P. 1
Cases-conflicts of Law

Cases-conflicts of Law

|Views: 3|Likes:
Published by May Sonza
conflictsoflaw
conflictsoflaw

More info:

Published by: May Sonza on Mar 23, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/23/2014

pdf

text

original

HILTON v. GUYOT, 159 U.S.

113 (1895)
159 U.S. 113 HILTON et al. v. GUYOT et al. (two cases). Nos. 130 an 3!. "#ne 3, 1895. $159 U.S. 113, 11!% T&e '()st o' t&ese two cases was an act(on at law, *)o#+&t ,ece-*e) 18, 1885, (n t&e c()c#(t co#)t o' t&e Un(te States 'o) t&e So#t&e)n (st)(ct o' New Yo)., */ G#stave 0e)t(n G#/ot, as o''(c(al l(1#( ato) o' t&e '()- o' 2&a)les 3o)t(n 4 2o., an */ t&e s#)v(v(n+ -e-*e)s o' t&at '()-, all al(ens an c(t(5ens o' t&e )e6#*l(c o' 3)ance, a+a(nst Hen)/ H(lton an 7(ll(a- L(**e/, c(t(5ens o' t&e Un(te States an o' t&e state o' New Yo)., an t)a (n+ as co6a)tne)s, (n t&e c(t(es o' New Yo). an 8a)(s, an elsew&e)e, #n e) t&e '()- na-e o' 9. T. Stewa)t 4 2o. T&e act(on was #6on a :# +-ent )ecove)e (n a 3)enc& co#)t at 8a)(s, (n t&e )e6#*l(c o' 3)ance, */ t&e '()- o' 2&a)les 3o)t(n 4 2o., all o' w&ose -e-*e)s we)e 3)enc& c(t(5ens, a+a(nst H(lton 4 L(**e/, t)a (n+ as co6a)tne)s, as a'o)esa( , an c(t(5ens o' t&e Un(te States an o' t&e state o' New Yo).. T&e co-6la(nt alle+e t&at (n 188;, an s(nce, #)(n+ t&e t(-e o' all t&e t)ansact(ons (ncl# e (n t&e :# +-ent s#e on, H(lton an L(**e/, as s#ccesso)s to 9le<an e) T. Stewa)t an L(**e/, #n e) t&e '()- na-e o' 9. T. Stewa)t 4 2o., ca))(e on a +ene)al *#s(ness as -e)c&ants (n t&e c(t(es o' New Yo). an 8a)(s, an elsew&e)e, an -a(nta(ne a )e+#la) sto)e an 6lace o' *#s(ness at 8a)(s= t&at #)(n+ t&e sa-e t(-e 2&a)les 3o)t(n 4 2o. ca))(e on t&e -an#'act#)e an sale o' +loves at 8a)(s, an t&e two '()-s &a t&e)e la)+e eal(n+s (n t&at *#s(ness, an cont)ove)s(es a)ose (n t&e a :#st-ent o' acco#nts *etween t&e-. T&e co-6la(nt '#)t&e) alle+e t&at *etween >a)c& 1, 18?9, an ,ece-*e) 1, 188@, '(ve s#(ts we)e *)o#+&t */ 3o)t(n 4 2o. a+a(nst Stewa)t 4 2o. 'o) s#-s alle+e to *e #e, an t&)ee s#(ts */ Stewa)t 4 2o. a+a(nst 3o)t(n 4 2o., (n t&e t)(*#nal o' co--e)ce o' t&e e6a)t-ent o' t&e Se(ne, a :# (c(al t)(*#nal o) co#)t, o)+an(5e an e<(st(n+ #n e) t&e laws o' 3)ance, s(tt(n+ at 8a)(s, an &av(n+ :#)(s (ct(on o' s#(ts an cont)ove)s(es *etween -e)c&ants o) t)a e)s +)ow(n+ $159 U.S. 113, 115% o#t o' co--e)c(al eal(n+s *etween t&e-= t&at Stewa)t 4 2o. a66ea)e */ t&e() a#t&o)(5e atto)ne/s (n all t&ose s#(ts= an t&at, a'te) '#ll &ea)(n+ *e'o)e an a)*(t)ato) a66o(nte */ t&at co#)t, an *e'o)e t&e co#)t (tsel', an a'te) all t&e s#(ts &a *een consol( ate */ t&e co#)t, '(nal :# +-ent was )en e)e on "an#a)/ @0, 1883, t&at 3o)t(n 4 2o. )ecove) o' Stewa)t 4 2o. va)(o#s s#-s, a)(s(n+ o#t o' t&e eal(n+s *etween t&e-, a-o#nt(n+ to ;;0,8!? ')ancs, w(t& (nte)est, an (s-(sse 6a)t o' 3o)t(n 4 2o.As cla(-. T&e co-6la(nt '#)t&e) alle+e t&at a66eals we)e ta.en */ *ot& 6a)t(es ')o- t&at :# +-ent to t&e co#)t o' a66eals o' 8a)(s, T&() sect(on, an a66ellate co#)t o' )eco) , o)+an(5e an

e<(st(n+ #n e) t&e laws o' t&e )e6#*l(c o' 3)ance, an &av(n+ :#)(s (ct(on o' a66eals ')ot&e '(nal :# +-ents o' t&e t)(*#nal o' co--e)ce o' t&e e6a)t-ent o' t&e Se(ne, w&e)e t&e a-o#nt (n (s6#te e<cee e t&e s#- o' 1,500 ')ancs= an t&at t&e sa( co#)t o' a66eal, */ a '(nal :# +-ent, )en e)e >a)c& 19, 188!, an )e-a(n(n+ o' )eco) (n t&e o''(ce o' (ts cle). at 8a)(s, a'te) &ea)(n+ t&e seve)al 6a)t(es */ t&e() co#nsel, an #6on '#ll cons( e)at(on o' t&e -e)(ts, (s-(sse t&e a66eal o' t&e e'en ants, con'()-e t&e :# +-ent o' t&e lowe) co#)t (n 'avo) o' t&e 6la(nt(''s, an o) e)e , #6on t&e 6la(nt(''sA a66eal, t&at t&e/ )ecove) t&e a (t(onal s#- o' 15@,5@8 ')ancs, w(t& 18@,8!9 ')ancs 'o) (nte)est on all t&e cla(-s allowe , an 1@,559 ')ancs 'o) costs an e<6enses. T&e co-6la(nt '#)t&e) alle+e t&at G#/ot &a *een #l/ a66o(nte */ t&e t)(*#nal o' co--e)ce o' t&e e6a)t-ent o' t&e Se(ne o''(c(al l(1#( ato) o' t&e '()- o' 3o)t& 4 2o., w(t& '#ll 6owe)s, acco) (n+ to law an co--e)c(al #sa+e, 'o) t&e ve)('(cat(on an )eal(5at(on o' (ts 6)o6e)t/, *ot& )eal an 6e)sonal, an to collect an ca#se to *e e<ec#te t&e :# +-ents a'o)esa( . T&e co-6la(nt '#)t&e) alle+e t&at t&e :# +-ent o' t&e co#)t o' a66eals o' 8a)(s, an t&e :# +-ent o' t&e t)(*#nal o' co--e)ce, as -o ('(e */ t&e :# +-ent o' t&e a66ellate co#)t, st(ll )e-a(n (n '#ll 'o)ce an e''ect= At&at t&e sa( co#)ts )es6ect(vel/ &a :#)(s (ct(on o' t&e s#*:ectB-atte) o' t&e cont)ove)s(es so s#*-(tte to t&e-, an o' t&e 6a)t(es, t&e $159 U.S. 113, 11;% sa( e'en ants &av(n+ (nte)vene , */ t&e() atto)ne/s an co#nsel, an a66l(e 'o) a''()-at(ve )el(e' (n *ot& co#)ts= t&at t&e 6la(nt(''s &ave &(t&e)to *een #na*le to collect t&e sa( :# +-ents o) an/ 6a)t t&e)eo', */ )eason o' t&e a*sence o' t&e sa( e'en ants, t&e/ &av(n+ +(ven #6 t&e() *#s(ness (n 8a)(s 6)(o) to t&e )ecove)/ o' t&e sa( :# +-ent on a66eal, an &av(n+ le't no 6)o6e)t/ w(t&(n t&e :#)(s (ct(on o' t&e )e6#*l(c o' 3)ance o#t o' w&(c& t&e sa( :# +-ents -(+&t *e -a e=A an t&at t&e)e a)e st(ll :#stl/ #e an ow(n+ ')o- t&e e'en ants to t&e 6la(nt(''s #6on t&ose sa( :# +-ents ce)ta(n s#-s, s6ec('(e (n t&e co-6la(nt, an a-o#nt(n+ (n all to 1,008,?83 ')ancs (n t&e c#))enc/ o' t&e )e6#*l(c o' 3)ance, e1#(valent to C195,1@@.!?. T&e e'en ants, (n t&e() answe), set 'o)t& (n eta(l t&e o)(+(nal cont)acts an t)ansact(ons (n 3)ance *etween t&e 6a)t(es, an t&e s#*se1#ent eal(n+s *etween t&e-, -o ('/(n+ t&ose cont)acts, an alle+e t&at t&e 6la(nt(''s &a no :#st cla(- a+a(nst t&e e'en ants, *#t t&at, no t&e cont)a)/, t&e e'en ants, #6on a :#st settle-ent o' t&e acco#nts, we)e ent(tle to )ecove) la)+e s#-s ')o- t&e 6la(nt(''s. T&e answe) a -(tte t&e 6)ocee (n+s an :# +-ents (n t&e 3)enc& co#)ts, an t&at t&e e'en ants +ave #6 t&e() *#s(ness (n 3)ance *e'o)e t&e :# +-ent on a66eal, an &a no 6)o6e)t/ w(t&(n t&e :#)(s (ct(on o' 3)ance o#t o' w&(c& t&at :# +-ent co#l *e collecte . T&e answe) '#)t&e) alle+e t&at t&e t)(*#nal o' co--e)ce o' t&e e6a)t-ent o' t&e Se(ne was a t)(*#nal w&ose :# +es we)e -e)c&ants, s&(6 ca6ta(ns, stoc.*)o.e)s, an 6e)sons en+a+e (n co--e)c(al 6#)s#(ts, an o' w&(c& 2&a)les 3o)t(n &a *een a -e-*e) #nt(l s&o)tl/ *e'o)e t&e co--ence-ent o' t&e l(t(+at(on.

T&e answe) '#)t&e) alle+e t&at, (n t&e o)(+(nal s#(ts *)o#+&t a+a(nst t&e e'en ants */ 3o)t(n 4 2o., t&e c(tat(ons we)e le't at t&e() sto)e&o#se (n 8a)(s= t&at t&e/ we)e t&en )es( ents an c(t(5ens o' t&e state o' New Yo)., an ne(t&e) o' t&e- at t&at t(-e, o) w(t&(n 'o#) /ea)s *e'o)e, &a *een w(t&(n, o) )es( ent o) o-(c(le w(t&(n, t&e :#)(s (ct(on o' t&at t)(*#nal, o) owe an/ alle+(ance to 3)ance= *#t t&at $159 U.S. 113, 11?% t&e/ we)e t&e owne)s o' 6)o6e)t/ s(t#ate (n t&at co#nt)/, w&(c& wo#l */ t&e law o' 3)ance &ave *een l(a*le to se(5#)e (' t&e/ ( not a66ea) (n t&at t)(*#nal= an t&at t&e/ #nw(ll(n+l/, an solel/ 'o) t&e 6#)6ose o' 6)otect(n+ t&at 6)o6e)t/, a#t&o)(5e an ca#se an a+ent to a66ea) 'o) t&e- (n t&ose 6)ocee (n+s= an t&at t&e s#(ts *)o#+&t */ t&e- a+a(nst 3o)t(n 4 2o. we)e *)o#+&t 'o) t&e sa-e 6#)6ose, an (n o) e) to -a.e a 6)o6e) e'ense, an to esta*l(s& co#nte)cla(-s a)(s(n+ o#t o' t&e t)ansact(ons *etween t&e 6a)t(es, an to co-6el t&e 6)o #ct(on an (ns6ect(on o' 3o)t(n 4 2o.As *oo.s, an t&at t&e/ so#+&t no ot&e) a''()-at(ve )el(e' (n t&at t)(*#nal. T&e answe) '#)t&e) alle+e t&at 6en (n+ t&at l(t(+at(on t&e e'en ants (scove)e +)oss ')a# s (n t&e acco#nts o' 3o#)t(n 4 2o., t&at t&e a)*(t)ato) an t&e t)(*#nal ecl(ne to co-6el 3o)t(n 4 2o. to 6)o #ce t&e() *oo.s an 6a6e)s 'o) (ns6ect(on, an t&at, (' t&e/ &a *een 6)o #ce , t&e :# +-ent wo#l not &ave *een o*ta(ne a+a(nst t&e e'en ants. T&e answe) '#)t&e) alle+e t&at, w(t&o#t an/ 'a#lt o) ne+l(+ence on t&e 6a)t o' t&e e'en ants, t&e)e was not a '#ll an 'a() t)(al o' t&e cont)ove)s(es *e'o)e t&e a)*(t)ato), (n t&at no w(tness was swo)n o) a''()-e = (n t&at 2&a)les 3o)t(n was 6e)-(tte to -a.e, an ( -a.e, state-ents not #n e) oat&, conta(n(n+ -an/ 'alse&oo s= (n t&at t&e 6)(v(le+e o' c)ossBe<a-(nat(on o' 3o)t(n an ot&e) 6e)sons, w&o -a e state-ents *e'o)e t&e a)*(t)ato), was en(e to t&e e'en ants= an (n t&at e<t)acts ')o- 6)(nte news6a6e)s, t&e .nowle +e o' w&(c& was not *)o#+&t &o-e to t&e e'en ants, an lette)s an ot&e) co--#n(cat(ons (n w)(t(n+ *etween 3o)t(n 4 2o. an t&() 6e)sons, to w&(c& t&e e'en ants we)e ne(t&e) 6)(v/ no) 6a)t/, we)e )ece(ve */ t&e a)*(t)ato)= t&at w(t&o#t s#c& (-6)o6e) ev( ence t&e :# +-ent wo#l not &ave *een o*ta(ne = an t&at t&e a)*(t)ato) was ece(ve an -(sle */ t&e 'alse an ')a# #lent acco#nts (nt)o #ce */ 3o)t(n 4 2o., an */ t&e &ea)sa/ test(-on/ +(ven, w(t&o#t t&e sole-n(t/ o' an oat&, an w(t&o#t c)ossB e<a-(nat(on, an */ t&e ')a# #lent s#66)ess(on o' t&e *oo.s an 6a6e)s. T&e answe) '#)t&e) alle+e t&at 3o)t(n 4 2o. -a e #6 t&e() state-ents an acco#nts 'alsel/ an ')a# #lentl/, an w(t& $159 U.S. 113, 118% (ntent to ece(ve t&e e'en ants an t&e a)*(t)ato) an t&e sa( co#)ts o' 3)ance, an t&ose co#)ts we)e ece(ve an -(sle t&e)e*/= t&at, ow(n+ to t&e ')a# #lent s#66)ess(on o' t&e *oo.s an 6a6e)s o' 3o)t(n 4 2o. #6on t&e t)(al, an t&e 'alse state-ents o' 3o)t(n )e+a) (n+ -atte)s (nvolve (n t&e cont)ove)s/, t&e a)*(t)ato) an t&e co#)ts o' 3)ance Awe)e ece(ve an -(sle (n )e+a) to t&e -e)(ts o' t&e cont)ove)s(es 6en (n+ *e'o)e t&e-, an w)on+'#ll/ ec( e a+a(nst sa( Stewa)t 4 2o., as &e)e(n*e'o)e state = t&at sa( :# +-ent, &e)e(n*e'o)e -ent(one , (s ')a# #lent, an *ase #6on 'alse an ')a# #lent acco#nts an state-ents, an (s e))o)neo#s (n 'act an (n law, an (s vo( = t&at t&e t)(al &e)e(n*e'o)e -ent(one was not

con #cte acco) (n+ to t&e #sa+es an 6)act(ce o' t&e co--on law, an t&e alle+at(ons an 6)oo's +(ven */ sa( 3o)t(n 4 2o., #6on w&(c& sa( :# +-ent (s 'o#n e , wo#l not *e co-6etent o) a -(ss(*le (n an/ co#)t o) t)(*#nal o' t&e Un(te States, (n an/ s#(t *etween t&e sa-e 6a)t(es, (nvolv(n+ t&e sa-e s#*:ectB-atte), an (t (s cont)a)/ to nat#)al :#st(ce an 6#*l(c 6ol(c/ t&at t&e sa( :# +-ent s&o#l *e en'o)ce a+a(nst a c(t(5en o' t&e Un(te States= an t&at, (' t&e)e &a *een a '#ll an 'a() t)(al #6on t&e -e)(ts o' t&e cont)ove)s(es so 6en (n+ *e'o)e sa( t)(*#nals, no :# +-ent wo#l &ave *een o*ta(ne a+a(nst sa( Stewa)t 4 2o. A,e'en ants, '#)t&e) answe)(n+, alle+e t&at (t (s cont)a)/ to nat#)al :#st(ce t&at t&e :# +-ent &e)e(n*e'o)e -ent(one s&o#l *e en'o)ce w(t&o#t an e<a-(nat(on o' t&e -e)(ts t&e)eo'= t&at */ t&e laws o' t&e )e6#*l(c o' 3)ance, to w(t, a)t(cle 181 $159 U.S. 113, 1@1% o' t&e )o/al o) (nance o' "#ne 15, 1;@9, (t (s 6)ov( e na-el/D A"# +-ents )en e)e , cont)acts o) o*l(+at(ons )eco+n(5e , (n 'o)e(+n .(n+ o-s an sove)e(+nt(es, 'o) an/ ca#se w&ateve), s&all +(ve )(se to no l(en o) e<ec#t(on (n o#) .(n+ o-. T&#s t&e cont)acts s&all stan 'o) s(-6le 6)o-(ses, an , notw(t&stan (n+ s#c& :# +-ents, o#) s#*:ects a+a(nst w&o- t&e/ &ave *een )en e)e -a/ contest t&e() )(+&ts anew *e'o)e o#) own :# +es.A A9n (t (s '#)t&e) 6)ov( e */ t&e laws o' 3)ance, */ a)t(cle 5!; o' t&e 2o e e 8)oce #)e 2(v(le, as 'ollowsD A"# +-ents )en e)e */ 'o)e(+n t)(*#nals s&all *e ca6a*le o' e<ec#B$159 U.S. 113, 119% t(on (n 3)ance, onl/ (n t&e -anne) an (n t&e cases set 'o)t& */ a)t(cles @1@3 an @1@8 o' t&e 2(v(l 2o e.A A9n (t (s '#)t&e) 6)ov( e */ t&e laws o' 3)ance, */ a)t(cle @1@8 $ @1@3% o' t&e 2o e e 8)oce #)e 2(v(le $2(v(l 2o e%D A9 l(en cannot, (n l(.e -anne), a)(se ')o- :# +-ents )en e)e (n an/ 'o)e(+n co#nt)/, save onl/ as t&e/ &ave *een ecla)e (n 'o)ce */ a 3)enc& t)(*#nal, w(t&o#t 6)e:# (ce, &oweve), to 6)ov(s(ons to t&e cont)a)/, conta(ne (n 6#*l(c laws an t)eat(es.A $9n */ a)t(cle @1@8 o' t&at 2o eD A2ont)acts ente)e (nto (n a 'o)e(+n co#nt)/ cannot +(ve a l(en #6on 6)o6e)t/ (n 3)ance, (' t&e)e a)e no 6)ov(s(ons cont)a)/ to t&(s 6)(nc(6le (n 6#*l(c laws o) (n t)eat(es.A% AT&at t&e const)#ct(on +(ven to sa( stat#tes */ t&e :# (c(al t)(*#nals o' 3)ance (s s#c& t&at no co-(t/ (s (s6la/e towa) s t&e :# +-ents o' t)(*#nals o' 'o)e(+n co#nt)(es a+a(nst t&e c(t(5ens o' 3)ance, w&en s#e #6on (n sa( co#)ts o' 3)ance, an t&e -e)(ts o' t&e cont)ove)s(es #6on w&(c& t&e sa( :# +-ents a)e *ase a)e e<a-(ne anew, #nless a t)eat/ to t&e cont)a)/ e''ect e<(sts *etween t&e sa( )e6#*l(c o' 3)ance an t&e co#nt)/ (n w&(c& s#c& :# +-ent (s o*ta(ne . T&at no t)eat/ e<(sts *etween t&e sa( )e6#*l(c o' 3)ance an t&e Un(te States, */ t&e te)-s o) e''ect o' w&(c& t&e :# +-ents o' e(t&e) co#nt)/ a)e 6)evente ')o- *e(n+ e<a-(ne anew #6on t&e -e)(ts, w&en s#e #6on (n t&e co#)ts o' t&e co#nt)/ ot&e) t&an t&at (n w&(c& (t (s o*ta(ne . T&at t&e t)(*#nals o' t&e )e6#*l(c o' 3)ance +(ve no 'o)ce an e''ect, w(t&(n t&e :#)(s (ct(on o' t&e sa( co#nt)/, to t&e #l/ )en e)e :# +-ents o' co#)ts o' co-6etent :#)(s (ct(on o' t&e Un(te States a+a(nst c(t(5ens o' 3)ance, a'te) 6)o6e) 6e)sonal se)v(ce o' t&e 6)ocess o' sa( co#)ts (s -a e t&e)eon (n t&(s co#nt)/.A T&e answe) '#)t&e) set #6, */ wa/ o' co#nte)cla(-, an (n eta(l, va)(o#s -atte)s a)(s(n+ o#t o' t&e eal(n+s *etween t&e 6a)t(es, an alle+e t&at none o' t&e 6la(nt(''s &a s(nce

