for the appointment of an administrator and the maintenance of

this action, t"at t"ree of t"e "eirs are in t"e possession of t"e lands in 3uestion and are e(cludin'

t"e ot"er alle'ed "eirs, >u'enia and "er mot"er, #uana Domin'o, t"e alle'ed !ido! of *ilverio,from participation t"erein. %"e nature if t"is action is stated b t"e court t"us:

%"erefore t"e sole basis of t"is action is t"is =oint o!ners"ip, if it e(ists, in !"ic" t"eestate !as left and, if it is true, t"e division of t"e propert amon' t"e four =oint le'al

o!ners, "eirs of Lucio )'tarap, settin' apart t"e portion belon'in' to *ilverio for "isestate.

%"e =ud'ment of t"e court belo!, as stated b t"is court, !as:

%"at one-fourt" part of t"is propert real estate be delivered to t"e administrator of t"e

intestate estate of t"e late *ilverio )'tarap as "eirs, so t"at, upon proper proceedin's,t"ere ma be ad=udicated to t"e !ido! and t"e "eirs of t"e said *ilverio t"eir respective

portions.

)s to t"is =ud'ment of t"e trial court, t"is court in its opinion sas:

%"is =ud'ment is entirel in accordance !it" la!.

e "ave "ere, t"en, t"e principle asserted t"at an administrator "as po!er to commence andprosecute an action of partition of real estate amon' t"e "eirs of t"e decedent. &n t"is case !e

"ave t"e administrator of one "eir suin' t"e ot"er t"ree "eirs for a one-3uarter interest, and t"e

=ud'ment of t"e trial court, affirmed b t"is court, 'ivin' t"e administrator t"e one-fourt" partsued for and orderin' its deliver b t"e defendants. %"is court sas t"at t"is is not a suit in

e=ectment to recover all of t"e premises pendin' a settlement of t"e estate. Nor, sas t"e court, is

it an action to obtain possession of a one-fourt" part alread set off. %"e o!ners"ip of t"e "eirs ist"at of tenants in common. %"e propert "as never been divided. Neit"er is it, under t"e "oldin'of t"is court, an action to compel t"e defendants to permit participation of t"e ot"er "eir in t"e

possession in common. %"e decision of t"e court indisputabl ne'atives suc" a t"eor. %"e court

clearl "olds t"e action to be one of t"e partition.

& repeat, t"en, t"at t"is court, b t"e opinion & am criticisin', asserts t"e proposition t"at an

administrator of an estate ma commence and prosecute an action of partition and compel a

division of t"e real estate of "is decedent amon' t"e "eirs. *o far as m researc"es 'o, t"is is t"e

first time t"at suc" a proposition "as been asserted b an court. >ven amon' t"e *tates !"ic""ave, b statute, 'one to e(tremes in 'ivin' administrators control over real estate, no le'islature

or court "as ever 'iven suc" po!er or ri'"t e(cept t"ose of Louisiana, and t"en onl in specifiedcases. La. )nn., /1+ 10 La., 10 "ilips vs.Doris, /6 Neb., $9


32/48

been aut"ori4ed to compel partition. )s to real propert, neit"er at common la! nor under

an statute does an e(ecutor or administrator ta2e an title . . . . Neit"er can compel

partition, in t"e absence of a statute aut"ori4in' it.

&n t"e )merican and >n'lis" >ncclopedia of La! vol. $1, pp. 11// and 11/6 appears t"is

statement of t"e la!+

&n t"e absence of statutor aut"orit t"ereof, t"e e(ecutor or administrator of one !"o

o!ned an undivided interest in real estate "as not, merel b reason of suc" office, suc"title to decedents realt as !ill aut"ori4e t"e maintenance of an action of partition.

7ross!ell, in "is !or2 on >(ecutors and )dministrators pp. $0 and $08, spea2in' of an

e(ecutor or administrator, sas:

&n t"e lands and ot"er real propert of t"e decedent "e "as no interest, as a 'eneral rule,

e(cept so far as ma be 'iven to "im b t"e statute, or in case of an e(ecutor, b t"e !ill

of t"e deceased.

*o far as & can ascertain, no!"ere in t"e la! of t"ese &slands is an administrator 'iven po!er to

brin' an action for t"e partition of real estate. %"e persons and t"e onl persons aut"ori4ed tobrin' suc" an action are t"ose mentioned in section 181 of t"e 7ode of 7ivil rocedure. &t reads:

-artition of real estate. ) person "avin' or "oldin' real estate !it" ot"ers, in an form of

=oint tenanc, or tenanc in common, ma compel partition t"ereof in t"e manner

"ereinafter prescribed.

rom t"e provisions of t"e 7ode of 7ivil rocedure relatin' to t"e partition of real estate it is

apparent t"at partition on t"e petition of an administrator !as never contemplated.