#6on t&e co#nte)cla(-s.91. '(le a *(ll (n e1#(t/ a+a(nst t&e 6la(nt(''s.t&e ec)ee (s-(ss(n+ t&e *(ll an a66eal was ta. an t&at t&e 6)act(ce 'ollowe . #)(n+ t&e ent()e 6e)(o -ent(one (n t&e co-6la(nt= an t&at (n 96)(l. wo#l &ave *een )elevant an co-6etent (' t&e 6la(nt(''s (n e))o) a)e not concl# e */ t&e )es#lt o' t&ose l(t(+at(ons. an 'o) an (n:#nct(on a+a(nst t&e 6)osec#t(on o' t&e act(on. con #cte t&e() *#s(ness as -e)c&ants (n t&e c(t/ o' New Yo). To t&at *(ll a 6lea was '(le . 113..na-e. 18?. It was a -(tte */ *ot& 6a)t(es t&at 'o) seve)al /ea)s 6)(o) to 18?. an alwa/s &a *een. (n o) e) to s&ow t&at t&e/ s&o#l not *e concl# e */ &av(n+ a66ea)e an l(t(+ate (n t&e s#(ts *)o#+&t a+a(nst t&e. sett(n+ 'o)t& t&e sa-e -atte)s as (n t&e() answe) to t&e act(on at law. T&e e'en ants -a e n#-e)o#s o''e)s o' ev( ence (n s#66o)t o' all t&e s6ec('(c alle+at(ons o' 'act (n t&e() answe). o) w(t&(n t&e :#)(s (ct(on o' t&at state. an t&at t&e e'en ants &ave :# +-ent a+a(nst t&e. an t&e 6la(nt(''s 6#t (n t&e )eco) s o' t&e 6)ocee (n+s an :# +-ents (n t&e 3)enc& co#)ts.. an *eca-e t&e owne)s o' all t&e 6)o6e)t/ an )(+&ts o' t&e ol '()-. (n t&e() *)(e' '(le (n t&(s co#)t. T&e answe) concl# e */ e-an (n+ t&at t&e 6la(nt(''sA $159 U. sett(n+ #6 t&e 3)enc& :# +-ents. T&e act(on at law a'te)wa) s ca-e on 'o) t)(al */ a :#)/. T&e e'en ants. an t&e -et&o o' e<a-(n(n+ t&e w(tnesses. o) on t&e +)o#n t&at t&e case (s w(t&(n t&e e<ce6t(on o' a :# +-ent o*ta(ne */ ')a# ..A T&e e'en ants.en. 3)o.o' 9le<an e) T. )es( ents o' t&at state. Stewa)t 4 2o. a-o#nt(n+ to C10@. e(t&e) on t&e +)o#n t&at t&e 3)enc& :# +-ents a)e onl/ 6)(-a 'ac(e ev( ence o' t&e co))ectness o' t&ose :# +-ents. @!9. !@ 3e . (ncl# (n+ t&e alle+at(ons as to t&e law an co-(t/ o' 3)ance. we)e acco) (n+ to t&e 3)enc& law= an also 6)ove t&e t(tle o' G#/ot as l(1#( ato). w&(c& (s t&e secon case now *e'o)e t&(s co#)t. o) -ost $159 U. 1@1% o' w&(c&. w(t& *)anc&es (n ot&e) c(t(es o' 9-e)(ca an E#)o6e= t&at *ot& 6a)tne)s we)e c(t(5ens an )es( ents o' t&e c(t/ an state o' New Yo). T&e 6la(nt(''s. . an #6on a &ea)(n+ t&e *(ll was (s-(sse . an ev( ence t&at t&e :#)(s (ct(on o' t&ose co#)ts was as alle+e (n t&e co-6la(nt. en/(n+ (ts alle+at(ons. t&e '(). a -(tte t&at -ost o' t&ese o''e)s Aw&e)e o''e)s to 6)ove -atte)s (n s#66o)t o' t&e e'enses an co#nte)cla(-s set #6 */ t&e e'en ants (n t&e cases t)(e *e'o)e t&e 3)enc& co#)ts. an sett(n+ #6 (n *a) t&e)eo' t&e :# +-ent s#e on.1881 *een )es( ents o' t&e state o' New Yo). an H(lton an L(**e/ 'o)-e a 6a)tne)s&(6 to cont(n#e t&e *#s(ness #n e) t&e sa-e '(). 1888. 1@0% co-6la(nt *e (s-(sse . an w&(c&.9!@. T&e 6la(nt(''s '(le a )e6l(cat(on to so -#c& o' t&e answe) as -a e co#nte)cla(-s.*/ t&e 6la(nt(''s (n t&e 3)enc& co#)ts.S. *#t t&e e'en ants we)e. on "#ne @@. 113.. Stewa)t (e .S. an &ave now t&e )(+&t to t)/ t&ose (ss#es. an 6)a/(n+ 'o) a (scove)/. co-6ose o' Stewa)t an L(**e/.

t&e e'en ants we)e concl# e */ t&e :# +-ent s#e on an +(ven (n . an to t&e 3)enc& co#)ts.s we)e necessa)/ to ete)-(ne t&e t)#t& o' t&e cont)ove)s(es *etween t&e 6a)t(es= t&at *e'o)e t&e t)(*#nal o' co--e)ce 2&a)les 3o)t(n was 6e)-(tte to an ( +(ve (n ev( ence state-ents not #n e) oat&. -a e (n 18?3. as well as t&e s#(ts *)o#+&t */ t&e e'en ants (n 3)ance. s6ec('(e = t&at t&e $159 U.s. *#t t&e/ we)e t&e owne)s o' 6)o6e)t/ t&e)e. 9-on+ t&e -atte)s w&(c& t&e e'en ants alle+e an o''e)e to 6)ove (n o) e) to s&ow t&at t&e 3)enc& :# +-ents we)e 6)oc#)e */ ')a# we)e t&at 3o)t(n 4 2o. 6#t (n ev( ence */ t&e 6la(nt(''s. a#t&o)(5e an a+ent to a66ea). an t&e/ we)e not 6)otecte ')o.&a *een. on t&e +)o#n s t&at t&e -atte)s o''e)e to *e 6)ove we)e ())elevant.o''e)e to 6)ove t&at t&e/ we)e )es( ents an c(t(5ens o' t&e state o' New Yo).. an en(e */ t&e t)(*#nal= t&at t&e (scove)/ an (ns6ect(on o' t&ose *oo. )elat(n+ to t&e -e)(ts o' t&e cont)ove)s(es t&e)e 6en (n+. we)e necessa)/ */ wa/ o' e'ense o) co#nte)cla(. T&e )eco) s o' t&e :# +-ents o' t&e 3)enc& co#)ts. w&(c& was (n New Yo). s&owe t&at all t&e -atte)s now )el(e on to s&ow ')a# we)e conteste (n an cons( e)e */ t&ose co#)ts.s.#n e) oat&= an t&at t&e 3)enc& :# +-ents we)e *ase #6on 'alse an ')a# #lent acco#nts 6)esente an state-ents -a e */ 3o)t(n 4 2o. 113. (--ate)(al.owe alle+(ance to 3)ance. *eca#se Stewa)t was ea .. 1@@% e'en ants -a e #e a66l(cat(on to t&e t)(*#nal o' co--e)ce to co-6el 3o)t(n 4 2o. was not (nten e */ t&e 6a)t(es to *e o6e)at(ve acco) (n+ to (ts te)-s= an (n s#66o)t o' t&at 'alse )e6)esentat(on -a e state-ents as to a -(ss(ons */ Stewa)t (n a 6)(vate conve)sat(on w(t& &(-= an t&at t&e e'en ants co#l not en/ t&ose state-ents. an t&e/ we)e neve) ot&e)w(se en+a+e (n *#s(ness (n 3)ance= t&at ne(t&e) o' t&e.to t&e s#(ts t&e)e *)o#+&t */ t&e 6la(nt(''s a+a(nst t&e-. w(t&(n 'o#) /ea)s 6)(o) to t&e co--ence-ent o' t&ose s#(ts. conce)n(n+ t&e() eal(n+s. an 6)esente to t&e e'en ants. ente)e (n t&e() *oo. &ave *een l(a*le to se(5#)e (' t&e/ &a not a66ea)e to answe) (n t&ose s#(ts= t&at t&e/ #nw(ll(n+l/. an 'alsel/ )e6)esente t&at a ce)ta(n w)(tten cont)act.s to *e (ns6ecte */ t&e e'en ants. w&(c& wo#l . an (nco-6etent= t&at (n )es6ect to t&e. an conta(ne e<cess(ve an ')a# #lent c&a)+es a+a(nst t&e e'en ants (n va)(o#s 6a)t(c#la)s. acco) (n+ to t&e laws o' 3)ance. an t&e a)*(t)ato) an t&e co#)ts o' 3)ance.s an lette) *oo.. to allow t&e() acco#nt *oo. w(t& (ntent to ece(ve an e')a# t&e e'en ants. *#t onl/ as a -eans o) 'ac(l(t/ to a( (n t&e t)ansact(on o' t&e() 6)(nc(6al *#s(ness. an solel/ 'o) t&e 6#)6ose o' 6)otect(n+ t&e() 6)o6e)t/ w(t&(n t&e :#)(s (ct(on o' t&e 3)enc& t)(*#nal.. acco#nts *ea)(n+ #6on t&e t)ansact(ons (n cont)ove)s/ w&(c& we)e 'alse an ')a# #lent. an t&e a66l(cat(on was o66ose */ 3o)t(n 4 2o.S. T&e 6la(nt(''s o*:ecte to all t&e ev( ence o''e)e */ t&e e'en ants. o-(c(le o) )es( ent w(t&(n t&e :#)(s (ct(on o' t&ose co#)ts= t&at t&e/ &a a 6#)c&as(n+ a+ent an a sto)e&o#se (n 8a)(s..t&e e''ect o' 3o)t(nAs state-ents */ t&e 6)(v(le+e o' c)ossB e<a-(n(n+ &(. *e'o)e t&e t)(*#nal o' co--e)ce #)(n+ t&e t)(al *e'o)e (t. an 3o)t(n 4 2o. an &e ( a66ea) (n t&e 6)ocee (n+s *e'o)e (t= an t&at t&e() -ot(on to co-6el an (ns6ect(on o' t&e 6la(nt(''sA *oo. *etween Stewa)t 4 2o. an ne(t&e) o' t&e.

!!. by " l !anco spanol-"ilipino" to foreclose a #ort$a$e upon various parcels of real property situated in the city of Manila. payable at the end of each %uarter. the 6ud$e #ust direct a copy of the su##ons and co#plaint to be forthwith deposited by the cler+ in the post-office. ??5. an . and publication was #ade in due for# in a newspaper of the city of Manila. 2t the sa#e ti#e that the order of the court should deposit in the post office in a sta#ped envelope a copy of the su##ons and co#plaint directed to the defendant at his last place of residence. 1810. where the residence of a nonresident or absent defendant is +nown.-$%.000 in e(cess of the indebtedness. 1918 EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO. T&e e'en ants.pon March 31. wo#l *e a e'ense to t&(s act(on #6on t&at :# +-ent. an ()ecte a ve) (ct 'o) t&e 6la(nt(''s (n t&e s#. 189! G. which was about )10. &av(n+ #l/ e<ce6te to t&e )#l(n+s an ()ect(on o' t&e co#)t. s#e o#t a w)(t o' e))o). 1@3% T&e w)(t o' e))o) (n t&e act(on at law an t&e a66eal (n t&e s#(t (n e1#(t/ we)e a)+#e to+et&e) (n t&(s co#)t (n "an#a)/.S. we)e )ea)+#e (n 96)(l. T&e co#)t ecl(ne to a -(t an/ o' t&e ev( ence so o''e)e */ t&e e'en ants. Hartigan and Welch for appellee./ This action was instituted upon March 31. Aitken and DeSelms for appellant. */ ()ect(on o' t&e co#)t. TB $159 U. The #ort$a$e in %uestion is dated &une 1'. . This order was #ade pursuant to the followin$ provision contained in section 399 of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure5 /n case of publication. vs. S!REE!. (' 6)ove .-9. upon &anuary -9. posta$e prepaid. 2n order for publication was accordin$ly obtained fro# the court. directed to the person to be served. n$racio )alanca Tan%uinyen$ y *i#%uin$co. 2s the defendant was a nonresident at the ti#e of the institution of the present action. /t appears that the parties to this #ort$a$e at that ti#e esti#ated the value of the property in %uestion at )-9-.ev( ence= an t&at none o' t&ose -atte)s. 113. and was e(ecuted by the ori$inal defendant herein. he returned to 3hina which appears to have been his native country4 and he there died. *e(n+ t&e a-o#nt o' t&e 3)enc& :# +-ent an (nte)est. the city of 2#oy.o' C@??. to wit.10 and was drawin$ interest at the rate of 8 per centu# per annu#.. 2fter the e(ecution of this instru#ent by the #ort$a$or. L-11390 March 26.008. it was necessary for the plaintiff in the foreclosure proceedin$ to $ive notice to the defendant by publication pursuant to section 399 of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure. a"#$%$&'ra'or o( 'h) )&'a') o( E%*rac$o Pa+a%ca !a%. plaintiff-appellant. without a$ain returnin$ to the )hilippine /slands. ICEN!E PALANCA.)%*. 1908. 189!. the debt a#ounted to )-18.R. defendantappellant. No. in the #pire of 3hina. 190'. J. 190'. at his place of residence . as security for a debt owin$ by hi# to the ban+.

was that the order of default and the 6ud$#ent rendered thereon were void because the court had never ac%uired 6urisdiction over the defendant or over the sub6ect of the action. The word "6urisdiction. The court. 1908. on or before &uly '. . as ad#inistrator of the estate of the ori$inal defendant. as ad#inistrator of the estate of the ori$inal defendant. the court ordered the sale of the property. /n this decision it was recited that publication had been properly #ade in a periodical. and the 6ud$#ent rendered upon &uly 3. the su##ons. . as set forth in the #otion itself. or it #ay refer to the power of the court over the parties. 1908. The basis of this application. si$ned by !ernardo 3han y 8arcia. with interest fro# March 31. this sale was confir#ed by the court. or <-= over the property which is the sub6ect to the liti$ation. 1908.. assu#e that the cler+ of the 3ourt of "irst /nstance did not obey the order of the court in the #atter of #ailin$ the papers which he was directed to send to the defendant in 2#oy4 and in this connection we shall consider. a decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. the #ort$a$e property located in the city of Manila should be e(posed to public sale. 1908. a #otion was #ade in this cause by :icente )alanca. The soverei$n authority which or$ani>es a court deter#ines the nature and e(tent of its powers in $eneral and thus fi(es its co#petency or 6urisdiction with reference to the actions which it #ay entertain and the relief it #ay $rant. a#on$ the papers pertainin$ to this case.o other feature of the case is here under consideration than such as related to the action of the court upon said #otion. senses since it #ay have reference <1= to the authority of the court to entertain a particular +ind of action or to ad#inister a particular +ind of relief. for the purpose of ar$u#ent. addressed to n$racio )alanca Tan%uinyen$. The pay#ent conte#plated in said order was never #ade4 and upon &uly 8. and the property was bou$ht in by the ban+ for the su# of )110. and the order of the court directin$ publication as aforesaid. secondly. The cause proceeded in usual course in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance4 and the defendant not havin$ appeared. however. showin$ that upon that date he had deposited in the Manila post-office a re$istered letter. . 1908. and it was declared that in case of the failure of the defendant to satisfy the 6ud$#ent within such period. 1908. 1908. is used in several different. as the receipt purports to show that the letter e#anated fro# the office. thou$h related. the plaintiff9s affidavit. found that the indebtedness of the defendant a#ounted to )-. whether those proceedin$s were conducted in such #anner as to constitute due process of law.9. 3-. whether the court ac%uired the necessary 6urisdiction to enable it to proceed with the foreclosure of the #ort$a$e and. upon &uly -. and fro# this action of the court :icente )lanca. n$racio )alanca Tan%uinyen$ y *i#%uin$co. or to the precise. and to vacate all the proceedin$s subse%uent thereto. 1910. first. 2bout seven years after the confir#ation of this sale. an affidavit. There is. . at Manila. but nothin$ was said about this notice havin$ been $iven #ail. 2t the hearin$ in the court below the application to vacate the 6ud$#ent was denied. which will be discussed in what appears to be the se%uence of #ost convenient develop#ent. wherein the applicant re%uested the court to set aside the order of default of &uly -." as applied to the faculty of e(ercisin$ 6udicial power. 2ccordin$ly it was ordered that the defendant should. dated 2pril . containin$ copies of the co#plaint. has appealed. upon this occasion. 1908. 1908.pon 2u$ust 1.pon &uly 3. /t appears fro# the post#aster9s receipt that !ernardo probably used an envelope obtained fro# the cler+9s office.300. 6ud$#ent was. /n the first part of this opinion we shall. The case presents several %uestions of i#portance. ta+en a$ainst hi# by default. an e#ployee of the attorneys of the ban+. 1908. deliver said a#ount to the cler+ of the court to be applied to the satisfaction of the 6ud$#ent.7hether the cler+ co#plied with this order does not affir#atively appear. upon &une -0. The sale too+ place upon &uly 30.-00.

?ere the court. The 6ud$#ent entered in these proceedin$s is conclusive only between the parties. with the %ualification above#entioned. whereby it is brou$ht into the actual custody of the law. has said5 Thou$h no#inally a$ainst person. in its narrow application. foreclosure. and the purpose of the proceedin$ is to sub6ect his interest therein to the obli$ation or lien burdenin$ the property. however. #ay never be ta+en into actual custody at all. This. There is an instructive analo$y between the foreclosure proceedin$ and an action of attach#ent. they would be different in chancery did not treat the conditional conveyance as a #ere hypothecation. the suit is real action so far as it is a$ainst property. or it is ac%uired by the coercive power of le$al process e(erted over the person. under special provisions of law. and held to abide the final event of the liti$ation. the action beco#es as to hi# a personal action and is conducted as such. and the creditor9s ri$ht ass an e%uitable lien4 so. and an order for the sale of the res. does not affect the proposition that where the defendant fails to appear the action is quasi in rem4 and it should therefore be considered with reference to the principles $overnin$ actions in rem. /n the latter case the property. '01.nited Atates has used the followin$ lan$ua$e5 /f the defendant appears. such suits are to vindicate liens4 they proceed upon sei>ure4 they treat property as pri#arily indebted4 and. or other for# of re#edy. that the property attached re#ains liable. <7aples. they are styled hypothecary actions. without ta+in$ actual physical control over the property assu#es. and their sole ob6ect is the enforce#ent of the lien a$ainst the res4 in the co##on law. used only with reference to certain proceedin$s in courts of ad#iralty wherein the property alone is treated as responsible for the clai# or obli$ation upon which the proceedin$s are based. 2n illustration of the 6urisdiction ac%uired by actual sei>ure is found in attach#ent proceedin$s. 2n illustration of what we ter# potential 6urisdiction over the res. and see+s the 6udicial reco$nition of a property debt.= /t is true that in proceedin$s of this character. &urisdiction over the property which is the sub6ect of the liti$ation #ay result either fro# a sei>ure of the property under le$al process. are in a $eneral way thus desi$nated. by which is e(pressed the idea that while it is not strictly spea+in$ an action in rem yet it parta+es of that nature and is substantially such. they are substantially property actions. /n the ter#inolo$y of 2#erican law the action to foreclose a #ort$a$e is said to be a proceedin$ %uasi in re#. is found in the proceedin$ to re$ister the title of land under our syste# for the re$istration of land. concernin$ which the Aupre#e 3ourt of the . sec. in both. /n spea+in$ of the proceedin$ to foreclose a #ort$a$e the author of a well +nown treaties. if the defendant for who# publication is #ade appears. at the instance of so#e person clai#in$ to be owner. )roceedin$s /n @e#. or it #ay result fro# the institution of le$al proceedin$s wherein. the power of the court over the property is reco$ni>ed and #ade effective. thou$h at all ti#es within the potential power of the court. The e(pression "action in re#" is. 2ll proceedin$s havin$ for their sole ob6ect the sale or other disposition of the property of the defendant. the cause beco#es #ainly a suit in personam. where the property is sei>ed at the be$innin$ of the action. under the control of the court. to answer to any de#and which #ay be established a$ainst the defendant by the final 6ud$#ent of the . with the added incident.&urisdiction over the person is ac%uired by the voluntary appearance of a party in court and his sub#ission to its authority. /n the civil law. to e(ercise a 6urisdiction in re# over the property and to ad6udicate the title in favor of the petitioner a$ainst all the world. whether by attach#ent. The action %uasi re# differs fro# the true action in re# in the circu#stance that in the for#er an individual is na#ed as defendant. or so#e subse%uent sta$e of its pro$ress.

4 -. 11. 2n obvious corollary is that no other relief can be $ranted in this proceedin$ than such as can be enforced a$ainst the property. refuses to co#e in voluntarily. if the defendant is not personally served. in this #ost $eneral sense. the only effect of which is to sub6ect the property attached to the pay#ent of the defendant which the court #ay find to be due to the plaintiff. does not #aterially affect the funda#ental principle involved in both cases. ed. it possesses over the property4 and any discussion relative to the 6urisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant is entirely apart fro# the case.. however. in its essential nature. the proposition that 6urisdiction . /f. a proceedin$ in rem. )assin$ now to a consideration of the 6urisdiction of the 3ourt of "irst /nstance in a #ort$a$e foreclosure. 0-0. contract. 0'0=. and e(pose it to sale for the purpose of satisfyin$ the #ort$a$e debt. re#ainin$ beyond the ran$e of the personal process of the court. the preli#inary sei>ure is to. fro# what has been stated..= /t results that the #ere circu#stance that in an attach#ent the property #ay be sei>ed at the inception of the proceedin$s. @eynolds. under the law. 7e #ay then. and no service of process on hi#. is obtained by the voluntary sub#ission of the defendant or by the personal service of process upon hi# within the territory where the process is valid. for there are #any e(pressions in the 2#erican reports fro# which it #i$ht be inferred that the court ac%uires personal 6urisdiction over the person of the defendant by publication and notice4 but such is not the case. A. ?ere the property itself is in fact the sole thin$ which is i#pleaded and is the responsible ob6ect which is the sub6ect of the e(ercise of 6udicial power. <3ooper vs. over the cause of action is obvious and re%uires no co##ent. /t follows that the 6urisdiction of the court in such case is based e(clusively on the power which. and of other decisions which have subse%uently been rendered in that and other courts.004 .. /t is i#portant that the bearin$ of these propositions be clearly apprehended. &urisdiction over the person of the defendant. /n truth the proposition that 6urisdiction over the person of a nonresident cannot be ac%uired by publication and notice was never clearly understood even in the 2#erican courts until after the decision had been rendered by the Aupre#e 3ourt of the . whether created by #ort$a$e. the preli#inary sei>ure is not necessary4 and the court proceeds to enforce such lien in the #anner provided by law precisely as thou$h the property had been sei>ed upon attach#ent.. the case beco#es. /f a lien already e(ists.. 308. /n the li$ht of that decision.= /n an ordinary attach#ent proceedin$. if there is no appearance of the defendant. the defendant is a nonresident and. considered as the e(clusive ob6ect of such action. A.. . is evidently based upon the followin$ conditions and considerations. which is that the court is here e(ercisin$ a 6urisdiction over the property in a proceedin$ directed essentially in re#. the court never ac%uires 6urisdiction over the person at all. The 6urisdiction of the court over the property. !ut. na#ely5 <1= that the property is located within the district4 <-= that the purpose of the liti$ation is to sub6ect the property by sale to an obli$ation fi(ed upon it by the #ort$a$e4 and <3= that the court at a proper sta$e of the proceedin$s ta+es the property into custody. ?olly. /n this case the lien on the property is ac%uired by the sei>ure4 and the purpose of the proceedin$s is to sub6ect the property to that lien.court. .eff <90 . 11' . 398. be considered necessary in order to confer 6urisdiction upon the court. The 6urisdiction of the court. 10 7all. *. if ac%uired at all in such an action.nited Atates in the leadin$ case of )ennoyer vs. if necessary. *. or statute. ed. while in the foreclosure suit it is not ta+en into le$al custody until the ti#e co#es for the sale.. for#ulated the followin$ proposition relative to the foreclosure proceedin$ a$ainst the property of a nonresident #ort$a$or who fails to co#e in and sub#it hi#self personally to the 6urisdiction of the court5 </= That the 6urisdiction of the court is derived fro# the power which it possesses over the property4 <//= that 6urisdiction over the person is not ac%uired and is nonessential4 <///= that the relief $ranted by the court #ust be li#ited to such as can be enforced a$ainst the property itself. it is evident that the court derives its authority to entertain the action pri#arily fro# the statutes or$ani>in$ the court. <@oller vs.

This is not the lan$ua$e of a personal 6ud$#ent.. ed. @.1'..over the person cannot be thus ac%uired by publication and notice is no lon$er open to %uestion4 and it is now fully established that a personal 6ud$#ent upon constructive or substituted service a$ainst a nonresident who does not appear is wholly invalid. /nstead it is clearly intended #erely as a co#pliance with the re%uire#ent that the a#ount due shall be ascertained and that the evidence of this it #ay be observed that accordin$ to the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure a personal 6ud$#ent a$ainst the debtor for the deficiency is not to be rendered until after the property has been sold and the proceeds applied to the #ort$a$e debt. /nvolved in this decision is the principle that in proceedin$s in re# or %uasi in re# a$ainst a nonresident who is not served personally within the state. This step is a necessary precursor of the order of sale. and to #a+e an order re%uirin$ the defendant to pay the #oney into court. A. 99 3al. is bindin$ upon the courts of the )hilippine /slands. B. 1-9. to ascertain the a#ount due. bein$ based upon the constitutional conception of due process of law. Tutton.C. for in our opinion that 6urisdiction rest upon a basis #uch #ore secure than would be supplied by any for# of notice that could be $iven to a resident of a forei$n country.@. such irre$ularity could in no wise i#pair or defeat the 6urisdiction of the court. ..= Therefore in an action to foreclose a #ort$a$e a$ainst a nonresident.300. /n the present case the 6ud$#ent which was entered contains the followin$ words5 !ecause it is declared that the said defendant n$racio )alanca Tan%uinyen$ y *i#%uin$co.. 0804 30 *.9. in order to authori>e the court to pass upon the %uestion of his personal liability. !efore leavin$ this branch of the case. C. A. .. and who does not appear. 3hina. li>abeth Eil 3loth 3o.3 *. 7e do not so interpret the 6ud$#ent.= /t is su$$ested in the brief of the appellant that the 6ud$#ent entered in the court below offends a$ainst the principle 6ust stated and that this 6ud$#ent is void because the court in fact entered a personal 6ud$#ent a$ainst the absent debtor for the full a#ount of the indebtedness secured by the #ort$a$e. 1-.3al. @aher.. The doctrine established by the Aupre#e 3ourt of the . B. no personal 6ud$#ent for the deficiency can be entered. 11. -'0=. as prescribed in section -0' of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure. or by his voluntary appearance.ote to @aher vs.4 -8 *. 31The idea upon which the decision in )ennoyer vs. 2.. .. 2. plus the interest.nited Atates on this point.. -9. ''04 ?eidritter vs. 2.3-.. The conclusion upon this phase of the case is that whatever #ay be the effect in other respects of the failure of the cler+ of the 3ourt of "irst /nstance to #ail the proper papers to the defendant in 2#oy. Des Moines. 1934 . upon who# service has been effected e(clusively by publication. ed. A. A. <sec. /n a foreclosure proceedin$ a$ainst a nonresident owner it is necessary for the court. therefore said appellant is ordered to deliver the above a#ount etc. includin$ service by publication and personal service outside of the 6urisdiction in which the 6ud$#ent is rendered4 and the only e(ception see#s to be found in the case where the nonresident defendant has e(pressly or i#pliedly consented to the #ode of service. <Dewey vs.. -194 !lu#ber$ vs.. This doctrine applies to all +inds of constructive or substituted process. . 30 *. we wish to observe that we are fully aware that #any reported cases can be cited in which it is assu#ed that the %uestion of the sufficiency of publication . !irch. to the 9!anco spanol-"ilipino9 . 113 .eff <supra= proceeds is that the process fro# the tribunals of one Atate cannot run into other Atates or countries and that due process of law re%uires that the defendant shall be brou$ht under the power of the court by service of process within the Atate. the relief #ust be confined to the res.. is indebted in the a#ount of )-. <*atta vs. @. as in all cases of foreclosure. -9-4 see also 00 * .. and the court cannot lawfully render a personal 6ud$#ent a$ainst hi#. etc. <.

19. prescribin$ the ti#e within which appearance #ust be #ade. and in order to #a+e sure that the opportunity for a hearin$ shall not be lost to the#. and the chances that he should discover the notice #ay often be very sli$ht. ven where notice is sent by #ail the probability of his receivin$ it. and the court is so#eti#es said to ac%uire 6urisdiction by virtue of the publication. <3ooley on Ta(ation B-d. is dependent upon the correctness of the address to which it is forwarded as well as upon the re$ularity and security of the #ail service. 193 . 0. /n spea+in$ of notice of this character a distin$uish #aster of constitutional law has used the followin$ lan$ua$e5 .nited Atates has refrained fro# atte#ptin$ to define with precision the #eanin$ of that e(pression. under the law. and personal notice is provided for. Thou$h co##only called constructive. /n the li$ht of all these facts. it #ay be laid down with certainty that the re%uire#ent of due process is satisfied if the followin$ conditions are present. This phraseolo$y was undoubtedly ori$inally adopted by the court because of the analo$y between service by the publication and personal service of process upon the defendant4 and.= 6ud$#ent #ust be rendered upon lawful hearin$. it is evident that actual notice to the defendant in cases of this +ind is not. the reason bein$ that the idea e(pressed therein is applicable under so #any diverse conditions as to #a+e any atte#pt ay precise definition ha>ardous and unprofitable. or substituted service of process in any true sense. and usually in addition thereto. The periodical containin$ the publication #ay never in fact co#e to his hands. prior to the decision of )ennoyer vs. To answer this necessity the statutes $enerally provide for publication. 0-1.. )assin$ at once to the re%uisite that the defendant shall have an opportunity to be heard. however. ed. if the owners are na#ed in the proceedin$s. . it is rather fro# tenderness to their interests.C. to be considered absolutely necessary.. !ut it is clear that the le$al principle here involved is not effected by the peculiar lan$ua$e in which the courts have e(pounded their ideas. 8reen. /t is accordin$ly not surprisin$ that the #odes of e(pression which had already been #olded into le$al tradition before that case was decided have been brou$ht down to the present day. .or notice in a case of this +ind is a %uestion affectin$ the 6urisdiction of the court. .eff <supra= the difference between the le$al effects of the two for#s of service was obscure. na#ely4 <1= There #ust be a court or tribunal clothed with 6udicial power to hear and deter#ine the #atter before it4 <-= 6urisdiction #ust be lawfully ac%uired over the person of the defendant or over the property which is the sub6ect of the proceedin$4 <3= the defendant #ust be $iven an opportunity to be heard4 and <. 7e now proceed to a discussion of the %uestion whether the supposed irre$ularity in the proceedin$s was of such $ravity as to a#ount to a denial of that "due process of law" which was secured by the 2ct of 3on$ress in force in these /slands at the ti#e this #ort$a$e was foreclosed. that the provision of our law relative to the #ailin$ of notice does not absolutely re%uire the #ailin$ of notice unconditionally and in every event. thou$h #uch increased.= /t will be observed that this #ode of notification does not involve any absolute assurance that the absent owner shall thereby receive actual notice. further#ore. we observe that in a foreclosure case so#e notification of the proceedin$s to the nonresident owner.= /n dealin$ with %uestions involvin$ the application of the constitutional provisions relatin$ to due process of law the Aupre#e 3ourt of the . as has already been su$$ested. 2s applied to a 6udicial proceedin$. than fro# any necessity that the case shall assu#e that for#. <2ct of &uly 1. 80. for the #ailin$ of notice to the defendant. is everywhere reco$ni>ed as essential. A. if his residence is +nown. but only in the case where the defendant9s residence is +nown. /t will be noted. . 190-. sec. /t is #erely a #eans provided by law whereby the owner #ay be ad#onished that his property is the sub6ect of 6udicial proceedin$s and that it is incu#bent upon hi# to ta+e such steps as he sees fit to protect it. %uoted in *ei$h vs.

who is a nonresident. is not such an irre$ularity. 2t any rate it is obvious that so #uch of section 399 of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure as relates to the sendin$ of notice by #ail was co#plied with when the court #ade the order.. of course universally reco$ni>ed that the statutory provisions relative to publication or other for# of notice a$ainst a nonresident owner should be co#plied with4 and in respect to the publication of notice in the newspaper it #ay be stated that strict co#pliance with the re%uire#ents of the law has been held to be essential. /t will be observed that in considerin$ the effect of this irre$ularity.00C=. no personal 6ud$#ent can be rendered. would not avoid the 6ud$#ent in this case. 8reen 3ove etc. ta+e the ris+ incident to the possible failure of the cler+ to perfor# his duty. and if he fails to do this. A. when the statute re%uired -0. This in our opinion is all that was absolutely necessary to sustain the proceedin$s.. then our statutes were passed in vain. vs.= /t is./nd. The %uestion as to what #ay be the conse%uences of the failure of the record to show the proof of co#pliance with that re%uire#ent will be discussed by us further on. . . 10. 131. 138=. /n 8uaranty Trust etc. ''1. The observations which have 6ust been #ade lead to the conclusion that the failure of the cler+ to #ail the notice.0 Bp.. then no effective 6ud$#ent at all can be rendered.. so that the result would be that the courts would be powerless to assist a citi>en a$ainst a nonresident. the publication was insufficient. the re%uire#ent is that the 6ud$e shall direct that the notice be deposited in the #ail by the cler+ of the court.The idea upon which the law proceeds in reco$ni>in$ the efficacy of a #eans of notification which #ay fall short of actual notice is apparently this5 )roperty is always assu#ed to be in the possession of its owner. This idea see#s to be stren$thened by the consideration that placin$ upon the cler+ the duty of sendin$ notice by #ail. or #eanin$4 for if the person is not within the 6urisdiction of the court.2#. and fails to $et notice by the ordinary publications which have usually been re%uired in such cases. so far as the due process of law is concerned. to be affected with +nowled$e that proceedin$s have been instituted for its conde#nation and sale. if in fact he did so fail in his duty. and are #ere e#pty le$islative declarations. the perfor#ance of that act is put effectually beyond the control of the plaintiff in the liti$ation. <Fuarl vs. relative to the sendin$ of notice by #ail. in person or by a$ent4 and he #ay be safely held. if proved. it #a+es a difference whether it be viewed as a %uestion involvin$ 6urisdiction or as a %uestion involvin$ due process of law. and if the 6ud$#ent cannot operate upon the property. to ta+e #easures that in so#e way he shall be represented when his property is called into re%uisition.. 2bbett. without either force. /n the . -334 0. 7ith respect to the provisions of our own statute.. 3o.otice was $iven by publication in a newspaper and this is the only for# of notice which the law unconditionally re%uires. /t is the duty of the owner of real estate. so#ewhat as he ta+es the ris+ that the #ail cler+ or the #ail carrier #i$ht possibly lose or destroy the parcel or envelope containin$ the notice before it should reach its destination and be delivered to hi#. @ailroad 3o. Auch a result would be a deplorable one. @ep. 7e consider this to be of so#e si$nificance4 and it see#s to us that. under certain conditions. *. <139 .. havin$ due re$ard to the principles upon which the $ivin$ of such notice is re%uired. . /t has been well said by an 2#erican court5 /f property of a nonresident cannot be reached by le$al process upon the constructive notice. and it is not in ter#s declared that the notice #ust be deposited in the #ail. and he #ust abide the conse%uences. <' @. as a#ounts to a denial of due process of law4 and hence in our opinion that irre$ularity. it is his #isfortune. the absent owner of the #ort$a$ed property #ust. it was held that where newspaper publication was #ade for 19 wee+s. 3. ''-. sec.

118. however. and ac%uiescence or unnecessary delay is fatal to #otions of this character.= The lapse of ti#e is also a circu#stance deeply affectin$ this aspect of the case. The 6urisdiction bein$ once established. 3. however. is dee#ed sufficient $round for refusin$ the relief to which he #i$ht otherwise be entitled. and #ay therefore be enforced if per#itted to stand on the record. and especially where they have been e(ecuted or satisfied. <10 @. and in addition to this showin$ also a #eritorious defense to the action. The least. /n the pro$ress of this discussion we have stated the two conclusions4 <1= that the failure of the cler+ to send the notice to the defendant by #ail did not destroy the 6urisdiction of the court and <-= that such irre$ularity did not infrin$e the re%uire#ent of due process of law. /t is still necessary. n$racio )alanca Tan%uinyen$ y *i#%uin$co. *aches on the part of the applicant. The #ort$a$e under which the property was sold was e(ecuted far bac+ in 190'4 and the proceedin$s in the foreclosure were closed by the order of court confir#in$ the sale dated .othin$ of the +ind is. '90. "ro# this point of view. therefore. *. 3.. 1910. it is obvious that any #otion to vacate the 6ud$#ent on the $round of the irre$ularity in %uestion #ust fail unless it shows that the defendant was pre6udiced by that irre$ularity. all that due process of law thereafter re%uires is an opportunity for the defendant to be heard4 and as publication was duly #ade in the newspaper. courts in #any instances refuse to e(ercise their %uasi e%uitable powers to vacate a 6ud$e#ent after the lapse of the ter# ay which it was entered. Ef course if a 6ud$#ent is void upon its face a showin$ of the e(istence of a #eritorious defense is not necessary. the 6ud$#ent is not void on its face. on the other hand. . if une(plained. there could be no escape fro# the conclusion that the failure to ta+e that step was fatal to the validity of the 6ud$#ent. it would see# hi$hly unreasonable to hold that failure to #ail the notice was fatal. and where it appears that the party #a+in$ the application is hi#self without fault and has acted in $ood faith and with ordinary dili$ence. '9. The #ovin$ party has the burden of showin$ dili$ence. *. shown either in the #otion or in the affidavit which acco#panies the #otion. we thin+ that the provision of 2ct of 3on$ress declarin$ that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law has not been infrin$ed. /t is held that a $eneral state#ent that a party has a $ood defense to the action is insufficient. &ud$e in the li$ht of these conceptions. The necessary facts #ust be averred.= /t is stated in the affidavit that the defendant. to pro#ote the ends of 6ustice. 2n application to open or vacate a 6ud$#ent because of an irre$ularity or defect in the proceedin$s is usually re%uired to be supported by an affidavit showin$ the $rounds on which the relief is sou$ht. 7e thin+ that in applyin$ the re%uire#ent of due process of law. to consider its effect considered as a si#ple irre$ularity of procedure4 and it would be idle to pretend that even in this aspect the irre$ularity is not $rave enou$h. The court either has 6urisdiction or it has not4 and if the re%uire#ent as to the #ailin$ of notice should be considered as a step antecedent to the ac%uirin$ of 6urisdiction.. however. it is clearly unnecessary to be so ri$orous. since courts are always reluctant to interfere with 6ud$#ents. /n this connection we %uote the followin$ passa$e fro# the encyclopedic treatise now in course of publication5 7here. <10 @. and unless it is shown affir#atively the court will not ordinarily e(ercise its discretion in his favor. 2s a conse%uence of these conclusions the irre$ularity in %uestion is in so#e #easure shorn of its potency. died &anuary -9. however.. /n the application of the idea of due process of law. e(cept in clear cases.#atter of 6urisdiction there can be no distinction between the #uch and the little. it is per#issible to reflect upon the purposes of the provision which is supposed to have been violated and the principle underlyin$ the e(ercise of 6udicial power in these proceedin$s. that can be re%uired of the proponent of such a #otion is to show that he had a $ood defense a$ainst the action to foreclose the #ort$a$e. Ao#ethin$ is due to the finality of 6ud$#ents.