)rticle 10/$ of t"e 7ivil 7ode reads as follo!s:

>ver co"eir "avin' t"e free administration and disposal of "is propert ma at an time

re3uest t"e division of t"e estate.

%"e le'al representatives of incapacitated persons and absentees must re3uest t"e divisionin t"eir name.

)rticles 10/8 and 10/9 are as follo!s:

*"ould t"e testator not "ave made an division, nor intrusted t"is po!er to anot"er, if t"e

"eirs s"ould be of a'e and s"ould "ave t"e free administration of t"eir propert, t"e madistribute t"e estate in t"e manner t"e ma see fit.

&f t"e "eirs of a'e s"ould not a'ree as to t"e manner of ma2in' t"e division, t"e s"all be

free to enforce t"eir ri'"ts in t"e manner prescribed in t"e la! of civil procedure.


33/48

%"e 7ivil 7ode does not aut"ori4e suc" an action as t"e present.

&t is evident, t"en, t"at t"e present action of partition !as instituted !it"out aut"orit of la!, !as

not be'un b t"e real part in interest, and !as commenced and carried on !it"out t"e consent ofsome of real parties in interest. ) =ud'ment in a partition action in !"ic" one of t"e real persons

in interest is not a part is substantiall fruitless. /9 L.5.)., 8.

?ut, to me, t"is is not t"e stran'est part of t"is decision. &t seems to me to "old finall, in effect,

t"at t"is action and after t"e =ud'ment t"erein is of no si'nificance an!a+ t"at, after t"e action"as been be'un, t"e parties and !itnesses in court, t"e cause tried, and t"e =ud'ment rendered,

not"in' of an conse3uence "as been accomplis"ed. &t eit"er "olds t"is, or else it "olds

somet"in', to me, more incompre"ensible, to !"ic" & s"all call attention as m t"ird and lastob=ection to t"e decision as it stands. %"e court sas:

After t"e proper proceedin's under t"e la!, let t"ere be ad=udicated to t"e !ido! and t"e

"eirs of *ilverio )'tarap, in proper portions, t"e fourt" part !"ic" t"e defendants s"ould

deliver to t"e administrator of t"e intestate estate of said *ilverio )'tarap+ but not in t"isaction sic. %"e necessar prior proceedin's !ill occur in t"e special proceedin's of t"e

intestate estate of *ilverio )'tarap in !"ic" !ill be proper t"e claim made b t"e

administrator of t"e said estate on be"alf of #uana Domin'o for "er ;le'al portion,; and

also t"e proceedin's for t"e filiation of >u'enia )'tarap and to "ave "er declared t"euniversal "eir of t"e !"ole of t"e said fourt" part !"ic" corresponds to t"e person s"e

calls "er le'itimate fat"er. %"erein it !ill be determined, on t"e "earin' of t"at matter,

!"o are t"e "eirs of t"e intestate estate of *ilverio )'tarap, and !"et"er t"e persondenominated t"e le'itimate dau'"ter, >u'enia )'tarap, is t"e "eir, or !"et"er t"e brot"ers

of *ilverio )'tarap, namel, 7ornelio Nicolas and "is nep"e! Aelecio, all of t"e

surname )'tarap, are t"e "eirs. )nd !"en it is s"o!n !"et"er t"e said pretended

dau'"ter, or t"e brot"er and nep"e! of t"e deceased, are entitled to t"e propert, t"en t"ela!ful usufruct of t"e !ido! !ill appear. &f t"e alle'ed dau'"ter !ere declared t"e

universal "eir of t"e deceased *ilverio )'tarap, a certain portion !ould 'o to t"e !ido!,!"ile "er s"are !ould be different if t"e defendants, as brot"ers and nep"e! of *ilverio,

are declared to be t"e universal "eirs @ in accordance !it" t"e various provisions of t"e

7ivil 7ode. Onl in suc" special proceedin's can t"e necessar orders be 'iven and

carried out and t"e conclusions be reac"ed as to t"e "eirs and t"eir s"ares and !"at partcorresponds to eac".

rom t"is 3uotation it is clear t"at, not!it"standin' t"is solemn ad=udication, no one 2no!s !"at

is 'oin' to "appen until furt"er proceedin's are "ad in t"e probate court, for, sas t"e opinion:

Onl in suc" special proceedin's can t"e necessar orders be 'iven and carried out andthe conclusions "e reached as to the heirs and their shares and hat part responds to

each.