A. Ef course if the #inor heirs had instituted an action in their own ri$ht to recover the property.-00 it violated that stipulation. supported by the circu#stances of this case. there bein$ no proof that it was ever returned by the postal officials as undelivered. ed. 190'. /t is. instead of bein$ forwarded to 2#oy. /t passes the rational bounds of hu#an credulity to suppose that a #an who had placed a #ort$a$e upon property worth nearly )300. adversely affected in a hi$h de$ree by the delay in as+in$ for relief.nder these circu#stances it is clear that the #erit of this #otion is.2u$ust 1. 2nd if it was delivered in Manila. ar$ued that the defendant has suffered pre6udice by reason of the fact that the ban+ beca#e the purchaser of the property at the foreclosure sale for a price $reatly below that which had been a$reed upon in the #ort$a$e as the upset price of the property.000 and had then $one away fro# the scene of his life activities to end his days in the city of 2#oy.. even supposin$ that he had no +nowled$e of those proceedin$s while they were bein$ conducted.000. we thin+ the presu#ption is clear and stron$ that this notice reached the defendant. /n this connection. /t is #ore in +eepin$ with the ordinary course of thin$s that he should have ac%uired infor#ation as to what was transpirin$ in his affairs at Manila4 and upon the basis of this rational assu#ption we are authori>ed. 33.or is it an ade%uate reply to say that the proponent of this #otion is an ad#inistrator who only %ualified a few #onths before this #otion was #ade. however. there is a probability that the recipient was a person sufficiently interested in his affairs to send it or co##unicate its contents to hi#. The 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure. Ef course if the 6urisdiction of the court or the sufficiency of the process of law depended upon the #ailin$ of the notice by the cler+. we #ay say that in view of the well-+nown s+ill of postal officials and e#ployees in #a+in$ proper delivery of letters defectively addressed. indeed. . . . .. /t is said in behalf of the appellant that when the ban+ bou$ht in the property for the su# of )110. . or soon ac%uired. e(pressly declares that there is a presu#ption that thin$s have happened accordin$ to the ordinary habits of life <sec. it is per#issible to consider the probability that the defendant #ay have received actual notice of these proceedin$s fro# the unofficial notice addressed to hi# in Manila which was #ailed by an e#ployee of the ban+9s attorneys.. the parties to this #ort$a$e #ade a stipulation to the effect that the value therein placed upon the #ort$a$ed properties should serve as a basis of sale in case the debt should re#ain unpaid and the ban+ should proceed to a foreclosure. 3hina. to presu#e that he did have.pon that presu#ption. 2doptin$ al#ost the e(act words used by the Aupre#e 3ourt of the .nited Atates in 8rannis vs.o disability on the part of the defendant hi#self e(isted fro# the ti#e when the foreclosure was effected until his death4 and we believe that the delay in the appoint#ent of the ad#inistrator and institution of this action is a circu#stance which is i#putable to the parties in interest whoever they #ay have been. as applied to the present case. 13'3=. in the absence of proof to the contrary. /n support of this presu#ption. as a#ended by the notarial docu#ent of &uly 19. 3hina. 1908.we do not hesitate to found the conclusion that the defendant voluntarily abandoned all thou$ht of savin$ his property fro# the obli$ation which he had placed upon it4 that +nowled$e of the proceedin$s should be i#puted to hi#4 and that he ac%uiesced in the conse%uences of those proceedin$s after they had been acco#plished. B-'C=4 and we cannot conceive of a situation #ore appropriate than this for applyin$ the presu#ption thus defined by the law$iver. Erdeans <-3. infor#ation as to the sale of his property. . as we have already stated. it appears that in article nine of the #ort$a$e which was the sub6ect of this foreclosure. it would have been different. The upset price stated in that stipulation for all the parcels involved in this foreclosure was )-8'. the reflections in which we are now indul$in$ would be idle and frivolous4 but the considerations #entioned are introduced in order to show the propriety of applyin$ to this situation the le$al presu#ption to which allusion has been #ade. . should have lon$ re#ained in i$norance of the fact that the #ort$a$e had been foreclosed and the property sold. 3804 08 *.

3ru> ?errera and 7y )iaco. 7hether the sa#e rule should be applied in a case where the #ort$a$ee hi#self beco#es the purchaser has apparently not been decided by this court in any reported decision. can not be considered with favor.. /n the precedin$ discussion we have assu#ed that the cler+ failed to send the notice by post as re%uired by the order of the court. as they e(press ideas which have always been reco$ni>ed. but by a third party.. /n connection with the entire failure of the #otion to show either a #eritorious defense to the action or that the defendant had suffered any pre6udice of which the law can ta+e notice. for no prudent #an will ris+ his #oney in biddin$ for and buyin$ that title which he has reason to fear #ay years thereafter be swept away throu$h so#e occult and not readily discoverable defect. )ublic policy re%uires that 6udicial proceedin$s be upheld. The #a(i#u# here applicable is non %uieta #overe. )ond. which proposes to unsettle 6udicial proceedin$s lon$ a$o closed.18.0-4 !anco. 10. afterwards a #e#ber of the Aupre#e 3ourt of the . we #ay be per#itted to add that in our opinion a #otion of this +ind. /t was held that this #ista+e did not affect the validity of the proceedin$s. that liability re#ains unaffected by the disposition which the court #ade of this case4 and the fact that the ban+ #ay have violated such an obli$ation can in no wise affect the validity of the 6ud$#ent entered in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance. 7e now proceed to consider whether this is a proper assu#ption4 and the proposition which we propose to establish is that there is a le$al presu#ption that the cler+ perfor#ed his duty as the #inisterial officer of the court. when he was in fact residin$ in another Atate. unless based upon $rounds which appeal to the conscience of the court. <Martin vs. Ai# and 3o.. 30 "ed. Donaldson. and that titles obtained in those proceedin$s be safe fro# the ruthless hand of collateral attac+. . and this %uestion need not here be considered. a 6udicial sale will never reali>e that value of the property. @ep. <Gan$co vs. not by the creditor or #ort$a$ee.spaHol "ilipino vs. @ep. which presu#ption is not overco#e by any other facts appearin$ in the cause. does not prevent a foreclosure. nor affect the validity of a sale #ade in the foreclosure proceedin$s.= /n both the cases here cited the property was purchased at the foreclosure sale. E#nia presu#untur rite et sole#niter esse acta donec probetur in contrariu#. its liability was a personal liability derived fro# the contract of #ort$a$e4 and as we have already de#onstrated such a liability could not be the sub6ect of ad6udication in an action where the court had no 6urisdiction over the person of the defendant.nited Atates5 )ublic policy re%uires that 6udicial proceedin$s be upheld. of section 33. or upset price.. since it is evident that if any liability was incurred by the ban+ by purchasin$ for a price below that fi(ed in the stipulation. of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure it is declared that there is a presu#ption "that official duty has been re$ularly perfor#ed4" and in subsection 18 it is declared that there is a presu#ption "that the ordinary course of business has been followed. 2s was once said by &ud$e !rewer. /f the plaintiff ban+ beca#e liable to account for the difference between the upset price and the price at which in bou$ht in the property. /n subsection 1. 2 party to an action has no control over the cler+ of the court4 and has no ri$ht to #eddle unduly with the business of the cler+ in the . 0 )hil. . 11 )hil. There is therefore clearly a le$al presu#ption that the cler+ perfor#ed his duty about #ailin$ this notice4 and we thin+ that stron$ considerations of policy re%uire that this presu#ption should be allowed to operate with full force under the circu#stances of this case." These presu#ptions are of course in no sense novelties. /f technical defects are ad6ud$ed potent to destroy such titles./t has been held by this court that a clause in a #ort$a$e providin$ for a tipo.= /n the case where that lan$ua$e was used an atte#pt was #ade to annul certain foreclosure proceedin$s on the $round that the affidavit upon which the order of publication was based erroneously stated that the Atate of Iansas.

. -104 11 *. whether it is the sub6ect of direct or indirect attac+ the only difference bein$ that in case of indirect attac+ the 6ud$#ent is conclusively presu#ed to be valid unless the record affir#atively shows it to be void. is indul$ed in favor of the 6ud$#ent of a court of $eneral 6urisdiction. /n a certain action 6ud$#ent had been entered a$ainst a nonresident. 2stor.. in such church as the court should direct. A. -00= contains an instructive discussion in a case analo$ous to that which is now before us. 31. /t is to be presu#ed that the court before #a+in$ its decree too+ care of to see that its order for constructive service. was a court of $eneral 6urisdiction. Ether considerations no less potent contribute to stren$then the conclusion 6ust stated.. ed. . it will be presu#ed that such fact was properly brou$ht to its +nowled$e.. <The *essee of 8ri$non vs. /t there appeared that in order to foreclose a #ort$a$e in the Atate of Ientuc+y a$ainst a nonresident debtor it was necessary that publication should be #ade in a newspaper for a specified period of ti#e. on which its ri$ht to #a+e the decree depended. The court is not bound to enter upon the record the evidence on which any fact was decided. 10 )et. The presu#ption that the cler+ perfor#ed his duty and that the court #ade its decree with the +nowled$e that the re%uire#ents of law had been co#plied with appear to be a#ply sufficient to support the conclusion that the notice was sent by the cler+ as re%uired by the order. .4 30 .9=4 and if the record is silent with respect to any fact which #ust have been established before the court could have ri$htly acted. as re%uired by section . The sa#e $eneral presu#ption. .. Therefore every presu#ption not inconsistent with the record is to be indul$ed in favor of its 6urisdiction. every act of a court of $eneral 6urisdiction shall be presu#ed to have been ri$htly done. <"lorentine vs. /t was insisted by one of the parties that the 6ud$#ent of the court was void for lac+ of 6urisdiction. /t is true that there ou$ht to be found a#on$ the papers on file in this cause an affidavit. ?avin$ no control over this officer. as to the #anner of sale. after publication in pursuance of these provisions. This rule is applied to every 6ud$#ent or decree rendered in the various sta$es of the proceedin$s fro# their initiation to their co#pletion <:oorhees vs. had been obeyed. .perfor#ance of his duties. or indirect attac+. while in case of direct attac+ the presu#ption in favor of its validity #ay in certain cases be overco#e by proof e(trinsic to the record. . . were within the constitutional power of the *e$islature. i##ediately after divine service. . .. !arton. the liti$ant #ust depend upon the court to see that the duties i#posed on the cler+ are perfor#ed. . while in the case at bar the #otion to vacate the 6ud$#ent is direct proceedin$ for relief a$ainst it.= specially does all this apply after lon$ lapse of ti#e.. 180.nited Atates !an+.. or the postin$ of it at the front door of the court-house. and that all the provisions of the law as to notices which are directory to the ad#inistrators have been co#plied with.?ow. 3194 11 *. 2pple$ate vs. . vi>5 The death of the owners4 that the petitioners were his ad#inistrators4 that the personal estate was insufficient to pay the debts of the deceased4 that the private acts of 2sse#bly.. .= /n #a+in$ the order of sale Bof the real state of a decedentC the court are presu#ed to have ad6ud$ed every %uestion necessary to 6ustify such order or decree. /t is true that in this case the for#er 6ud$#ent was the sub6ect of collateral . *e(in$ton and 3arter 3ounty Minin$ 3o. however. !ut the Aupre#e 3ourt of the . -83.nited Atates said5 The court which #ade the decree . <111 . ed. /t was proved fro# the files of an ancient periodical that publication had been #ade in its colu#ns as re%uired by law4 but no proof was offered to show the publication of the order at the church.7all. A.. also be posted at the front door of the court house and be published on so#e Aunday. Many years later the validity of the proceedin$s was called in %uestion in another action. There is no principle of law better settled than that after 6urisdiction has once been re%uired. .

!ut it is insisted by counsel for this #otion that the affidavit of !ernardo 3han y 8arcia showin$ that upon 2pril . he relied upon !ernardo to send it for hi#. 7e thin+ that no court. 7e do not thin+ that this is by any #eans a necessary inference. There is undoubtedly $ood authority to support the position that when the record states the evidence or #a+es an aver#ent with reference to a 6urisdictional fact. as a #atter of co##on +nowled$e. this would be conclusive that he had failed to co#ply with the e(act ter#s of the order4 but such is not this case. )hilippine /slands. should be accepted as affir#ative proof that the cler+ of the court failed in his duty and that. the affidavit was #ade by a person who. for its continued security. 18 7all. been $enerally i$nored. it will not be presu#ed. no such record is +ept in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of the city of Manila. upon the presence of such affidavit a#on$ the papers and would be liable at any #o#ent to be destroyed by the disappearance of that piece of paper. Aullivan.9=. 300.. /f. with a proper re$ard for the security of 6udicial proceedin$s and for the interests which have by law been confided to the courts. !ut the very purpose of the law in reco$ni>in$ these presu#ptions is to enable the court to sustain a prior 6ud$#ent in the face of such an o#ission. was a #ere inter#eddler. it appears fro# the return of the officer that the su##ons was served at a particular place or in a particular #anner. That the cler+ of the attorneys for the plaintiff erroneously sent a notification to the defendant at a #ista+en address affords in our opinion very sli$ht basis for supposin$ that the cler+ #ay not have sent notice to the ri$ht address. The result is that in the present case we do not have the assistance of the recitals of such a record to enable us to pass upon the validity of this 6ud$#ent and as already stated the %uestion #ust be deter#ined by e(a#inin$ the papers contained in the entire file. to $ive an illustration. it will not be presu#ed that there was other or different evidence respectin$ the fact. as indicatin$ the collective #ass of papers which contain the history of all the successive steps ta+en in a case and which are finally deposited in the archives of the cler+9s office as a #e#orial of the liti$ation.... Ef course if it had affir#atively appeared that the cler+ hi#self had atte#pted to co#ply with this order and had directed the notification to Manila when he should have directed it to 2#oy. 91 . so far as the provisions of law are concerned. in the silence of the record. or that the fact was otherwise than stated. 3''4 Aettle#ier vs. would incline to favor such a conclusion.. or boo+ of final record. indeed... instead of hi#self sendin$ the re%uisite notice throu$h the #ail.. we do not thin+ that it is properly applicable where. that it was #ade upon the defendant also <8alpin vs.. /n this connection it is i#portant to bear in #ind that under the practice prevailin$ in the )hilippine /slands the word "record" is used in a loose and broad sense. . showin$ that the order was in fact so sent by the cler+4 and no such affidavit appears. /f we were to hold that the 6ud$#ent in this case is void because the proper affidavit is not present in the file of papers which we call the record. A. is co##only +ept in our courts for the purpose of recordin$ the pleadin$s and principal proceedin$s in actions which have been ter#inated4 and in particular. There is. 1908. The record is therefore silent where it ou$ht to spea+. a section of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure which directs that such a boo+ of final record shall be +ept4 but this provision has.00 of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure. it will not be presu#ed that service was also #ade at another place or in a different #anner4 or if it appears that service was #ade upon a person other than the defendant. 7hile we believe that these propositions are entirely correct as applied to the case where the person #a+in$ the return is the officer who is by law re%uired to #a+e the return. . /t is a #atter of $eneral infor#ation that no 6ud$#ent roll. he sent a notification throu$h the #ail addressed to the defendant at Manila. the result would be that in the future every title in the /slands restin$ upon a 6ud$#ent li+e that now before us would depend. . )a$e. as in the present case. /n our opinion the proper course in a case of this +ind is to hold that the le$al presu#ption that the cler+ perfor#ed his duty still #aintains notwithstandin$ the absence fro# the record of the proper proof of that fact.

or proceedin$ was ta+en. or e(cusable ne$lect4 )rovided. and it contains provisions describin$ with #uch fullness the various steps to be ta+en in the conduct of such proceedin$s. and a party thereto is un6ustly deprived of a hearin$ by fraud. the ca#e to late for relief in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance. /t is evident that the proceedin$ conte#plated in this section is intended to supple#ent the re#edy provided by section 1134 and we believe the conclusion irresistible that there is no other #eans reco$ni>ed by law whereby a defeated party can.The last %uestion of i#portance which we propose to consider is whether a #otion in the cause is ad#issible as a proceedin$ to obtain relief in such a case as this. . and the 3ourt of "irst /nstance which rendered the 6ud$#ent has finally ad6ourned so that no ade%uate re#edy e(ists in that court. settin$ forth the facts and prayin$ to have 6ud$#ent set aside. order. The idea underlyin$ the #otion therefore is that inas#uch as the 6ud$#ent is a nullity . with a view to the renewal of the liti$ation. proceedin$ a$ain fro# the date #entioned as if the pro$ress of the action had not been interrupted. /f the #otion prevails the 6ud$#ent of &uly -. That application thereof be #ade within a reasonable ti#e. provides as follows5 7hen a 6ud$#ent is rendered by a 3ourt of "irst /nstance upon default. 1908. conductin$. and concludin$ the civil action of whatever species4 and by section 190 of the sa#e 3ode it is declared that the procedure in all civil action shall be in accordance with the provisions of this 3ode. This is as follows5 A 3. we cannot suppose that this proceedin$ would have ta+en the for# of a #otion in the cause. inadvertence. if based on such an error. . 113. There is only one section of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure which e(pressly reco$ni>es the authority of a 3ourt of "irst /nstance to set aside a final 6ud$#ent and per#it a renewal of the liti$ation in the sa#e cause. the party so deprived of a hearin$ #ay present his petition to the Aupre#e 3ourt within si(ty days after he first learns of the rendition of such 6ud$#ent. or other proceedin$ ta+en a$ainst hi# throu$h his #ista+e. so far as relates to the openin$ and continuation of a liti$ation which has been once concluded. and all subse%uent proceedin$s will be set aside. The 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure purports to be a co#plete syste# of practice in civil causes. in so far as pertinent to this discussion. but in no case e(ceedin$ si( #onths after such 6ud$#ent. The first para$raph of this section. !ut as we have already seen.. 2n additional re#edy by petition to the Aupre#e 3ourt is supplied by section 013 of the sa#e 3ode.pon such ter#s as #ay be 6ust the court #ay relieve a party or le$al representative fro# the 6ud$#ent. The #otion in the present case does not confor# to the re%uire#ents of either of these provisions4 and the conse%uence is that in our opinion the action of the 3ourt of "irst /nstance in dis#issin$ the #otion was proper. The proponent of the #otion does not as+ the favor of bein$ per#itted to interpose a defense. accident. and not thereafter. To this end it defines with precision the #ethod of be$innin$. since it is clear that. and the liti$ation will be renewed. #ista+e or e(cusable ne$li$ence. order. by a proceedin$ in the sa#e cause. 7e are therefore of the opinion that the re#edies prescribed in sections 113 and 013 are e(clusive of all others. the #otion attac+s the 6ud$#ent of the court as void for want of 6urisdiction over the defendant. surprise. procure a 6ud$#ent to be set aside. /f the %uestion were ad#ittedly one relatin$ #erely to an irre$ularity of procedure. ?is purpose is #erely to annul the effective 6ud$#ent of the court. . to the end that the liti$ation #ay a$ain resu#e its re$ular course.

)rotection of the parties de#ands a strict and an e(act co#pliance with this constitutional provision in our or$anic law and of the statutory provisions in a#plification. which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at si$ht. the law concedes due process to recover it. after the lapse of such ti#e. and should be re%uired.nder accepted principles of law and practice.it can be attac+ed in any way and at any ti#e.J.pon the point of procedure here involved. . a proper re#edy in such case. Arellano. and the sa#e is accordin$ly affir#ed. /t will be noted ta+en verbati# fro# the 3alifornia 3ode <sec. which should be lopped off. The conclusions stated in this opinion indicate that the 6ud$#ent appealed fro# is without error. 2s we have already seen our 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure defines the conditions under which relief a$ainst a 6ud$#ent #ay be productive of conclusion for this court to reco$ni>e such a proceedin$ as proper under conditions different fro# those defined by law. /t is entirely re$ular in for#. . "2 6ud$#ent which is void upon its face. and Avance a. Dic+ons...81. *iterally hundreds of precedents could be cited in support of these a(io#atic principles. 2n i##utable attribute J the funda#ental idea J of due process of law is that no #an shall be conde#ned in his person or property without notice and an opportunity of bein$ heard in his defense. after the lapse of the ti#e li#ited by statute if the 6ud$#ent is not void on its face4 and all cases. the proper re#edy was by an ori$inal proceedin$ and not by #otion in the cause. Torres. dissentin$5 / dissent. we refer to the case of )eople vs. /f the 6ud$#ent were in fact void upon its face. after the ti#e for appeal or review has passed. that is. there #i$ht possibly be so#ethin$ in this.= . /t follows that even if the 6ud$#ent could be shown to be void for want of 6urisdiction. certainly we cannot say that there is due process of law. is for the a$$rieved party to brin$ an action to en6oin the 6ud$#ent. 3. Carson. ' @ich BA. with costs. /n every situation of this character an appropriate re#edy is at hand4 and if property has been ta+en without due process... or i$nored wherever and whenever it e(hibits its head. Ao ordered. assu#in$ the 6ud$#ent to have been void as alle$ed by the proponent of this #otion. JJ. /t can bear no fruit to the plaintiff. ?arrison <8. if the power so to do e(ists. lon$ reco$ni>ed in 2#erican courts. when an atte#pt is #ade to vacate the 6ud$#ent by a proceedin$ in court for that purpose an action re$ularly brou$ht is preferable. . 7e accordin$ly old that. /t will not #a+e #e lon$ to state #y reasons. . 7here as in the instant case the defendant received no notice and had no opportunity to be heard. 3al. '01= wherein it was held that a #otion will not lie to vacate a 6ud$#ent after the lapse of the ti#e li#ited by statute if the 6ud$#ent is not void on its face4 and in all cases.13=. !ut the 6ud$#ent in %uestion is not void in any such sense. C. S)0ara') O0$%$o%& MALCOLM. @esultantly." <Mills vs. and the alle$ed defect is one which is not apparent upon its face. or for lac+ of due process of law. concur. but is a constant #enace to the defendant. if it were shown to be a nullity by virtue of its own recitals. and which re%uires only an inspection of the 6ud$#ent roll to de#onstrate its want of vitality is a dead li#b upon the 6udicial tree. the party a$$rieved thereby is bound to resort to so#e appropriate proceedin$ to obtain relief. J. if not already carried into effect4 or if the property has already been disposed of he #ay institute suit to recover it. 7here a 6ud$#ent or 6udicial order is void in this sense it #ay be said to be a lawless thin$.C.

?eitner filed a #otion for se%uestration of stoc+ owned by -1 of the defendants in order to obtain %uasi-in-re# 6urisdiction. violates the Due )rocess 3lause. the property servin$ as the basis for 6urisdiction is co#pletely unrelated to the plaintiffKs cause of action. The presence of property in a Atate #ay allow 6urisdiction by providin$ contacts a#on$ the foru# Atate. based solely as it is on the statutory presence of appellantsK property in Delaware. the presence of the property alone. lost a lar$e antitrust 6ud$#ent and ?eitner <)= initiated a shareholder derivative suit in Delaware a$ainst -8 officers and directors of the corporation <i.. . 3an a state obtain personal 6urisdiction over a party based on that partyKs ownership of property in the stateL /s %uasi in re# 6urisdiction sub6ect to the constitutional re%uire#ents of #ini#u# contactsL 1o+"$%* a%" R-+) 2Mar&ha++3 1. i. absent other ties a#on$ the defendant. ties. v. -0'9.Au##ary of Shaffer v.. . Fuasi in re# 6urisdiction is sub6ect to the constitutional re%uire#ents of #ini#u# contacts. The District 3ourt found that the statute was valid. The Delaware se%uestration statute allowed property within the state to be sei>ed to allow the Delaware court to obtain personal 6urisdiction over the owner. -.e. Fac'& 8reyhound. 2ppellantsK holdin$s in the corporation do not provide contacts with Delaware sufficient to support 6urisdiction of that AtateKs courts over appellants. 2 state cannot obtain 0)r&o%a+ 4-r$&"$c'$o% over a party based #erely on that partyKs ownership of property in the state. Washington. and the liti$ation. /n re# 6urisdiction5 due process under the "ourteenth 2#end#ent re%uires that the basis for 6urisdiction #ust be sufficient to 6ustify e(ercisin$ 6urisdiction over the interests of persons in the thin$. or relations.33 . Ahaffer et al. a Delaware corporation. as in this case. D=. DelawareKs assertion of 6urisdiction over appellants. 3t. the defendant.A. The le$al situs of the stoc+ was dee#ed to be in Delaware. Ges. and the liti$ation4 for e(a#ple. Ahaffer. would not support the AtateKs 6urisdiction. d. since Delaware bases . when clai#s to the property itself are the source of the underlyin$ controversy. -d '83 <1911=. 18'. 03 *. 91 A. Delaware state-court 6urisdiction is not supported by that AtateKs interest in supervisin$ the #ana$e#ent of a Delaware corporation and definin$ the obli$ations of its officers and directors.e. Ahaffer also asserted that there were insufficient contacts to confer 6urisdiction. ?eitner owned one share of 8reyhound stoc+ and was a nonresident of Delaware. Heitner. R-+)& 7hether or not a Atate can assert 6urisdiction over a nonresident #ust be evaluated accordin$ to the #ini#u#-contacts standard of International Shoe Co. -. which does not conte#plate that a state #ay #a+e bindin$ a 6ud$#ent a$ainst an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts. and did not address the #ini#u# contacts ar$u#ent due to the findin$ that the le$al presence of the stoc+ in Delaware conferred %uasi-in re# 6urisdiction. #ade a special appearance to challen$e the courtKs 6urisdiction on the $rounds that the statute was unconstitutional. the Atate. I&&-)& 1.o. 7here.

The le$islature #ust assert that interest. but on the presence of their property in the Atate. 8reyhoundKs choice of incorporation in Delaware is a pri#a facie showin$ of sub#ission to its 6urisdiction. Delaware has a stron$ interest in supervisin$ the #ana$e#ent of corporations created within its borders. 2ppellants. .nder this case there is no such statute. To be proper. Central Hanover Bank and Trust we held certain "ourteenth 2#end#ent ri$hts attach once an adverse 6ud$#ent in re# directly affects the property owner by divestin$ hi# of his ri$hts in the property. however. Thus. not on appellantsK status as corporate fiduciaries. 5$&0o&$'$o% @eversed. however the #a6orityKs approach to #ini#u# contacts is wron$.6urisdiction. this does not #ean that appellants have purposefully availed the#selves of the privile$e of conductin$ activities within the foru# Atate. a state foru# has 6urisdiction to ad6udicate a shareholder derivative action centerin$ on the conduct and policies of the directors and officers of a corporation incorporated in that Atate. who were not re%uired to ac%uire interests in the corporation in order to hold their positions. . The #a6ority opinion is purely advisory once it finds that the state statute is invalid. Atate court 6urisdiction #ust have both notice and a lon$ ar# statute. the proper standard is the #ini#u# contacts standard of /nternational Ahoe. ?eitner however never pleaded or de#onstrated that the defendants had #ini#u# contacts with the state. Thou$h it #ay be appropriate for Delaware law to $overn the obli$ations of appellants to the corporation and stoc+holders. This #a+es the assertion of 6urisdiction over the property an assertion of 6urisdiction over the person. 5$&c-&&$o% /n Mullane v. Delaware is not a fair foru# for this liti$ation because the officers and directors have never set foot in the state and have not purposefully availed the#selves of the benefits and protections of the state. / therefore would not foreclose Delaware fro# assertin$ 6urisdiction over appellants were it persuaded to do so on the basis of #ini#u# contacts. 2s a $eneral rule. /f 6urisdiction over property involves 6urisdiction over a personKs interests. all assertions of 6urisdiction #ust be deter#ined accordin$ to the standards of /nternational Ahoe and its pro$eny. There was a voluntary association with the Atate of Delaware invo+in$ the benefits and protections of its laws. Co%c-rr$%* $% Par' a%" 5$&&)%'$%* $% Par' 2Br)%%a%3 The use of #ini#u# contacts is #ore than 6ustified and it represents a sensible approach to the e(ercise of state court 6urisdiction. Denckla. Co%c-rr$%* 2Po6)++3 / reserve 6ud$#ent as to whether ownership of real property in a 6urisdiction #ay provide the contacts necessary for 6urisdiction. Aee Hanson v. did not by ac%uirin$ those interests surrender their ri$ht to be brou$ht to 6ud$#ent in the Atates in which they had #ini#u# contacts. Fuasi in re# 6urisdiction should re#ain valid when real property is involved. Co%c-rr$%* 2S')7)%&3 This holdin$ should not be read to invalidate in re# 6urisdiction.

and is to 'e sought for in general nature of its po&ers. and for the recognition of his right to the control and disposal of said shares to the e(clusion of all others) *he company alleged. &herein it is declared that she is the sole legal o&ner and entitled to the possession and control of the shares of stock in . and this is conferred 'y the so%ereign authority &hich organi6es the court. payment of &hich &as 'eing &ithheld 'y the company. !donah Perkins. settle and determine) . &hich fall &ithin the general -urisdiction of the C !" #anila) /imilarly C !" #anila is empo&ered to ad-udicate the se%eral demands contained in petitioner+s crosscomplaint) !donah Perkins in her crosscomplaint 'rought suit against Eugene Perkins and the $enguet Consolidated #ining Company upon the alleged -udgment of the /C of the /tate of 0e& 1ork and asked the court 'elo& to render -udgment enforcing that 0e& 1ork -udgment.uestion &ith all the cash di%idends declared thereon 'y the $enguet Consolidated #ining Company) !donah Perkins filed a demurrer thereto on the ground that 2the court has no -urisdiction of the su'-ect of the action. the amended complaint filed 'y the respondent.ules of Court< and &hich falls &ithin the general -urisdiction of the C !" #anila. or in authority specially conferred) !n the present case. ROXAS ET AL. respondent Eugene Perkins filed a complaint in the C !" #anila against the $enguet Consolidated #ining Company for the reco%ery of a sum consisting of di%idends &hich ha%e 'een declared and made paya'le on shares of stock registered in his name. GRN 47517. from the /C of the /tate of 0e& 1ork.uestion and e(cluded from any claim they assert thereon) /ummons 'y pu'lication &ere ser%ed upon the nonresident defendants !donah Perkins and Engelhard) Engelhard filed his ans&er) Petitioner filed her ans&er &ith a crosscomplaint in &hich she sets up a -udgment allegedly o'tained 'y her against respondent Eugene Perkins. to ad-udicate. and to issue e(ecution thereon) *his is a form of action recogni6ed 'y section 379 of the Code of Ci%il Procedure 8no& section 9:. and Engelhard) Eugene Perkins prayed that petitioner !donah Perkins and . Eugene Perkins. . 1941 FA TS: July 5. 1938. June 27.ule 39.uestions raised 'y the respondent.3 'ecause the alleged -udgment of the /C of the /tate of 0e& 1ork is res -udicata) Petitioner+s demurrer &as o%erruled. the local court has -urisdiction o%er the su'-ect matter of the action) R!LING: $y -urisdiction o%er the su'-ect matter is meant the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought. thus this petition) ISS!E: 450 in %ie& of the alleged -udgment entered in fa%or of the petitioner 'y the /C of 0e& 1ork and &hich is claimed 'y her to 'e res -udicata on all . Eugene Perkins alleged calls for the ad-udication of title to certain shares of stock of the $enguet Consolidated #ining Company and the granting of affirmati%e reliefs. 'y &ay of defense that the &ithholding of plaintiff+s right to the disposal and control of the shares &as due to certain demands made &ith respect to said shares 'y the petitioner !donah Perkins. .IDONAH PERKINS vs. and 'y one Engelhard) Eugene Perkins included in his modified complaint as parties defendants petitioner.) Engelhard 'e ad-udged &ithout interest in the shares of stock in .

or form'n.. operat'n..uestion.here th'* l'n3 bro3e.t the l'n3* atta. un+er a . 7t . 'n the *tate of !'**'**'pp'.from Chattanoo-a.3e+ the l'n3 *ome.uestions constituting the su'-ect matter of ci%il case3 and argues on the assumption that the respondent -udge is &ithout -urisdiction to take cogni6ance of the cause) 4hether or not the respondent -udge in the course of the proceedings &ill gi%e %alidity and efficacy to the 0e& 1ork -udgment set up 'y the petitioner in her cross"complaint is a .a* 'n the *tate of !'**'**'pp'.h'.a*'on affor+e+ throu-hout the run* or tr'p* of *u.h'.a* *ho.h'.o .t 'n th'* l'n3 . At the t'me of the . is the e(ercise 'y that court and the rightful e(ercise of its -urisdiction) Petition denied) Alabama Great Southern R.from 4'rm'n-ham.ar* 'n a fre'-ht tra'n .n to be the +ut/ of .ra.ee+'n.a* . &he pla'nt'ff. v.'t* l'ne to 'n*pe. ).on+u.h .hat on the outer .ent al*o to *ho.a* at the t'me of enter'n.of a l'n3 bet.ontra.'t'1en of Alabama.h'. its -udgment can 'e re%ersed on appeal= 'ut its determination of the ..the .uestion that goes to the merits of the contro%ersy and relates to the rights of the parties as 'et&een each other.a ra'lroa+ e2ten+'n.tor of fre'-ht tra'n*.h . Carroll Supreme Court of Alabama 97 Ala.a* 'n a +efe. to ma'nta'n *u.'t/ of bra3eman on fre'-ht tra'n* runn'n.ol+6 that th'* ten+e+ to .erta'n emplo/ee* of +efen+ant *tat'one+ alon.*he petitioner e(presses the fear that the respondent -udge may render -udgment 2annulling the final.t'on a* o.t've l'n3.h bro3e . 555 &he ev'+en.hen the tra'n left 4'rm'n-ham. an+ 'n th'* 'n*tan.e . 803 (1892 !CC"#""A$. a . 11 So.a* the +ut/ of the .a* *uffere+ . 126 .a* a +efe. &he 'n0ur/ .3.e of the +efen+ant. &he ev'+en. '*.t've . an+ .been bent . and not to the -urisdiction or po&er of the court) *he test of -urisdiction is &hether or not the tri'unal has po&er to enter upon the in.h .a* 'n the *erv'.apa. %alid -udgment rendered and entered in this petitioner+s fa%or 'y the courts of the /tate of 0e& 1ork. Carroll. an+ at the t'me of be'n'n0ure+ 'n that *erv'. throu-h Alabama to !er'+'an.ar* 'n tra'n* at Chattanoo-a.e of the +efen+ant 'n the . Ala.ar* to be put 'n tra'n*.ea3en the 'ron. &hich decision is res -udicata on all the .h 'n*pe. that the +efe. (. &he +efen+ant '* an Alabama .a*ualt/ . that the l'n3 . an+ that 't .een 4'rm'n-ham an+ the pla. 'n the *tate of &enne**ee.a* pro.on+'t'on . !'**.he+ to .h the l'n3 bro3e an+ the 'n0ur/ .e.ompla'ne+ of pla'nt'ff .e . &hich the petitioner here anticipates and seeks to pre%ent.e ten+e+ to *ho.urve of the ben+.ra.h'le . an+ the other tra'n men.a* ma+e 'n the *tate of Alabama.uiry. the Alabama Great Southern Ra'lroa+ Compan/.R.'nto the *erv'.een t.oupl'n-* bet.au*e+ b/ the brea3'n. %. &he po'nt at .on*'*te+ 'n or re*ulte+ from 't* hav'n.t .e ha+ . to !er'+'an.een .orporat'on. an+ that the l'n3 bro3e at the po'nt of th'* . su'sisting. not &hether its conclusion in the course of it is right or &rong) !f its decision is erroneous. 4'rm'n-ham.from 4'rm'n-ham to !er'+'an. an+ *ome po'nt* bet. an+ al*o that 't .

e affor+* -roun+ for 'nferen. unle** the 'nfl'.ell:e*tabl'*he+ rule of la.'th the ev'+en.ho*e +ut/ 't . an+ repla.ommon la.onten+e+ that the pla'nt'ff.a*e ta3e 't out of the -eneral rule .:that there .ounte+ on .a*e. 'n the f'r*t 'n*tan.e+ the .over/ *ou-ht un+er the emplo/er*8 l'ab'l't/ a.h or *'m'lar la. +'**o.h emplo/ee* to perform th'* +ut/. 't be'n. the fa'lure to +'*. 'n *ome 0ur'*+'. So loo3e+ at. that the ne-l'-en.e've+.t* of th'* part'.t*.la'me+ that the fa.t'on of the 'n0ur'e* .h'.'e* of the ev'+en.* of that *tate.e be bel'eve+. to-ether . to the 9ual'f'.'te+ above abun+antl/ *upport.t'on 2. for . a re.h the/ .e've+ . 'f h'* ev'+en.e.h at .on*'+erat'on an+ +eterm'nat'on of the 9ue*t'on .t of the ev'+en. ho.a* a ne-l'-ent om'**'on on the part of *u.h'.um*tan.'th'n that *tate. .h f'n+* *upport 555 'n an/ ten+en. althou-h the 'n0ur'e* .oul+ al*o *upport an a.over the +efe..e of the la.e.e +o not un+er*tan+ appellee8* .'r.here the *u't '* brou-ht ha+ the/ been re.oun*el even to +en/ e'ther the propo*'t'on or 't* appl'.90 of the Co+e.h'.a*e.h'. an+ author'1e the .e 'n the *tate of !'**'**'pp'.ular .over/ .e.e* . *ervant* of the pla'nt'ff.h a* .at'on that the 'nfl'.:there .a*e for the re. 555 7t '*.t* pre*ente+ b/ th'* re.e them .e.t of Alabama.e that there .a*ualt/ tran*p're+ 'n Alabama. 'f performe+. th'* l'n3 .at'on to th'* .ere not +efe. Certa'nl/ th'* '* the .a*e.learl/ *ho. an+ the theor/ that.t.t'on*. e'ther prove+ or f'n+'n.h'.t the l'n3* of the tra'n.h'.an .ere *u*ta'ne+ 'n !'**'**'pp' un+er . .e 555 .t've. *ub0e. for an 'n0ur/ *u*ta'ne+ b/ the pla'nt'ff 'n the *tate of !'**'**'pp'. &h'* .'ll *uff'. or. the +efen+ant.:that '*.th'* po*'t'on 'n the ab*tra.h'. but of fello.herever the .an be no re.h 'nvolve+ no l'ab'l't/ on the +efen+ant b/ the la.ere re. &he fore-o'n.h'ef 'mportan.or+..over/ 'n one *tate for 'n0ur'e* to the per*on *u*ta'ne+ 'n another. namel/.e '*.o op'n'on* a* to 't* be'n.a* the re*ult of ne-l'-en.ere +efe. of the *tate 'n .t've. further .e.e upon 't.t the +efen+ant to the pa/ment of +ama-e* un+er *e.e.h'.ever.h .n that there '* no *u.lo+-ment 'n the ten+en. 555&he onl/ ne-l'-en.h '* of .h pro+u.t'on of the 'n0ur'e* '* a.*tatement of fa.t. ba*e+ on that a*pe. not of the ma*ter.h are *uppo*e+ to e2ert an 'mportant 'nfluen.e man'fe*te+ 't*elf. an+ remove *u./ of the ev'+en. the +efen+ant '* not l'able.ourt* of Alabama to *ub0e. &h'* 'n*'*ten.a* to 'n*pe. ha* ma+e out a . .'th other* .t'on 'n the *tate .555 4ut 't '* .h'. of !'**'**'pp' a* to the ma*ter8* l'ab'l't/ for 'n0ur'e* *u*ta'ne+ b/ an emplo/ee 'n h'* *erv'. an+ to remove.a* the ne-l'-en.h'. '* that of per*on* .e* of that ne-l'-en.h -oe* to *ho.un*oun+ an+ untenable.e for the .e .t 'n. . .annot be t.tra'n*6 an+ the ev'+en. on the fa. of for.t'onable un+er the la.t* of th'* . Con*'+er'n.e .h the author't'e* .hether the +efen+ant '* l'able at all.e 'n th'* .'ate+ from the fa.on*e9uen.