&f t"is is so, !"at !as t"e use of brin'in' t"e present action and !"at part does t"e formal

=ud'ment of t"is court pla in t"e matter &f t"ere must be ;furt"er proceedin's; in a differentcourt to determine !"o t"e "eirs are, "o! man t"ere are, and !"at t"eir s"ares are, can onl one


34/48

e(plain !"at possible conse3uence can be attac"ed to t"is action and to t"e =ud'ment of t"is or

t"e trial court "erein &t t"e trial court !as incompetent to determine in t"is action t"e ver t"in'

for !"ic" t"e action !as brou'"t, and t"e decision of t"is and t"e trial court e(pressl sas t"eonl probate court can determine it, !"at !as t"e purpose in brin'in' t"is action Of !"at

efficac is t"e decision of t"e trial court t"erein and !"at is t"e purpose of t"e solemn =ud'ment

of t"is court in t"e premises &f t"e !"ole essence of t"e case must still 'o to t"e probate court tobe determined, as t"e decision sas it must, !"at unless labor "ave !e incurred and !"at fatuous

=ud'ment "ave !e rendered &f !"at t"e court sas in its o!n decision is true, t"en its o!n

decision is !it"out effect or conse3uence.

?ut even t"is is not t"e stran'est part of t"is decision, as it appears to me. &f it "as an force oreffect !"atever, t"an !e "ave t"is court "oldin' t"at an action partitionin' real estate ma be

be'un in one court and terminated in anot"er+ t"at !"ile one court directs t"e proceedin's and

finds t"e facts, anot"er declares t"e =ud'ment on !"at ma be alto'et"er different facts+ t"at!"ile t"e probate court is ordered to ta2e t"e evidence and determine t"erefrom t"e facts and t"e

la! applicable t"ereto, suc" proceedin' is !it"out result because t"is court "as alread found t"e

facts, applied t"e la! and pre=ud'ed t"e case.

&n demonstration of t"e fore'oin' & present a'ain t"e 3uotation above made from t"e decision oft"is court. %"e decision sas:

%"e =ud'ment in t"e court belo! is: ;%"at one7fourth partof t"is propert be delivered to

t"e administrator of t"e intestate estate of t"e late *ilverio )'tarap as "eir, so t"at, upon

proper proceedin's, t"ere ma be ad=udicated to t"e !ido! and "eirs of said *ilveriot"eir respective portions. it"out findin' as to costs.; %"is =ud'ment is entirel in

accordance !it" la!.

&t is evident t"at t"is court, t"en, ad0udicates to the alleged ido and heir of Silverio , as !ell as"e administrator in t"is case, one7fourth of the land in 1uestion, and t"is alt"ou'" t"e alle'ed!ido! and "eir are not, so far as appears in t"e decision, parties to t"e action. %"e court t"en

states t"at t"e probate court is t"e onl court !"ic" is competent to determine !"et"er or not t"e

!oman !"o claims to be t"e !ife of !ife *ilverio is reall suc" and !"et"er t"e person !"oclaims to be t"e "eir of *ilverio is in fact "is "eir, sain' t"at suc" court is t"e onl tribunal in

!"ic" ;t"e conclusions can be reac"ed as to t"e "eirs and t"eir s"ares and !"at part corresponds

to eac".; &t furt"er states t"at:

When it is shon hether the said pretended daughter, or "rothers and the nephe of thedeceased, are entitled to the propert#, t"en t"e la!ful usufruct of t"e !ido! !ill appear.

&f t"e alle'ed dau'"ter !ere declared t"e universal "eir of t"e deceased *ilverio )'tarap,

a certain portion !ould 'o to t"e !ido!, !"ile "er s"are !ould be different if t"edefendants, as brot"ers and nep"e! of t"e said *ilverio, are declared to be t"e universal

"eirs . . . .

Observe t"e situation. %"is court asserts, in t"e 3uoted part of t"is decision, 1 t"at neit"er it nor

t"e trial court "as an po!er to determine in t"is action, or in an ot"er, !"o are t"e "eirs of*ilverio, and et it has decreed a one7fourth interest to the ido and heir of Silverio. &t also


35/48

"olds $ t"at t"e probate court is t"e onl court !"ic" can determine !"o t"e "eirs are and !"at

t"eir s"ares are, it bein' t"e onl court !"ic" "as =urisdiction or po!er to ma2e a declaration of

"eirs"ip+ and #et this court has found and declared the heirs and made an ad0udication as totheir shares. &t "olds t"at t"is court "as no po!er to do ant"in' in t"is action and et does

evert"in' !"ic" an court could possibl do. )ll po!er to act in t"e premises is, b t"e opinion,

turned over to t"e probate court, and et t"is court forecloses its action b ma2in' anad=udication in t"e s"ape of a final =ud'ment statin' !"o t"e "eirs are and a!ardin' t"em t"eir

s"ares. *o t"at no matter !"at t"e probate court finds, as to t"e facts or t"e la!, it "as no po!er

to act, as t"e prior =ud'ment of t"is court findin' t"e "eirs and ad=udicatin' t"e s"ares isconclusive upon it. %o illustrate: %"e probate court is ordered b t"is court to ta2e evidence and

determine !"et"er t"e alle'ed "eir of *ilverio is reall suc" or not. No!, if t"e pretended "eir is

found to be illi'itimate, t"at fact ma demonstrate also t"at t"e deceased and t"e alle'ed !ido!

!ere never married and t"at s"e is, t"erefore, not "is !ido!. ?ut if t"eir is neit"er !ido! norc"ild, t"en t"e brot"ers and nep"e! of *ilverio are entitled to the hole propert#. ?ut t"is court,

affirmin' t"e decision of t"e court belo!, has alread# decreed that Silverio8s alleged ido and

child are entitled to a one7fourth share in said land and has decreed its deliver# to the

administrator for them. &f t"at decision is effective, t"en t"e probate court is bound b it, and "isproceedin' for t"e declaration of "eirs"ip and t"e ad=udication of t"e s"ares to t"e "eirs is a

farce, as, no matter !"at "e ma find, "e can ad=udicate not"in' different from !"at t"is court"as alread determined b final =ud'ment. No matter if t"e probate court found t"at t"e alle'ed

!ido! !as no !ido! and t"e alle'ed "eir no "eir and t"at, t"erefore, 7ornelio, Nicolas and

Aelecio !ere entitled to allof t"e propert, suc" court is utterl po!erless to 'rant t"em all t"epropert, for t"eir stares "im in t"e face al!as t"e final =ud'ment of t"is court aarding themonl# three71uarters.

&n its decision t"e trial court found:

%"at >u'enia )'tarap is t"e le'itimate dau'"ter of t"e la!ful marria'e of *ilverio)'tarap and #uana Domin'o, suc" fact appearin' in t"e baptismal record made in t"eear 189$ and not attac2ed b anbod from t"at da to t"is+ and !"ose force and effect

cannot be destroed b t"e testimon of t"e !itnesses for t"e defense to t"e effect t"at

said >u'enia is not t"e dau'"ter of said spouses but of ot"er persons.

%"e trial court furt"er sas t"at:

it" t"e deat" of Lucio )'tarap t"e follo!in' persons became "eirs in e3ual parts of "is

propert: 7ornelio and Nicolas, bein' sons, b t"eir o!n ri'"t, and Aelecio and >u'enia

b representation, t"e bein' 'randc"ildren.

%"en follo!s t"e =ud'ment of t"e court orderin' t"e deliver of a one-fourt" part of t"e lands tot"e administrator, not to >u'enia. %"is court in t"e =ud'ment of affirmance sas, as !e "ave

alread seen, t"at t"e one-fourt" part is turned over to t"e administrator for t"e purpose of "avin'

t"e probate court, !"ic", sas t"is court, is t"e onl court competent for t"at purpose, proceedand determine !"et"er #uana Domin'o !as t"e la!ful !ife of *ilverio, a fact alread determined

b t"e court belo! in t"is case and affirmed b t"is court, and !"et"er >u'enia is "is la!ful

c"ild, a fact also alread determined b t"is ver case b t"e court belo! and affirmed b t"is


36/48

court. %"e proceedin' in t"e probate court is ordered to t"e end t"at t"e ri'"ts of t"e parties in t"e

propert ma be determined and t"eir respective s"ares ad=udicated to eac", t"in's alread done

b t!o courts. %!o courts "ave alread ad=udicated a one-fourt" part of t"e lands to t"eadministrator for t"e use of >u'enia and t"e !ido!, and t"e ordered its deliver to t"e

administrator. Bo! can t"e probate court possibl effect t"ese t!o decisions, especiall t"e final