: the 'n0ur/. re*pe.t'on . . th'* pla'nt'ff ha+ no . 5557t '* a+m'tte+.here..t'on 2. *o a* to evolve out of them r'-ht* an+ l'ab'l't'e* .h '* rel'e+ on to 0u*t'f/ a re. that the .onfe**e+l/ no a. 7t .hatever aro*e.onne. ma/ be enfor.annot be +en'e+.ontra.te+ el*e.'ple* of pr'vate.a.orporat'on.a* an Alabama . 'nternat'onal.h ha+ been entere+ 'nto 'n Alabama.annot be allo. ne.t*:of .t .um*tan. an+ the a--r'eve+ part/ mu*t loo3 to the lo.h'.e've+ 'n Alabama b/ a *ervant or emplo/ee. or 'nter*tate la.t .e**ar'l/ that the .? et.ontra.a* 'n the +'*.au*e of a.ountr/ the . aro*e6 an+ .h'.au*e of a.lo*e an/.oul+ l'e an/.'ll not author'1e or *upport a re.een h'm an+ the +efen+ant.t.h'.t .h a+m't* of 't6 but for an 'n0ur/ 'nfl'. un+er *tatutor/ . or at lea*t . an+ the +efen+ant '* an Alabama .t'on .e.reate+ the r'-ht to *ue.h'.h our .t* o.t'on.h.e have *een. be'n.h'.erta'n .t'on aro*e an+ e2'*te+ at all.au*e of a.h +o not e2'*t un+er the la. mu*t 'n all rea*on be +eterm'ne+ b/ the la.om't/ of .e+ to operate upon fa. to a*.urre+ 'n Alabama. 'f an/. .an enfor.h . &he ne-l'-ent 'nfl'.our*e paramount 'n the prem'*e*.e he ha* no r'-ht* .a* 'n0ure+ he . ent'tle* th'* pla'nt'ff to re. tran*p're+ 'n the *tate of !'**'**'pp'.t* that pla'nt'ff .ourt* .. an+ hen.'r. that ne-l'-en.h'.e*.. a* 'f 't* operat'on ha+ been e2pre**l/ l'm'te+ to th'* *tate.*> ?(hen a per*onal 'n0ur/ '* re. an+ a* 'f 't* f'r*t l'ne rea+ a* follo.reate* a r'-ht of a. therefore. no . 555 Another .h '* of .over/ tran*p're+.:.hether a .90 of the Co+e.t'on .la'me+ upon the fa. &h'* '* .e of +ut/ unpro+u. or not.on*'+erat'on 555 't '* 'n*'*te+.here than 'n Alabama our *tatute -'ve* no r'-ht of re. &he*e latter fa. of pla'nt'ff an+ +efen+ant:are of no 'mportan.'t'1en of th'* *tate. 'n . (e are referre+ to no author't/ 'n *upport of th'* propo*'t'on. therefore. 555Se.ontra.90 of the Co+e of Alabama ha+ no eff'. .au*e of a.urr'n. &he fa. 7t .or+*.here the fa.h'.e+ 'n an/ other *tate or . Se. '* to be 'nterprete+ 'n the l'-ht of un'ver*all/ re. 'n other ./ be/on+ the l'ne* of Alabama.h'.t'on 2.t.re*ult* .be ha+ 'n Alabama.t'on.hen an+ .t that at the t'me pla'nt'ff . 't *eem* to u*.a* 'n that *tate.har-e of +ut'e* .h'.tran*'tor/.'t'1en*h'p an+ +om'. further than th'*> the/ ma/ ten+ to *ho.over/. <n+er that la.te+ be/on+ the terr'tor'al operat'on of that a.a* an+ '* a .h re*te+ on h'm b/ the term* of a .t've of +amn'f/'n.t for an 'n0ur/ 'nfl'. a* . . =or all that o.e 'n th'* .al la.over here un+er the emplo/er*8 l'ab'l't/ a..t'on.o-n'1e+ pr'n.h'.t'vel/.h'.'n another *tate.t'on here. <p to the t'me th'* tra'n pa**e+ out of Alabama no 'n0ur/ ha+ re*ulte+.onne. an+ hen. of that *tate.h obta'ne+ at the t'me an+ pla.t'on of an 'n0ur/ here.over/.h .hat h'* r'-ht* are. .t bet.'le.'th the fa.'thout .e . an+ e2hau*t've 'nve*t'-at'on on our part ha* fa'le+ to +'*.e .

t 'n .au*e of a.h.erta'n part'.h'.6 an+ the .ontroverte+ an+.ontra. 't .ame a part of th'* ./ '(e0) A''*)ne/-0n-+%1'. T 2* :A. 'f the/ bel'eve+ the ev'+en. . a* that '* the 9ue*t'on before u*.to 'n*tru.ourt or la. &he/ have no bear'n.oul+ be a*toun+'n..e've a* .1994. &he theor/ '* that the emplo/er*8 l'ab'l't/ a.h'.t of the'r . 'f the pla'nt'ff ha* a . a* 't fall* terr'tor'all/ . an+ mu*t be the l'm't of 't* operat'on.7 NA$ED. .h tr'p from 4'rm'n-ham to !er'+'an an+ return.on+u. ROLANDO $.'t/ of a bra3eman on 't* fre'-ht tra'n* bet.555 7t '* the purpo*e of the *tatute. to be a+0u+-e+ b/ the rule* of the one or the other *tate.5555 &he . an+ the .h other '*. AND6OR ASIA INTERNATIONAL "!ILDERS ORPORATION GRN 17477. an+ !er'+'an.e nee+ not further a+vert to the fa. IN .ontra. '()u %n& . an+ 't '* *oun+ 'f the +ut'e* an+ l'ab'l't'e* pre*.h per*on* . DONATO ". to *a/ the lea*t.to the profe**'on.e. .ourt*. NLR .h '* not . an+ .on.lu*'on*. GERARDO A.e of a .h ha* not h'therto been *u--e*te+ b/ an/ .h'.t . !'**'**'pp' ha* the *ame r'-ht to e*tabl'*h -overnmental rule* for *u.'th'n her bor+er* a* Alabama. he.h other. E#ANGELISTA. A''/.'le.hen 't* le-al't/ '* brou-ht 'n 9ue*t'on. "RO4N 5 ROOT INTERNATIONAL. DEL $!NDOvs.t the 0ur/ to f'n+ for the +efen+ant.ute 't 'n our .7.t be. the 0u+-ment '* rever*e+.een 4'rm'n-ham.au*e of a. b/ rea*on of them. .'n the relat'on of ma*ter an+ *ervant* to ea. PHILIPPINE O#ERSEAS E$PLO2$ENT AD$INISTRATION3S AD$INISTRATOR. 555 =or the error 'n refu*'n. De1e8.'th'n the one or the other. . 'n re*pe. A$!L.. !'**.'t'1en*h'p or +efen+ant8* +om'.r'ter.oul+ lea+ to .a* that pla'nt'ff *houl+ *erve the +efen+ant 'n the .h per*on* to. an+ *houl+ re. to -overn per*on* *tan+'n..'th'n the *tate of Alabama.t'on.on the pr'mar/ 9ue*t'on of the e2'*ten.'ll be reman+e+.t . 32D2*/. %n& '(e )es' *+ 1.apa..on+u.O$PLAINANTS.e) 5. FA TS: *his is a consolidation of 3 cases of /PEC!>? C!@!? >C*!50/ in the /upreme Court for Certiorari) .t of *u.an be *a'+ to be .ompen*at'on a *t'pulate+ *um for ea. )E 2 T 2* "IEN#ENIDO $. an+.au*e . ADALIN.tual +ut'e* an+ obl'-at'on* at all. the po**'b'l't/ of . an+ *he ha* e*tabl'*he+ rule* .ar+* ea.a* ma+e here.t of pla'nt'ff8* .t 555 7f th'* ar-ument '* *oun+.h are +'fferent from tho*e of our la. ma/ pro*e. Ala.h'.ular* .ontra.t'on at all.r'be+ b/ the a.

A5B)99 in fa%or of only 3B9 complainants) Claimants su'mitted their 2>ppeal #emorandum or Partial >ppeal3 from the decision of the P5E>) >!$C also filed its #.uarters in . ne& complainants -oined the case. 1989./ C5.ouston.3 P5E> >dminitartor rendered his decision &hich a&arded the amount of F8B9.uired the claimants to correct the deficiencies in the complaint pointed out) >!$ and $. modifying the decision of the P5E>) *he resolution remo%ed some of the 'enefits a&arded in fa%or of the claimants) 0?.ui%alent to his &age entitlement increased 'y a minimum of t&enty"ri%e per centurn thereof for hours &orked during the day= and 'y a minimum off fifty per centurn thereof for hours &orked during the night &hich shall 'e deemed to 'eing from se%en o+clock in the e%ening until se%en o+clock in the morning )3 . 1989. in their o&n 'ehalf and on 'ehalf of :B8 other 5C4s instituted a class suit 'y filing an 2>mended Complaint3 &ith the P5E> for money claims arising from their recruitment 'y >/!> !0*E.!! declared in default for failure to file their ans&ers) 5n Decem'er B:.esolution. and is engaged in construction= &hile >!$C is a domestic corporation licensed as a ser%ice contractor to recruit. 1988. these petitions filed 'y the claimants and 'y >l$C and $.0>*!50>? $C!?DE. >!$C and $.0>*!50>?. issued his >miri Decree 0o) B3 on June 1A.= penalties for committing prohi'ited practices= as &ell as the suspension of the license of >!$C and the accreditation of $.!!) *he case rooted from the ?a'or ?a& enacted 'y $ahrain &here most of the complainants &ere deployed) .!! 5n 5cto'er B. the payment of the interest of the earnings of the *ra%el and . the P5E> >dministrator issued an order directing >!$C and $.55* !0*E. and secondarily.>*!50 8>!$C< and employment 'y $. the parties &ere gi%en a period of 15 days from said date &ithin &hich to su'mit their respecti%e position papers) 5n e'ruary B9.!! to file their ans&ers &ithin ten days from receipt of the order) 8at madami pang motions ang na"file.5n June A.is #a-esty !se $in /elman >l Haifa. >mul and E%angelista.!! su'mitted position paper) 5n 5cto'er B:.C promulgated its . !0C 8$. mo'ili6e and deploy ilipino &orkers for o%erseas employment on 'ehalf of its foreign principals) *he amended complaint sought the payment of the une(pired portion of the employment contracts. 1988. >mir of $ahrain. *e(as.eply.540 E . 11:A.C denied all the #. &hich &as terminated prematurely.!! kept on filing #otion for E(tension of *ime to file their ans&er) *he P5E> kept on granting such motions) 5n 0o%em'er 19. 1989. 198:.!! filed a 2Consolidated .eser%ed und= interest on all the unpaid 'enefits= area &age and salary differential pay= fringe 'enefits= reim'ursement of /// and premium not remitted to the ///= refund of &ithholding ta( not remitted to the $!. andGor appeal in addition to the 20otice of >ppeal3 filed earlier) 0?. >!$C finally su'mitted its ans&er to the complaint) >t the same hearing. ang daming ina%ail na remedies ng 'oth parties< 5n June 19. 1989.s) . other&ise kno&n re the ?a'our ?a& for the Pri%ate /ector) /ome of the pro%ision of >miri Decree 0o) B3 that are rele%ant to the claims of the complainants"appellants are as follo&s: 2>rt) :9: ( ( ( > &orker shall recei%e payment for each e(tra hour e. claimants filed an opposition to the motions for e(tension of time and asked that >!$C and $. Cadalin.ecords3 filed 'y >!$C 'ut re.ence. the P5E> >dministrator denied the 2#otion to /trike 5ut of the . >!$C and $.!< &hich is a foreign corporation &ith head.P5.

0o) B3 of 19:A. &hich &ere prepared 'y >!$C and $.ule 1B9 of the 1989 .uired notice shall pay to the other party compensation e. in respect of monthly paid &orkers and fifteen days+ notice in respect of other &orkers) *he party terminating a contract &ithout the re.uantum meruit in respect of the proportion of his ser%ice in that year)3 >rt) 17:: > contract of employment made for a period of indefinite duration may 'e terminated 'y either party thereto after gi%ing the other party prior notice 'efore such termination. a lea%ing indemnity for the period of his employment calculated on the 'asis of fifteen days+ &ages for each year of the first three years of ser%ice and of one month+s &ages for each year of ser%ice thereafter) /uch &orker shall 'e entitled to payment of lea%ing indemnity upon a . &hich pro%ides for greater 'enefits than those stipulated in the o%erseas"employment contracts of the claimants) !t &as of the 'elief that &here the la&s of the host country are more fa%ora'le and 'eneficial to the &orkers.C set aside /ection 1.!! themsel%es. then the la&s of the host country shall form part of the o%erseas employment contract) !t appro%ed the o'ser%ation of the P5E> >dministrator that in la'or proceedings.uantum meruit in proportion to the period of his ser%ice completed &ithin a year)3 ISS!E: 1) 450 the foreign la& should go%ern or the contract of the parties)8450 the complainants &ho ha%e &orked in $ahrain are entitled to the a'o%e"mentioned 'enefits pro%ided 'y >miri Decree 0o) B3 of $ahrain<) B) 450 the $ahrain ?a& should apply in the case) 8>ssuming it is applica'le 450 complainants+ claim for the 'enefits pro%ided therein ha%e prescri'ed)< 3) 4hether or not the instant cases . 157I of his normal &age shall 'e paid to him ( ( ()3 >rt) 81= ( ( ( 4hen conditions of &ork re.ules on E%idence go%erning the pleading and proof of a foreign la& and admitted in e%idence a simple copy of the $ahrain+s >miri Decree 0o) B3 of 19:A 8?a'our ?a& for the Pri%ate /ector<) 0?.uire the &orker to &ork on any official holiday.ualify as= a class suit 8siningit ko nalang< 8the rest of the issues in the full te(t of the case refer to ?a'or ?a&< R!LING: 1) 0?.C applied the >miri Deere. pro%ided that the la&s of the host country 'ecame applica'le to said contracts if they offer terms and conditions . . upon termination of employment.ui%alent to 157I of his normal &age)3 >rt) 89: E%ery &orker &ho has completed one year+s continuous ser%ice &ith his employer shall 'e entitled to ?aos on full pay for a period of not less than B1 days for each year increased to a period not less than B8 days after fi%e continuous years of ser%ice)3 > &orker shall 'e entitled to such lea%e upon a .ui%alent to the amount of &ages paya'le to the &orker for the period of such notice or the une(pired portion thereof)3 >rt) !ll: ( ( ( the employer concerned shall pay to such &orker. he shall 'e paid an additional sum e. all dou'ts in the implementation of the pro%isions of the ?a'or Code and its implementing regulations shall 'e resol%ed in fa%or of la'or) *he o%erseas"employment contracts. in &riting.e%ised .>rt) 87: riday shall 'e deemed to 'e a &eekly day of rest on full pay) !f employee &orked.

!!.ui%alent to the compensation3 therein agree.+ another part of the same pro%ision categorically states 2that total remuneration and 'enefits do not fall 'elo& that of the host country regulation and custom)3 >ny am'iguity in the o%erseas"employment contracts should 'e interpreted against >!$C and $. the contract does not 'ecome a foreign contract to 'e go%erned 'y the foreign la&) *he said la& does not operate as a statute 'ut as a set of contractual terms deemed &ritten in the contract) > 'asic policy of contract is to protect the e(pectation of the parties) /uch party e(pectation is protected 'y gi%ing effect to the parties+ o&n choice of the applica'le la&) *he choice of la& must. period and re. the claims &ould ha%e prescri'ed under the Panamanian ?a& 'ut not under the /tatute of ?imitations of 0e& 1ork) *he C)/) Circuit Court of >ppeals held that the Panamanian ?a& &as procedural as it &as . matters of performance.uestions of their capacity to enter into the contract.more fa%ora'le than those stipulated therein) . the parties may -ust agree that specific pro%isions of a foreign statute shall 'e deemed incorporated into their contract 2as a set of terms)3 $y such reference to the pro%isions of the foreign la&. and so forth) !nstead of adopting the entire mass of the foreign la&. depending on the characteri6ation gi%en such a la&) !n $ournias %) >tlantic #aritime Company 8BB7 ) Bd) 15B. -oinder of actions. Procedural matters.o&e%er there &as a part of the employment contract &hich pro%ides that the compensation of the employee may 'e 2ad-usted do&n&ard so that the total computation plus the non"&ai%a'le 'enefits shall 'e e. as pro%ided in >rticle B91 of the ?a'or Code of the Philippines. are go%erned 'y the la&s of the forum) *his is true e%en if the action is 'ased upon a foreign su'stanti%e la&) > la& on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of ?a&s in the sense that it may 'e %ie&ed either as procedural or su'stanti%e. the foreign la& is adopted as a 2system3 to regulate the relations of the parties. including . and not ten years as pro%ided in >rticle 1199 of the Ci%il Code of the Philippines nor one year as pro%ided in the >miri Decree 0o) B3 of 19:A) >rticle 15A of the >miri Decree 0o) B3 of 19:A pro%ides: 2> claim arising out of a contract of employment shall not actiona'le after the lapse of one year from the date of the e(piry of the Contract3) >s a general rule.uisites for appeal. and so forth. Bd Cir) K1955L<. the formalities to 'e o'ser%ed 'y them. ho&e%er.uestion as adopting the pro%isions of the >miri Decree 0o) B3 of 19:A as part and parcel thereof) *he parties to a contract may select the la& 'y &hich it is to 'e go%erned) !n such a case. &here the issue &as the applica'ility of the Panama ?a'or Code in a case filed in the /tate of 0e& 1ork for claims arising from said Code. such as ser%ice of process. a foreign procedural la& &ill not 'e applied in the forum 8local court<.C ruled that the prescripti%e period for the filing of the claims of the complainants &as 3 years. the parties that drafted it) >rticle 13:: of the Ci%il Code of the Philippines pro%ides: J*he interpretation of o'scure &ords or stipulations in a contract shall not fa%or the party &ho caused the o'scurity)3 /aid rule of interpretation is applica'le to contracts of adhesion &here there is already a prepared form containing the stipulations of the employment contract and the employees merely 2take it or lea%e it)3 *he presumption is that there &as an imposition 'y one party against the other and that the employees signed the contracts out of necessity that reduced their 'argaining po&er) 4e read the o%erseas employment contracts in .uestion that the contracts sought to 'e enforced 'y claimants ha%e a direct connection &ith the $ahrain la& 'ecause the ser%ices &ere rendered in that country) B) 0?. 'ear some relationship the parties or their transaction) *here is no .

/ection 98 cannot 'e enforced e( proprio %igore insofar as it ordains the application in this -urisdiction of /ection 15A of the >miri Decree 0o) B3 of 19:A) *he courts of the forum 8local Court< &ill not enforce any foreign claim o'no(ious to the forum+s pu'lic policy) *o enforce the one"year prescripti%e period of the >miri Decree 0o) B3 of 19:A as regards the claims in .uestion &as specifically aimed against the particular rights &hich the li'ellant seeks to enforce) *he Panama ?a'or Code is a statute ha%ing 'road o'-ecti%es)3 *he >merican court applied the statute of limitations of 0e& 1ork.uestion is &hether the prescripti%e period go%erning the filing of the claims is 3 years.not 2specifically intended to 'e su'stanti%e. the action is 'arred. of the su'stanti%e rights to &hich the statute pertains) 4e think that as a yardstick for determining &hether that &as the purpose. this test is the most satisfactory one) *he Court further noted: 2>pplying that test here it appears to us that the li'ellant is entitled to succeed. the 198: Constitution pro%ides: 2/ec) 3) *he /tate shall afford full protection to la'or. outside as &ell as &ithin the foreign country concerned. the 198: Constitution emphasi6ed that:2*he state shall promote social -ustice in all phases of national de%elopment3 8/ec) 17<) J*he state affirms la'or as a primary social economic force) !t shall protect the rights of &orkers and promote their &elfare3 8/ec) 18<) !n >rticle M!!! on /ocial Justice and .ights. as pro%ided 'y the Ci%il Code of the Philippines) >rticle 1199 of the Ci%il Code of the Philippines pro%ides: 2*he follo&ing actions must 'e 'rought &ithin ten years from the time the right of action accross: . the applica'le la& on prescription is the Philippine la&) *he ne(t . organi6ed and unorgani6ed.uman .uestion &ould contra%ene the pu'lic policy on the protection to la'or) !n the Declaration of Principles and /tate Policies.uality of employment opportunities for all)3 *hus.3 one form pro%ides that an action 'arred 'y the la&s of the place &here it accrued &ill not 'e enforced in the forum e%en though the local statute &as not run against it) /ection 98 of Code of Ci%il Procedure is of this kind) !t pro%ides: 2!f 'y the la&s of the state or country &here the cause of action arose. after finding that there &as no sho&ing that the Panamanian la& on prescription &as intended to 'e su'stanti%e) $eing considered merely a procedural la& e%en in Panama. as pro%ided 'y the ?a'or Code or 17 years. local and o%erseas. and promote full employment and e. it is also 'arred in the Philippine !slands)3 /ection 98 has not 'een repealed or amended 'y the Ci%il Code of the Philippines) !n the light of the 198: Constitution.3 hence. and it is not clear on the face of the statute that its purpose &as to limit the enforcea'ility. for the respondents ha%e failed to satisfy us that the Panamanian period of limitation in . ho&e%er. it has to gi%e &ay to the la& of the forum 8local Court< on prescription of actions) . the prescripti%e period pro%ided in the la& of the forum should apply) *he Court o'ser%ed: 2) ) ) &e are dealing &ith a statute of limitations of a foreign country.o&e%er the characteri6ation of a statute into a procedural or su'stanti%e la& 'ecomes irrele%ant &hen the country of the forum 8local Court< has a 2'orro&ing statute)3 /aid statute has the practical effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of su'stance) > 2'orro&ing statute3 directs the state of the forum 8local Court< to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending claims 'ased on a foreign la&) 4hile there are se%eral kinds of 2'orro&ing statutes. instead of the Panamanian la&.