=ud'ment of t"is court, even t"ou'" "e find t"at #uana and *ilverio !ere never married, t"at t"eirrelations !ere adulterous, scandalous and criminal, and t"at >u'enia is ille'itimate, and neit"er

t"e one nor t"e ot"er "as t"e sli'"test interest in t"e lands of *ilverio, but t"at suc" lands belon'

!"oll to 7ornelio, Nicolas and Aelecio Bo! can "e reverse t"e final =ud'ment of t"is court!"ic" definitel "olds and ad=udicates, in terms, t"at 7ornelio, Nicolas and Aelecio are entitled

to onl t"ree-3uarters, >u'enia ta2in' t"e ot"er 3uarter

%"e proposition laid do!n in t"is decision relative to t"e probate court bein' t"e onl court

competent to declare "eirs"ip a proposition !"ic", b t"e !a, reestablis"es t"e old sstem oft"e declaration of "eirs"ip, t"at is, to determine in 'iven case !"o t"e "eirs are and !"at t"eir

s"ares in propert are, is, in m =ud'ment, untenable.

&t is evident t"at t"ere appears in t"is case no reason !"atever !" an administrator s"ould "ave

been appointed. )s & "ave said, t"ere !as not debt outstandin' a'ainst t"e estate and t"e estate"eld no claim a'ainst anone. No one !as interested in t"e real estate e(cept t"e "eirs. )n action

of partition bet!een t"e heirs themselves, or an action b one "eir a'ainst t"e ot"ers to compel

participation in possession, !ould "ave been t"e proper proceedin'. %"e appointment of anadministrator under suc" circumstances !as !it"out aut"orit of la!, !as unnecessar, entailed

a useless e(pense, and served no purpose. %"e cases !"ic" come before t"is court demonstrate to

m satisfaction t"at t"e po!er of t"e court to appoint administrators is made use of far too often.

)n administrator s"ould never be appointed unless t"ere is some t"ird person to !"om t"e estateis indebted or t"e !"o is indebted to t"e estate+ and even in suc" case t"e appointment s"ould be

made onl after ever effort "as been made to ad=ust t"e matter !it"out suc" appointment. ndert"e la! an administrator s"ould not be appointed =ust because some one as2s for t"eappointment. "ere t"ere is no controvers e(cept amon' t"e "eirs t"emselves, an administrator

s"ould not be appointed. Beirs !"o do not a'ree "ave t"eir remed, one a'ainst t"e ot"er, in t"e

ordinar actions or proceedin's provided b la!. "ere t"e appointment of an administrator isas2ed for under suc" circumstances, it is t"e dut of t"e court to den t"e application and advise

t"e applicant t"at "e "as a remed entirel ade3uate under ot"er provisions of t"e la!. )n

administrator is not t"e representative of one set of "eirs as a'ainst anot"er nor of t"e "eirs as a!"ole.

G.R. No. 2&5 A%ri 29, 19&5

TE /NITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

ADRIANO *ON*E7*ION,defendant-appellant.


37/48

Alfredo hicote for appellant.

9ffice of the Solicitor7:eneral Araneta for appellee.

*ARSON,J.:

)driano 7oncepcion, t"e appellant in t"is case, !as convicted of t"e crime of bri'anda'e in t"e7ourt of irst &nstance of *uri'ao and sentenced to deat" and to t"e pament of one-"alf of t"e

costs of t"e trial.

e find no error in t"e proceedin's pre=udicial to t"e ri'"ts of t"e accused, and t"e evidence

adduced at t"e trial sustains t"e findin's of t"e trial court and establis"es t"e 'uilt of t"e

appellant beond a reasonable doubt.

&t !as proven t"at t"e accused, )driano 7oncepcion, or'ani4ed t"e band of dan'erous and

desperate bri'ands of !"ic" "e !as a member, and !as accepted and reco'ni4ed b t"e said

band as its c"ief+ and furt"er t"at "e too2 a direct part in t"e 2illin' of one Le!is 7lar2, a

7onstabular officer, on t"e $


38/48

%"e spouses )ntonio A. 7"ua and )suncion A. 7"ua !ere t"e o!ners of a parcel of land

covered b %ransfer 7ertificate of %itle No. -1$ and re'istered in t"eir names. pon )ntonioIs

deat", t"e probate court appointed "is son, private respondent )llan A. 7"ua, special

administrator of )ntonioIs intestate estate. %"e court also aut"ori4ed )llan to obtain a loan

accommodation of five "undred fift t"ousand //0,000.00 pesos from petitioner "ilippine

National ?an2 to be secured b a real estate mort'a'e over t"e above-mentioned parcel of land.