one-half of said residue to be payable to Mrs. presidin$. Sotelo for e#ecutor and heir$appellees. %eopoldo !. !. A&ellera and Jovito Salonga for oppositor$appellant. !orton. 3usi. 5ECEASE5. ?on. 1901 and contains the followin$ provisions5 .81< Cpon a &ritten contract= 8B< Cpon an o'ligation created 'y la&= 83< Cpon a -udgment3 !n this case. E=)c-'or a%" L>C? C1RIS!ENSEN. and declarin$ Maria *ucy 3hristensen entitled to the residue of the property to be en6oyed durin$ her lifeti#e. etc. directin$ the e(ecutor to rei#burse Maria *ucy 3hristensen the a#ount of )3. the claim for pay differentials is primarily anchored on the &ritten contracts 'et&een the litigants. The will was e(ecuted in Manila on March 0.. A<NAR. the ten"year prescripti%e period pro%ided 'y >rt) 11998l< of the 0e& Ci%il Code should go%ern) 3) 05) > class suit is proper &here the su'-ect matter of the contro%ersy is one of common or general interest to many and the parties are so numerous that it is impractica'le to 'ring them all 'efore the court) 4hen all the claims are for 'enefits granted under the $ahrain la& many of the claimants &orked outside $ahrain) /ome of the claimants &ere deployed in !ndonesia under different terms and condition of employment) !nasmuch as the irst re. 'ut &ere deployed else&here) *hus. in Apecial )roceedin$ .'00 paid by her to ?elen 3hristensen 8arcia as her le$acy. oppositor-appellant.E.R. LABRA5OR. &r.of said court. (ecutor and ?eir-appellees..!!< and the nature of the claims is the same 8for employee+s 'enefits<. all the three petitioners are D!/#!//ED) G. vs. 1)$r o( 'h) ")c)a&)". ". each claimant is interested only in his o&n demand and not in the claims of the other employees of defendants) > claimant has no concern in protecting the interests of the other claimants as sho&n 'y the fact. A5OLFO C.9. 31.: This is an appeal fro# a decision of the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of Davao.o. 3arrie *ouise 3. in accordance with the provisions of the will of the testator dward . and in case of death without issue. there is no common . 1ELEN C1RIS!ENSEN GARCIA. C1RIS!ENSEN. L-16899 :a%-ar. 19..uirement of a class suit is not present 8common or general interest 'ased on the >miri Decree of the /tate of $ahrain<.uestion of la& or fact) 4hile some claims are 'ased on the >miri ?a& of $ahrain. 3hristensen. it is only logical that only those &ho &orked in $ahrain shall 'e entitled to rile their claims in a class suit) 4hile there are common defendants 8>!$C and $.E 5.E. approvin$ a#on$ thin$s the final accounts of the e(ecutor.. No. many of the claimants ne%er &orked in that country. dated Aepte#ber 1. '-. that hundreds of them ha%e a'andoned their co"claimants and ha%e entered into separate compromise settlements of their respecti%e claims) *he claimants &ho &orked in $ahrain can not 'e allo&ed to sue in a class suit in a -udicial proceeding) 4. :icente . J. 1963 IN !1E MA!!ER OF !1E !ES!A!E ES!A!E OF E5.AR5 E.

and no descendants e(cept #y above na#ed dau$hter. personal andNor #i(ed. ''0 @od$er Goun$ :illa$e. that / have but E. -d 90-.A ... <now Mrs. the successional ri$hts and intrinsic validity of the provisions in his will are to be $overned by the law of 3alifornia..D A/M ?. unto #y well-beloved dau$hter.3G 3?@/AT .ational !an+. )hilippine 3urrency per #onth until the principal thereof as well as any interest which #ay have accrued thereon. / further declare that / now have no livin$ ascendants. .. G <Mrs.o. 3alifornia. 2ppl.. fro# all infor#ation / have now resides in $pit. -d 811. she havin$ been declared by . / $ive..A. that the foru# is the )hilippines and even if the case were decided in 3alifornia. The court below ruled that as dward .nited Atates and of the Atate of 3alifornia at the ti#e of his death. G.A . insofar as it deprives her <?elen= of her le$iti#e as an ac+nowled$ed natural child.@.2. durin$ her lifeti#e5 . nor has she been at any ti#e adopted by #e. of which / #ay be possessed at #y death and which #ay have co#e to #e fro# any source whatsoever. notwithstandin$ the fact that she was bapti>ed 3hristensen. she is dee#ed for all purposes le$iti#ate fro# the ti#e of her birth.3G 3?@/AT . who was born in the )hilippines about twenty-ei$ht years a$o. ''0 @od$er Goun$ :illa$e.. now #arried to duardo 8arcia. M2@/2 *. D2.9 )ac. Di$os. 11' ). 19-. . 111 3al. Davao. . *os 2n$eles. and wheresoever situated. cited in pa$e 119. and residue of #y property and estate. in accordance with which a testator has the ri$ht to dispose of his property in the way he desires. @ecord on 2ppeal=.'00.. na#ed M2@/2 *.o. but the entire law thereof because several forei$n ele#ents are involved. Eppositor . 3hristensen. and /n re Iauf#an. The le$al $rounds of opposition are <a= that the distribution should be $overned by the laws of the )hilippines. one-half of the estate in full ownership. / declare . devise and be%ueath unto M2@/2 ? * . D2..' of the 3alifornia 3ivil 3ode. 3alifornia. should be applicable. now residin$ as aforesaid at . ((( ((( ((( 1-. / hereby $ive. Maria *ucy 3hristensen.2.D@ D ) AEA <)3. one of two ac+nowled$ed natural children.00=. )hilippine 3urrency the sa#e to be deposited in trust for the said Maria ?elen 3hristensen with the Davao !ranch of the )hilippine . of whatsoever +ind or character. !ernard Daney=. . !ernard Daney=. devise and be%ueath.'00 to ?elen 3hristensen 8arcia and proposed that the residue of the estate be transferred to his dau$hter.s in 8. and <b= that said order of distribution is contrary thereto insofar as it denies to ?elen 3hristensen.00=. re#ainder. because the ri$ht of absolute do#inion over his property is sacred and inviolable </n re McDaniel9s state. which re%uires that the do#icile of the decedent should apply. Epposition to the approval of the pro6ect of partition was filed by ?elen 3hristensen 8arcia. 3hristensen was a citi>en of the . /n a#plification of the above $rounds it was alle$ed that the law that should $overn the estate of the deceased 3hristensen should not be the internal law of 3alifornia alone. real.A . all the inco#e fro# the rest. *-11. <1= child. )hilippines. 11 3al. -8'. and who.. the said M2@/2 *. /t was also alle$ed that Maria ?elen 3hristensen havin$ been declared an ac+nowled$ed natural child of the decedent.A .A2.3.. is e(hausted. an ac+nowled$ed natural child of the deceased dward . *os 2n$eles. is not in any way related to #e. /t is in accordance with the above-%uoted provisions that the e(ecutor in his final account and pro6ect of partition ratified the pay#ent of only )3. and who is now residin$ at .3G 3?@/AT .A. Aection 9. ((( ((( ((( 1. 3?@/AT ..os. the su# of T?@ T?E. . about ei$hteen years of a$e and who.83-8. and paid to her at the rate of Ene ?undred )esos <)100.

A. on board the . as an appointed school teacher. E" T? AT2T E" T? D 3 2A D D72@D . .G.T2@G D/A)EA/T/E.E@2!* A.A ..8 T? D 3/A/E.nited Atates and stayed there for the followin$ nine years until 1913.T/T* D TE E.Maria ?elen 3hristensen.** E7... 3hristensen was a citi>en of the . 3E.@T @@ D /.nited Atates and of the Atate of 3alifornia at the ti#e of his death. .A .AT A?2@ /.T/E. "2/*/. ?ence.8 ? @ E" ? @ &.A.. /// T? *E7 @ 3E.T/E.*2@*G .3 .A . 2r#y Transport "Aheridan" with )ort of #bar+ation as the 3ity of Aan "rancisco. 82@3/2 /A .ET D 3*2@/.2* *27.@2* 3?/*D E" D72@D . but these were denied.? @/T2. The #ost i#portant assi$n#ents of error are as follows5 / T? *E7 @ 3E. T? /.8 TE @ 3E8. E" /.. . the facts of record show that the deceased dward .!M/TT D !G T? M 3. filed various #otions for reconsideration. 2../O T? M/AT ./O T?2T . There is no %uestion that dward . : T? *E7 @ 3E.E@/. 190.A.8 T?2T T? A3? D.ove#ber -9. -?2*" <1N-= E" T? AT2T /.ET D 3*2@/. A. 3?@/AT . durin$ which ti#e he resided in.3 E" A : @2* "23TE@A. .D 3/@3.@T @@ D /.2.D @ /.3 A 32**/. 3hristensen returned to the . /: T? *E7 @ 3E. . D !G T? *27A E" T? )?/*/))/.ew Gor+ 3ity.TA 2.DNE@ "2/*/.2* *27.8 2.T/@ *G /8. .T*G.@T @@ D /. E" T? D/AT@/!.E7* D8 D .8 T?2T ..D @ T? )?/*/))/.)@ M 3E. . 1810 in .@T @@ D /.E@/.*D ! 8E: @. D )@/:/.@T @@ D /..2T. * M . !ut there is also no %uestion that at the ti#e of his death he was do#iciled in the )hilippines.8 "E@ T? 2))*/32T/E. /A T? 23I. /8.8 TE @ 3E8. ".A/3 :2*/D/TG E" T? T AT2M . .4 his first arrival in the )hilippines.2. and was teachin$ school in Aacra#ento.T @. *27A ? * . A?E.T@2@G TE T? )?/*/))/.D @ T? @ . *27A.@T T?2T ? * .* E" D/AT@/!.A.. this appeal.MAT2.:E/ DE3T@/. 3?@/AT .. throu$h counsel. E" T? ?E.A F.2T/E. /n Dece#ber. /. 3?@/AT . @A?/). 1901.T @. was on &uly 1. in the Atate of 3alifornia. )2@T/3. 3alifornia. T? /.T@/. as witness the followin$ facts ad#itted by the e(ecutor hi#self in appellee9s brief5 /n the proceedin$s for ad#ission of the will to probate. . Mr. 3hristensen was born on . ?e stayed in the )hilippines until 190.D.TE@ /A 3E. // T? *E7 @ 3E.

Aec. dward . and since he ca#e to the )hilippines in 1913 he returned to 3alifornia very rarely and only for short visits <perhaps to relatives=. 3alifornia fro# 190. .nited Atates but returned to the )hilippines in Dece#ber. 7herefore. however. he a$ain returned to his own country.nited Atates <not a state= until 19. p. while do#icile re%uires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to #a+e it one9s do#icile. as (hibits "22". 3hristensen returned once #ore to 3alifornia shortly after the #a+in$ of his last will and testa#ent <now in %uestion herein= which he e(ecuted at his lawyers9 offices in Manila on March 0. while livin$ in it. he #i$ht properly be said to have sufficient connection with the place to be called a resident. +t !ein$ an 2#erican citi>en. 1903.. was never lost by his stay in the )hilippines. 2ppellees 3ollective (hibits "'". he left for the .' and the deceased appears to have considered hi#self as a citi>en of 3alifornia by the fact that when he e(ecuted his will in 1901 he declared that he was a citi>en of that Atate4 so that he appears never to have intended to abandon his 3alifornia citi>enship by ac%uirin$ another. Thus one #ay be do#iciled in a place where he has never been. is a ter# used with #any shades of #eanin$. '()ph*'. between which he divides his ti#e. 3"/ Davao. 1'. )roc. 1903. in 19-8. we are persuaded by the fact that he was born in . 19-9. @esidence is a ter# used with #any shades of #eanin$ fro# #ere te#porary presence to the #ost per#anent abode. The ter#s "9residence" and "do#icile" #i$ht well be ta+en to #ean the sa#e thin$.nited Atates and ca#e bac+ here the followin$ year. 8enerally. the parties respectfully pray that the fore$oin$ stipulation of facts be ad#itted and approved by this ?onorable 3ourt. a place of per#anent abode." @esidence. Ao#e nine years later. for the latter was a territory of the . <pp.Mr. 3hristensen9s ne(t arrival in the )hilippines was in &uly of the year 1913. "MM". and ca#e bac+ to the )hilippines the followin$ year. not $ivin$ up his for#er "ho#e. to 1913. 7e find that the citi>enship that he ac%uired in 3alifornia when he resided in Aacra#ento. /t is clear. however. This conclusion is in accordance with the followin$ principle e(pounded by 8oodrich in his 3onflict of *aws.ew Gor+er. has ac%uired a technical #eanin$. he a$ain departed the )hilippines for the . certainly resides in each one. that. fro# the #erest te#porary presence to the #ost . . without pre6udice to the parties adducin$ other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. Mr. &uly -1. #i$rated to 3alifornia and resided there for nine years. in 1938. "MM-l".0. if he treated his settle#ent as continuin$ only for the particular business in hand. "!!" and "33-Daney"4 (hs.n. -9= 2s to his citi>enship.pon liberation. !ut do#icile. *u+e9s ?ospital in the 3ity of Manila on 2pril 30. however.ew Gor+.13. 2nd he #ay reside in a place where he has no do#icile. !ut if he went on business which would re%uire his presence for several wee+s or #onths. in 2pril 19. 19. The #an with two ho#es. t. Ap. "MM---Daney" and p. ?e died at the At.s. "@esidence si#ply re%uires bodily presence of an inhabitant in a $iven place. 3hristensen was interned by the &apanese Military "orces in the )hilippines durin$ 7orld 7ar //. '--. which would indicate that he would ulti#ately abandon the )hilippines and #a+e ho#e in the Atate of 3alifornia. it is used to denote so#ethin$ #ore than #ere physical presence.0. <8oodrich on 3onflict of *aws. --3= /n arrivin$ at the conclusion that the do#icile of the deceased is the )hilippines." he could not be a do#iciled . 2c%uisition of a do#icile of choice re%uires the e(ercise of intention as well as physical presence. 1901.= /n 2pril. and considerin$ that he appears never to have owned or ac%uired a ho#e or properties in that state. 1939. however. 1901. as has been shown. ?owever.

-d 90-. should $overn the deter#ination of the validity of the testa#entary provisions of 3hristensen9s will. The theory of doctrine of renvoi has been defined by various authors. in the place where personal property is situated. each state of the . a testator #ay dispose of his property by will in the for# and #anner he desires. whatever #ay be the nature of the property and re$ardless of the country where said property #ay be found.per#anent abode. the %uestion of the validity of the testa#entary provision in %uestion should be referred bac+ to the law of the decedent9s do#icile. the internal law thereof. <Enly the case of Iauf#an is correctly cited.' of the 3ivil 3ode of 3alifornia. therefore. thus5 The proble# has been stated in this way5 "7hen the 3onflict of *aws rule of the foru# refers a 6ural #atter to a forei$n law for decision. 11' ).national la). 1'. which is as follows5 /f there is no law to the contrary. 2ppellant. insists that 2rticle 9. The application of this article in the case at bar re%uires the deter#ination of the #eanin$ of the ter# .nion havin$ its own private law applicable to its citi>ens only and in force only within the state. 2ppellee.e.nited Atates.= /t is ar$ued on e(ecutor9s behalf that as the deceased 3hristensen was a citi>en of the Atate of 3alifornia. Ao it can refer to no other than the private law of the Atate of 3alifornia.' should be applicable. The e(istence of this provision is alle$ed in appellant9s opposition and is not denied. is used therein. which is the )hilippines. p. which is that $iven in the abovecited case. and is $overned by the law of his do#icile. and in accordance therewith and followin$ the doctrine of therenvoi. 11 3al. The "national law" indicated in 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode above %uoted can not. shall be re$ulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. on the other hand.. it is dee#ed to follow the person of its owner. @eal property as well as personal property is sub6ect to the law of the country where it is situated. and it is not safe to insist that any one use et the only proper one. ?owever. such law bein$ in force in the Atate of 3alifornia of which 3hristensen was a citi>en. to the totality of the forei$n law #inus its 3onflict of *aws rulesL" . -d 811. which is as follows5 2@T. !ut appellant invo+es the provisions of 2rticle 9. There is no sin$le 2#erican law $overnin$ the validity of testa#entary provisions in the . intestate and testa#entary successions. citin$ the case of state of McDaniel. is the reference to the purely internal rules of law of the forei$n syste#4 i. 2ppl. possibly #ean or apply to any $eneral 2#erican law. 7e have chec+ed it in the 3alifornia 3ivil 3ode and it is there. both with respect to the order of succession and to the a#ount of successional ri$hts and to the intrinsic validity of testa#entary provisions. -9= The law that $overns the validity of his testa#entary dispositions is defined in 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines. on the other hand. sustains the contention of the e(ecutor-appellee that under the 3alifornia )robate 3ode. The ne(t %uestion is5 7hat is the law in 3alifornia $overnin$ the disposition of personal propertyL The decision of the court below. relies on the case cited in the decision and testified to by a witness. <8oodrich.

both the advocates for and the ob6ectors to the renvoi plead that $reater unifor#ity will result fro# adoption of their respective views. that is. will be reco$ni>ed by every court4 and every divorce. thou$h the courts would switch with respect to which would hold liability. There the rule of the conflict of laws as to intestate succession to #ovables calls for an application of the law of the deceased9s last do#icile. or the do#icile of the parties in the divorce case. !ut once havin$ deter#ined the the 3onflict of *aws principle is the rule loo+ed to. and where the validity of a decree of divorce is challen$ed. 3onflict of *aws. it will follow the latter course. dies intestate.= M. The %uestion arises as to how this property is to be distributed a#on$ M9s ne(t of +in. is applied by the foru#. a citi>en of Massachusetts. The opponents of the renvoi would have loo+ed #erely to the internal law of /llinois. pp. 2n e(a#ination of "rench law. 6ud$#ent would be for the wo#an. This would have resulted in the "endless chain of references" which has so often been critici>ed be le$al writers. and "rance. 13-1. a person9s title to land. will be valid everywhere. <8oodrich. applied the 3onflict of *aws rule of /llinois which referred the #atter bac+ to Michi$an law. leavin$ #ovable property in Massachusetts. The @estate#ent accepts the renvoi theory in two instances5 where the title to land is in %uestion.. do#iciled in "rance. /n these cases the 3onflict of *aws rule of the situs of the land. /t is true that such a solution avoids $oin$ on a #erry-$o-round. but those who have accepted the renvoi theory avoid this ine#trica&ilis circulas by $ettin$ off at the second reference and at that point applyin$ internal law. 6ud$#ent would have been a$ainst the wo#an4 if the suit had been brou$ht in the /llinois courts. 1. or both accept the doctrine. . would show that if a "rench court were called upon to deter#ine how this property should be distributed. thus re6ectin$ the renvoi or the reference bac+. Ao on the surface of thin$s the Massachusetts court has open to it alternative course of action5 <a= either to apply the "rench law is to intestate succession. had the Michi$an court re6ected the renvoi. reco$ni>ed by the situs. 2nd still #ore stran$e is the fact that the only way to achieve unifor#ity in this choice-of-law proble# is if in the dispute the two states whose laws for# the le$al basis of the liti$ation disa$ree as to whether the renvoi should be accepted. Aec. Get there see#s no co#pellin$ lo$ical reason why the ori$inal reference should be the internal law rather than to the 3onflict of *aws rule. on the assu#ption that this is what a "rench court would do.En lo$ic. the result of the liti$ation will vary with the choice of the foru#. and they too re6ected the renvoi. the natural thin$ for the Massachusetts court to do would be to turn to "rench statute of distributions. Aince by hypothesis M9s last do#icile was "rance. however. but any further reference $oes only to the internal law. The sa#e result would happen. Thus. The Michi$an court chose to accept the renvoi. thus applyin$ its own law. /n the case stated above. )erhaps the opponents of the renvoi are a bit #ore consistent for they loo+ always to internal law as the rule of reference. valid by the do#icile of the parties. it is difficult to see why the reference bac+ should not have been to Michi$an 3onflict of *aws. thus applyin$ the Massachusetts statute of distributions. 2ssu#e <1= that this %uestion arises in a Massachusetts court. or whatever corresponds thereto in "rench law. it would refer the distribution to the national law of the deceased. /f it accepts the so-called renvoidoctrine. or <b= to resolve itself into a "rench court and apply the Massachusetts statute of distributions. the solution is not an easy one. if both courts accepted the renvoi. Atran$ely enou$h. /f both re6ect. n$land. and decree a distribution accordin$ly.