On #une $9, 1989, )llan obtained a loan of /0,000.00 from petitioner N? evidenced b a

promissor note, paable on #une $9, 1990, !it" interest at 18.8 percent per annum. %o secure

t"e loan, )llan e(ecuted a deed of real estate mort'a'e on t"e aforesaid parcel of land.

On December $, 1990, for failure to pa t"e loan in full, t"e ban2 e(tra=udiciall foreclosed t"e

real estate mort'a'e, t"rou'" t"e3x79fficio *"eriff, !"o conducted a public auction of t"e

mort'a'ed propert pursuant to t"e aut"orit provided for in t"e deed of real estate mort'a'e.

Durin' t"e auction, N? !as t"e "i'"est bidder !it" a bid price


39/48

&&

%B> 7) >55>D &N BOLD&NF %B)% )LL)N A. 7B), )* *>7&)L

)DA&N&*%5)%O5 O %B> &N%>*%)%> >*%)%> O B&* D>7>)*>D )%B>5

)N%ON&O A. 7B) ON ON> B)ND, )ND B&A )ND B&* AO%B>5 )*N7&ON

7B) )* B>&5* ON %B> O%B>5 B)ND )5> NO LONF>5 L&)?L> O5 %B>

D>?%* O %B> >*%)%>.

%"e primar issue posed before us is !"et"er or not it !as error for t"e 7ourt of )ppeals to rule

t"at petitioner ma no lon'er pursue b civil action t"e recover of t"e balance of indebtedness

after "avin' foreclosed t"e propert securin' t"e same. ) resolution of t"is issue !ill also resolve

t"e secondar issue concernin' an furt"er liabilit of respondents and of t"e decedentIs estate.

etitioner contends t"at under prevailin' =urisprudence, !"en t"e proceeds of t"e sale are

insufficient to pa t"e debt, t"e mort'a'ee "as t"e ri'"t to recover t"e deficienc from t"e

debtor./&t also contends t"at )ct


40/48

ertinent to t"e issue at bar, accordin' to petitioner, are our decisions "e cited.8-rudential 5an/

v. 4artine;, 189 *75) 61$, 61/ 1990,is particularl cited b petitioner as precedent for

"oldin' t"at in e(tra=udicial foreclosure of mort'a'e, !"en t"e proceeds of t"e sale are

insufficient to pa t"e debt, t"e mort'a'ee "as t"e ri'"t to recover t"e deficienc from t"e

mort'a'or.

Bo!ever, it must be pointed out t"at petitionerIs cited cases involve ordinar debts secured b a

mort'a'e. %"e case at bar, !e must stress, involves a foreclosure of mort'a'e arisin' out of a

settlement of estate, !"erein t"e administrator mort'a'ed a propert belon'in' to t"e estate of

t"e decedent, pursuant to an aut"orit 'iven b t"e probate court. )s t"e 7ourt of )ppeals

correctl stated, t"e 5ules of 7ourt on *pecial roceedin's comes into pla decisivel.

%o be'in !it", it is clear from t"e te(t of *ection , 5ule 89, t"at once t"e deed of real estate

mort'a'e is recorded in t"e proper 5e'istr of Deeds, to'et"er !it" t"e correspondin' court

order aut"ori4in' t"e administrator to mort'a'e t"e propert, said deed s"all be valid as if it "as

been e(ecuted b t"e deceased "imself. *ection provides in part:

*ec. . 5ule 89.Regulations for granting authorit# to sell, mortgage, or otherise

encum"er estate %"e court "avin' =urisdiction of t"e estate of t"e deceased ma

aut"ori4e t"e e(ecutor or administrator to sell personal estate, or to sell, mort'a'e, or

ot"er!ise encumber real estate, in cases provided b t"ese rules !"en it appears

necessar or beneficial under t"e follo!in' re'ulations:

( ( (

f %"ere s"all be recorded in t"e re'istr of deeds of t"e province in !"ic" t"e real estate

t"us sold, mort'a'ed, or ot"er!ise encumbered is situated, a certified cop of t"e order of

t"e court, to'et"er !it" t"e deed of t"e e(ecutor or administrator for suc" real estate,

hich shall "e valid as if the deed had "een executed "# the deceased in his lifetime.

&n t"e present case, it is undisputed t"at t"e conditions under t"e aforecited rule "ave been

complied !it". &t follo!s t"at !e must consider *ec. of 5ule 86, appropriatel applicable to t"e

controvers at "and.

7ase la! no! "olds t"at t"is rule 'rants to t"e mort'a'ee t"ree distinct, independent andmutuall e(clusive remedies t"at can be alternativel pursued b t"e mort'a'e creditor for t"e

satisfaction of "is credit in case t"e mort'a'or dies, amon' t"em:

1 to !aive t"e mort'a'e and claim t"e entire debt from t"e estate of t"e mort'a'or as an

ordinar claim+


41/48

$ to foreclose t"e mort'a'e =udiciall and prove an deficienc as an ordinar claim+

and


42/48

EREORE, findin' no reversible error committed b respondent 7ourt of )ppeals, t"e

instant petition is "ereb DENIED. %"e assailed decision of t"e 7ourt of )ppeals in 7)-F.5.

7G No.


43/48

t"e proper bill of ladin'. ursuant to said application t"e "ilippine Fuarant 7ompan e(ecuted

a bond in t"e sum of 19,800, and merc"andise "avin' a value of 18,


44/48

rocedure, !"ereupon it !ould "ave become t"e dut of t"e court to order t"e administratri( to

retain funds to satisf t"e claim upon its becomin' absolute sec. .

%"ere can be no 3uestion t"at t"e claim of Fas2ell M 7o a'ainst D oco is properl desi'nated

as a contin'ent claim, !"ic" ma be defined as a claim in !"ic" liabilit depends on some future

event t"at ma or ma not "appen, and !"ic" ma2es it uncertain !"et"er t"ere !ill ever be an

liabilit. %"e e(pression is used in contradistinction to t"e absolute claim, !"ic" is sub=ect to no

contin'enc and ma be proved an allo!ed as a debt b t"e committee or claims. %"e absolute

claim is suc" a claim as, if contested bet!een livin' persons, !ould be proper sub=ect of

immediate le'al action and !ould suppl a basis of a =ud'ment for a sum certain. &t !ill be noted

t"at t"e term ;contin'ent; "as reference to t"e uncertaint of t"e liabilit and not to t"e

uncertaint in !"ic" t"e reali4ation or collection of t"e claim ma be involved. %"e !ord

;contin'ent,; as used in t"e ori'inal >n'lis", in t"e 7ode of 7ivil rocedure, conves t"e idea of

ultimate uncertaint as to t"e "appenin' of t"e event upon !"ic" liabilit !ill arise+ and it is not

t"e prices e3uivalent of t"e *panis" !ord ;eventual; b !"ic" it is commonl translated. %"eidea involved in t"e !ord ;eventual; ma be satisfied !it" t"e idea of t"at !"ic" is uncertain

onl in respect to t"e element of time. ) t"in' t"at is certain to "appen at some time or ot"er !ill

eventuall come to pass alt"ou'" t"e e(act time ma be uncertain+ to be contin'ent its "appenin'

must be !"oll uncertain until t"e event !"ic" fi(es liabilit occurs.

%"e most common e(ample of t"e contin'ent claim is t"at !"ic" arises !"en a person is bound

as suret or 'uarantor for a principal !"o is insolvent or dead. nder t"e ordinar contract of

surets"ip t"e suret "as no claim !"atever a'ainst "is principal until "e "imself pas somet"in'

b !a of satisfaction upon t"e obli'ation !"ic" is secured. "en "e does t"is, t"ere instantl

arises in favor of t"e suret t"e ri'"t to compel t"e principal to e(onerate t"e suret. ?ut until t"esuret "as contributed somet"in' to t"e pament of t"e debt, or "as performed t"e secured

obli'ation in !"ole or in part, "e "as no ri'"t of action a'ainst anbod @ no claim t"at could

be reduced to =ud'ment. Aa vs.Gann. 1/ la., //


45/48

rom t"is it !ill be seen t"at t"e claim in 3uestion could "ave been proved b Fas2el M 7o. in

t"e ban2ruptc proceedin's in t"e name of t"e creditor t"e "ilippine Fuarant 7ompan, if

t"e latter "ad failed to present t"e credit. ?ut, as alread stated, t"e creditor in fact proved in t"e

insolvenc proceedin' for t"e ver claim for !"ic" t"e present plaintiff is contin'entl liable+

!it" t"e result t"at t"e present plaintiff !ill be e(onerated to t"e e(tent of an amount !"ic" t"e

creditor ma recover from t"e insolvent.

&t necessaril follo!s t"at, t"e claim in 3uestion "avin' been disc"ar'ed in ban2ruptc, it cannot

serve as t"e basis of recover a'ainst t"e estate of D oco in administration. "en it "appens,

as "ere, t"at bot" ban2ruptc proceedin's and administration proceedin's are simultaneousl

conducted over t"e estate of a deceased ban2rupt, no claim can be proved a'ainst t"e

administrator !"ic" is provable in ban2ruptc+ and it !as partl !it" a vie! for ma2in' t"is

point clear t"at !e !ere at pains to sa at t"e conclusion of our opinion in *un Life )ssurance

7o. of 7anada vs.&n'ersoll and %an *it, supra, t"at t"e proceeds of t"e polic of insurance t"ere

a!arded to t"e administratri( !ere not liable for an of t"e debts provable a'ainst D oco int"e ban2ruptc proceedin's t"en pendin'.

rom !"at "as been said it follo!s t"at t"ere !as no error on t"e part of t"e trial it follo!s t"at

t"ere !as no error on t"e part of t"e trial court in disallo!in' t"e claim of Fas2ell M 7o. a'ainst

t"e administratri( of D oco. *aid =ud'ment !ill t"erefore be affirmed+ and it is so ordered,

!it" costs a'ainst t"e appellant.

Araullo, .!., !ohnson, 4alcolm, AvanceBa, 6illamor, 9strand, !ohns and Romualde;, !!.,

concur.

G.R. No. L-593 D$c$m$r 24, 195

I"$!"a"$ E!"a"$ o) "h$ a"$ or$cio 7. 0+a ad RiL=INA *. LA>A, ET AL.,petitioners-appellants.

!ose W. 2io/no and Augusto 4. Ilagan for appellees.

Rufino . 4e0ia for appellants.

LA0RADOR,J.:


46/48

)ppeal from a decision of t"e 7ourt of irst &nstance of %arlac dated #anuar , 19/, settin'

aside t"e previous Order dated December 16, 19/


47/48

upon b t"e said court. ) motion to reconsider t"is order of t"e 7ourt of irst &nstance of %arlac

"avin' been denied, petitioners "ave prosecuted t"is appeal to s.

) consideration of t"e facts and t"e proceedin's set fort" above !ill readil s"o! t"at t"e order

of t"e 7ourt of irst &nstance of %arlac dismissin' t"e contin'ent claim is based on incorrect and

erroneous conception of a contin'ent claim. ) contin'ent claim is one !"ic", b its nature, is

necessaril dependent upon an uncertain event for its e(istence or validit. &t ma or ma not

develop into a valid and enforceable claim, and its validit and enforceabilit dependin' upon an

uncertain event. >. Fas2ell M 7o. vs. %an *it, < "il. 810, 81


48/48

%"e first order of t"e court admitted t"e claim but denied t"e petition for t"e settin' aside of a

certain amount from t"e estate to respond t"erefor. %"e validit of t"e contin'ent claim is

apparent+ as t"e driver of t"e bus belon'in' to t"e deceased spouses, lorencio . ?uan and

5i4alina . ?uan, !as found 'uilt of ne'li'ence, as a result of !"ic" #uan 7. Laa died, t"e said

deceased spouses@t"e emploers of t"e driver@can be made responsible, as masters of a

servant, for dama'es for t"e deat" of t"e petitioners fat"er. ) portion of t"e estate s"ould

t"erefore, be set aside to respond for suc" dama'es as petitioners "erein ma subse3uentl

recover in t"e action t"e "ave brou'"t in t"e 7ourt of irst &nstance of Aanila. %"is amount

s"ould be fi(ed in t"e court belo!.

or t"e fore'oin' considerations, t"e order of t"e court dismissin' t"e contin'ent claim filed b

petitioners is "ereb set aside. &t is "ereb ordered t"at t"e claim be allo!ed to continue, and it is

furt"er ordered t"at t"e court fi( an amount t"at ma be set aside to respond for t"e dama'es t"at

t"e petitioners "erein ma ultimatel recover. 7osts a'ainst t"e respondents.

-aras, 5eng;on, .!., -adilla, 4ontema#or, Re#es, A., 5autista Angelo, oncepcion, Re#es,

!.5.L., 3ndencia and elix, !!., concur.

fulltext 020415.docx

Documents

Transcript of fulltext 020415.docx