<1' 3. 2ccordin$ to this theory 9the law of a country9 #eans the whole of its law. ((( ((( ((( . *oren>en in an article in the Gale *aw &ournal. <. since an affir#ative answer to the %uestion postulated and the operation of the adoption of the forei$n law in toto would in #any cases result in returnin$ the #ain controversy to be decided accordin$ to the law of the foru#. 2 6ural #atter is presented which the conflict-of-laws rule of the foru# refers to a forei$n law. provided it be certain that one of the# is necessarily co#petent. and desires that said personal statute shall be deter#ined by the law of the do#icile. has been advanced. The pertinent parts of the article are %uoted herein below5 The reco$nition of the renvoi theory i#plies that the rules of the conflict of laws are to be understood as incorporatin$ not only the ordinary or internal law of the forei$n state or country. #ust ta+e into account the whole law of the other 6urisdiction. ((( ((( ((( :on !ar presented his views at the #eetin$ of the /nstitute of /nternational *aw. in turn.A.2#.&. in the for# of the followin$ theses5 <1= very court shall observe the law of its country as re$ards the application of forei$n laws.. :ol. The theory of the doctrine of renvoiis that the court of the foru#. and then apply the law to the actual %uestion which the rules of the other 6urisdiction prescribe. in deter#inin$ the %uestion before it.= 2fter a decision has been arrived at that a forei$n law is to be resorted to as $overnin$ a particular case. or even by the law of the place where the act in %uestion occurred.This is one type of renvoi. -1. 0-3-011. the conflict-of-laws rule of which. or the "7eiterverweisun$". <-= )rovided that no e(press provision to the contrary e(ists. the court shall respect5 <a= The provisions of a forei$n law which disclai#s the ri$ht to bind its nationals abroad as re$ards their personal statute. the further %uestion #ay arise5 2re the rules as to the conflict of laws contained in such forei$n law also to be resorted toL This is a %uestion which. in 1900. refers the #atter bac+ a$ain to the law of the foru#. at .9" <?arvard *aw @eview. :ol. 31. which a$ree in attributin$ the deter#ination of a %uestion to the sa#e syste# of law. while it has been considered by the courts in but a few instances. This #ay be the law of the foru#. . 0-9-031. The doctrine of the renvoi has $enerally been repudiated by the 2#erican authorities. 1911-1918. 81-. This is renvoi in the narrower sense. -9'= The scope of the theory of renvoi has also been defined and the reasons for its application in a country e(plained by )rof. +nown as the "doctrine of renvoi". but also its rules as to conflict of laws.euchatel. but its rules of the conflict of laws as well. pp. <b= The decision of two or #ore forei$n syste#s of law. &ur. pp. or the "@uchversweisun$".= 2nother theory. The 8er#an ter# for this 6udicial process is 9@uc+verweisun$. has been the sub6ect of fre%uent discussion by te(twriters and essayists4 and the doctrine involved has been descriptively desi$nated by the# as the "@envoyer" to send bac+..

. to the law of his do#icile. /f we #ust enforce the law of 3alifornia as in co#ity we are bound to $o. The court of the do#icile .ew Gor+ court has said on the point5 9The $eneral principle that a dispostiton of a personal property.'.' of the 3alifornia 3ivil 3ode is its conflict of laws rule. /t is ar$ued on appellees9 behalf that the clause "if there is no law to the contrary in the place where the property is situated" in Aec. and if he finds that the !el$ian law would #a+e the distribution in accordance with the law of nationality J that is the n$lish law J he #ust accept this reference bac+ to his own law. 3onflict of *aws.--.'./f. then we #ust enforce the law of 3alifornia in accordance with the e(press #andate thereof and as above e(plained. the principle cited /n re Iauf#an should apply to citi>ens livin$ in the Atate. 7hen a #an dies leavin$ personal property in one or #ore states. 2s e(plained in the various authorities cited above the national law #entioned in 2rticle 1' of our 3ivil 3ode is the law on conflict of laws in the 3alifornia 3ivil 3ode. and leaves a will directin$ the #anner of distribution of the property. 2rticle 9. Aec. the practical wisdo# and 6ustice of the rule is #ore apparent than ever. 1'. i. i. since the do#iciliary rules control devolution of the personal estate in case of intestate succession. while the rule applied in /n re Iauf#an.. the law of the state where he was do#iciled at the ti#e of his death will be loo+ed to in decidin$ le$al %uestions about the will. he #ust first in%uire whether the law of !el$iu# would distribute personal property upon death in accordance with the law of do#icile. /t is lo$ical that. .. <8oodrich. it is not that the do#iciliary has effect beyond the borders of the do#iciliary state. and its conflict-oflaws rule for those do#iciled abroad. when business intercourse and the process of accu#ulatin$ property ta+e but little notice of boundary lines. one for residents therein and another for those do#iciled in other 6urisdictions.' should apply to such of its citi>ens as are not do#iciled in 3alifornia but in other 6urisdictions. 7e note that 2rticle 9. the sa#e rules should deter#ine the validity of an atte#pted testa#entary dispostion of the property. as so declared in 2rticle 1' of our 3ivil 3ode.= 2ppellees ar$ue that what 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines pointed out as the national la) is the internal law of 3alifornia. ?ere. apply the internal law for residents therein. also. for e(a#ple.e. and it this a$e. valid at the do#icile of the owner. !ut as above e(plained the laws of 3alifornia have prescribed two sets of laws for its citi>ens. the n$lish law directs its 6ud$e to distribute the personal estate of an n$lish#an who has died do#iciled in !el$iu# in accordance with the law of his do#icile. 3ivil 3ode. pp. precisely refers bac+ the case. /f the law on succession and the conflict of laws rules of 3alifornia are to be enforced 6ointly. is valid anywhere. and enforce the conflict of laws rules for the citi>ens do#iciled abroad. is the $eneral convenience of the doctrine. each in its own intended and appropriate sphere.e. when a decedent is not do#iciled in 3alifornia. The conflict of laws rule in 3alifornia. which authori>es the reference or return of the %uestion to the law of the testator9s do#icile.3.' of the 3alifornia 3ivil 3ode refers to 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines and that the law to the contrary in the )hilippines is the provision in said 2rticle 1' that the national la) of the deceased should $overn. The . The rules of the do#icile are reco$ni>ed as controllin$ by the 3onflict of *aws rules at the situs property. the )hilippines in the case at bar. but 2rticle 9. This contention can not be sustained. 2rticle 9. /t had its ori$in in that international co#ity which was one of the first fruits of civili>ation.. and the reason for the reco$nition as in the case of intestate succession. @eason de#ands that 7e should enforce the 3alifornia internal law prescribed for its citi>ens residin$ therein. is one of the universal application. The rule laid down of resortin$ to the law of the do#icile in the deter#ination of #atters with forei$n ele#ent involved is in accord with the $eneral principle of 2#erican law that the do#iciliary law should $overn in #ost #atters or ri$hts which follow the person of the owner. 9. Supra. al#ost as co#pletely as the law of situs is consulted in %uestions about the devise of land. its internal law..

No.ES!ERN INS!I!>!E OF !EC1NOLOG?. Proc. 1682 o( 'h) Co-r' o( F$r&' I%&'a%c) o( I+o$+o3. ESPERI5ION PAR!ISALA. )al#aroli. with costs a$ainst appellees. San Juan. No.' of the 3alifornia 3ivil 3ode. 1304 and 8ibbs vs. MAGNO.ales and San Agustin for /hilippine Commercial and 0ndustrial 1ank.0 )hil. P>RIFICACION CORONA5O. i. a%" A ELINA A. 39 )hil. 13083. !ES!A!E ES!A!E OF !1E LA!E C1ARLES NE. A5ELFA PREMA?LON. petitioner. :OSE PABLICO. SAL A5OR G><MAN. &ud$#ent reversed. No. 2rts. 7? @ "E@ . a law si#ilar to or identical with 2rt. 9. PEPI!O I?>LORES. . L-28936 A L-28938 March 29. 7e therefore find that as the do#icile of the deceased 3hristensen. G. 1004 Miciano vs. if the %uestion has to be decided. No&. -on. 16823. INC. not by the internal law of 3alifornia. 'h) +a&' a& A"#$%$&'ra'r$= $% S0. respondents. Africa. ARI!EO !1OMAS :AMIR. !1E 1ONORABLE ENICIO ESCOLIN. 09 )hil. 881<. -93..e. 9. a citi>en of 3alifornia. LOREN<O CARLES. ALFRE5O CA!E5RAL. SAN!IAGO PACAONSIS. between the country of which the decedent was a citi>en and the country of his do#icile. 0.' of the 3ivil 3ode of 3alifornia.R. vs. Pr)&$"$%* :-"*) o( 'h) Co-r' o( F$r&' I%&'a%c) o( I+o$+o.!ON 1O5GES 2S0.can not and should not refer the case bac+ to 3alifornia4 such action would leave the issue incapable of deter#ination because the case will then be li+e a football. 3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines. 1989 !ES!A!E ES!A!E OF !1E LA!E LINNIE :ANE 1O5GES 2S0. No. !ri#o.. 10'4 @iera vs. Proc. Proc. A"#$%$&'ra'or o( 'h) !)&'a') E&'a') o( Char+)& N)6'o% 1o"*)& 2S0. a00)++))&. Bra%ch II. The )hilippine cases </n re state of &ohnson. 1308. 00 )hil. for two i#portant reasons. MELB>IA5ES BA!ISANAN. . 1989 P1ILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AN5 IN5>S!RIAL BAN@. BELCESAR CA>SING.INIFRE5O ESPA5A. Proc. especially as the application of the internal law of 3alifornia provides no le$iti#e for children while the )hilippine law. a%" A ELINA A. the do#icile. BAN@.= cited by appellees to support the decision can not possibly apply in the case at bar. the validity of the provisions of his will deprivin$ his ac+nowled$ed natural child. MAGNO. GRACIANO L>CERO. L-28860 a%" L-28896 March 29. . the decision appealed fro# is hereby reversed and the case returned to the lower court with instructions that the partition be #ade as the )hilippine law on succession provides. is the )hilippines. . pursuant to 2rt. #ovant-appellee.)hil. #a+es natural children le$ally ac+nowled$ed forced heirs of the parent reco$ni>in$ the#. 8overn#ent.. the appellant.. should be $overned by the )hilippine *aw. ad#inistrator-appellant. G. ROSARIO ALINGASA.nited Atates but with do#icile in the )hilippines.R. @ider !abcoc+. the sub6ect in each case does not appear to be a citi>en of a state in the . P1ILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AN5 IN5>S!RIAL vs.= and 89. No&. 8'14 !abcoc+ Te#pleton vs. and it does not appear in each case that there e(ists in the state of which the sub6ect is a citi>en. The )hilippine court #ust apply its own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent. FLORENIA BARRI5O. tossed bac+ and forth between the two states.

Antonio %a) 2ffice and "i. 19'' denyin$ petitionerKs #otion of 2pril --. Ma$no to perfor# or do any acts of ad#inistration. by entertainin$ #anifestations. and all such deeds or leases shall pass the absolute fee si#ple title to the interest so conveyed in such property as he #ay elect to sell. any property which he #ay dee# proper to dispose of4 to lease any of the real property for oil. 19'' and its order of &uly 18. .!anglapus %a) 2ffice. et al. direct and provide that #y husband. control. to #y beloved husband. and fro# e(ercisin$ any authority or power as @e$ular 2d#inistratri( of above-na#ed Testate state. 19'1 upon a bond of )0. or located. #otion and pleadin$s filed by her and actin$ on the#. devise and be%ueath all of the rest. durin$ his natural lifeti#e.ewton ?od$es <Ap. both personal and real. but he shall have the full ri$ht .ove#ber --. )roc. e#olu#ents and inco#e fro# said estate shall belon$ to hi#. Te(as. A 3E. 1'1. toleratin$. J. residue and re#ainder of #y estate.of the sa#e court and branch=4 with prayer for preli#inary in6unction. and the purchase of any other or additional property as he #ay thin+ best4 to e(ecute conveyances with or without $eneral or special warranty.. $as andNor other #inerals. BARRE5O. 3uimpo for private respondents and appellees Avelina A.o. /t is provided herein. T?/@D5 / desire. which was issued by this 3ourt on 2u$ust 8. and he is hereby $iven the ri$ht to #a+e any chan$es in the physical properties of said estate. and he is further authori>ed to use any part of the principal of said estate as he #ay need or desire. 19'1 denyin$ the #otion for reconsideration of said order. 1901 as null and void for havin$ been issued without 6urisdictionQ4 prohibition to en6oin the respondent court fro# allowin$.0004 the petition bein$ particularly directed a$ainst the orders of the respondent court of Ectober 1-. use and en6oy said estate durin$ his lifeti#e.. by sale or any part thereof which he #ay thin+ best. or abettin$ private respondent 2velina 2. @elated to and involvin$ basically the sa#e #ain issue as the fore$oin$ petition. conveyin$ in fee si#ple or for any other ter# or ti#e. 1301 of the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of /loilo= subse%uent to the order of Dece#ber 1. *innie &ane ?od$es died in /loilo 3ity leavin$ a will e(ecuted on . 3harles . however. . to have and to hold unto hi#. 190pertinently providin$ as follows5 "/@AT5 / direct that all #y 6ust debts and funeral e(penses be first paid out of #y estate. thirty-three <33= appeals fro# different orders of the sa#e respondent court approvin$ or otherwise sanctionin$ the acts of ad#inistration of the respondent Ma$no on behalf of the testate state of Mrs. TH4 5ACTS En May -3. sanctionin$.ewton ?od$es. in or near the 3ity of *ubboc+. )roc.D5 / $ive.ewton ?od$es.:p Certiorari and prohibition with preli#inary in6unction4 certiorari to Pdeclare all acts of the respondent court in the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es <Ap. 1901. shall have the ri$ht to #ana$e. ?od$es. 2ll rents. and also to en6oin said court fro# allowin$ said private respondent to interfere. etc. #y said husband. !agno.o. such as those enu#erated in the petition.al ". wherever situated. 3harles . that he shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any of the i#proved property now owned by us located at. #eddle or ta+e part in any #anner in the ad#inistration of the Testate state of 3harles .

i#roy . both real and personal. 1901. wherever situated or located. share and share ali+e. )reviously. in which capacity he filed a #otion on the sa#e date as follows5 6"-47T 48$/A"T4 !2T027 T2 A%%2W 2" A6TH2"094 /4T0T0274" T2 C27T0764 TH4 16S074SS 07 WH0CH H4 WAS 47-A-4D A7D T2 /4"52"! ACTS WH0CH H4 HAD 1447 D207WH0%4 D4C4AS4D WAS %0:073o#e petitioner in the above-entitled special proceedin$s. )etition. to #y beloved husband.ewton ?od$es bein$ appointed as (ecutor. A/MT?5 / no#inate and appoint #y said husband. #y last will and testa#ent. residue and re#ainder of #y estate. the followin$5 P/ $ive. A : . above.@T?5 2t the death of #y said husband.ewton ?od$es. <)p.. a copy of which is attached to the petition for probate of the sa#e. #y said husband. ?e shall have the ri$ht to subdivide any far# land and sell lots therein. prior to the death of #y husband. residue and re#ainder of #y estate. pursuant to the provisions thereof. J That *innie &ane ?od$es died leavin$ her last will and testa#ent.ewton ?od$es. then it is #y will and be%uest that the heirs of such deceased brother or sister shall ta+e 6ointly the share which would have $one to such brother or sister had she or he survived.o. durin$ his natural lifeti#e.ewton ?od$es. and #ay sell uni#proved town lots. J That in said last will and testa#ent herein petitioner 3harles . the said widower <hereafter to be referred to as ?od$es= had been appointed Apecial 2d#inistrator. devise and be%ueath all of the rest. 3harles . devise and be%ueath all of the rest. 3harles . thru his undersi$ned attorneys.T?5 /t is #y will and be%uest that no action be had in the probate court. on May -1. *eonard ?i$don. other than that necessary to prove and record this will and to return an inventory and appraise#ent of #y estate and list of clai#s. na#ely5 sta ?i$don. "E. -. and direct that no bond or other security be re%uired of hi# as such e(ecutor. 3ourt. 3harles . 1901.to lease. to be e%ually divided a#on$ #y brothers and sisters. #ost respectfully states5 1. --.ewton ?od$es is directed to have the ri$ht to #ana$e. with the widower 3harles . 1301 of respondent court on &une -8. in the ad#inistration of #y estate. ?i$don.Q ##a ?owell. ra @o#an and . to be e(ecutor of this. @oy ?i$don. #ana$e and en6oy the sa#e durin$ his lifeti#e. above provided. Aaddie @ascoe. / $ive.ewton ?od$es. 3harles . in the sa#e way. to the ?on. to have and <to= hold unto hi#. "/"T?5 /n case of the death of any of #y brothers andNor sisters na#ed in ite# "ourth. a provision was placed in para$raph two. control use and en6oy the estate of deceased *innie &ane ?od$es.= This will was subse%uently probated in afore#entioned Apecial )roceedin$s .

= ... devise and be%ueath all of the rest. the e(ecutor as the survivin$ spouse and le$atee na#ed in the will of the deceased4 has the ri$ht to dispose of all the properties left by the deceased. . J That accordin$ to the last will and testa#ent of the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es.TE@ ?2D M2D 2** A2* A. TE 2))@E: M 3.!A F. to inherit the properties of the decedent. 3harles .T T@2.= which the respondent court i##ediately $ranted in the followin$ order5 /t appearin$ in the ur$ent e#$parte #otion filed by petitioner 3.nder date of Dece#ber 11. AE E@D @ D. unless and until the (ecutor is na#ed and appointed by the 3ourt. 1901. 3ity of /loilo May -1.ewton ?od$es. J That durin$ the lifeti#e of *innie &ane ?od$es. to #y beloved husband..3. it is #ost respectfully prayed that. ME@T828 A T?2T T? ".: G2. ?ED8 A. residue and re#ainder of #y estate. .@T? @ 2. ?od$es filed as such (ecutor another #otion thus5 MET/E. 7? @ "E@ . 3o#es the (ecutor in the above-entitled proceedin$s. portion of which is %uoted as follows5 Aecond5 / $ive. J That the present #otion is sub#itted in order not to paraly>e the business of petitioner and the deceased. * 2A A. ?od$es. 0.ewton ?od$es= be allowed or authori>ed to continue the business in which he was en$a$ed and to perfor# acts which he had been doin$ while deceased *innie &ane ?od$es was livin$. or located. )etition. J That deceased *innie &ane ?od$es died leavin$ no descendants or ascendants. to the ?on. especially in the purchase and sale of properties. #y said husband. 3ourt. e(cept brothers and sisters and herein petitioner as e(ecutor survivin$ spouse. ./ &2. to have and to hold unto hi#. durin$ his natural lifeti#e.A 7?/3? T? M 3. thru his undersi$ned attorney. herein petitioner was en$a$ed in the business of buyin$ and sellin$ personal and real properties. 3ity of /loilo. 1901. petitioner 3. .3 A.3 7/T? T? *2AT 7/A? E" T? D 3 2A D */. both personal and real. ?od$es <3harles . 1901. the said petitioner is allowed or authori>ed to continue the business in which he was en$a$ed and to perfor# acts which he had been doin$ while the deceased was livin$.A23T/E.. 233E@D2. and do such acts which petitioner #ay thin+ best. <2nne( PDQ. wherever situated. #ost respectfully states5 1. May -1. )etition.TE@ M2G DE /. that the business in which said petitioner and the deceased were en$a$ed will be paraly>ed. That proper accountin$ will be had also in all these transactions. . <2nne( P Q.D A. 3E.

That durin$ the lifeti#e of herein (ecutor.. leases and #ort$a$es in co#pliances with the wishes of the late *innie &ane ?od$es.ewton ?od$es. That inas#uch as 3. also be approved4 '. is not only part owner of the properties left as con6u$al. and he is further authori>ed to use any part of the principal of said estate as he #ay need or desire. in accordance with the wishes of the late *innie &ane ?od$es. conveyances. it is #ost respectfully prayed that. 3ourt. as *e$atee has the ri$ht to sell. approved by the ?on. e#olu#ents and inco#e fro# said estate shall &elong to him. 3ourt. J That it is respectfully re%uested.. 1901 as follows5 . and the purchase of any other or additional property as he #ay thin+ best4 to e#ecute conve. Dece#ber 11. . shall have the ri$ht to #ana$e. be approved by the ?on. J That the (ecutor is under obli$ation to sub#it his yearly accounts.. J That the @e$ister of Deeds for /loilo. and the properties conveyed can also be accounted for. but also. 0. lease or dispose of the properties in the )hilippines. conveyin$ in fee si#ple or for any other ter# or ti#e.ances with or without $eneral or special warranty. direct and provide that #y husband. especially the a#ounts received. control. had re%uired of late the herein (ecutor to have all the sales. ?od$es had been buyin$ and sellin$ real and personal properties. and subse%uent sales conveyances. to allow hi# to continue in the business of buy and sell. use and en6oy said estate durin$ his lifeti#e. 7? @ "E@ . 3. sale or any part thereof which he #ay thin+ best.. 3harles . conveyances leases and #ort$a$es e(ecuted by the (ecutor. leases. R -. which #otion was favorably $ranted by the ?onorable 3ourt. &. and #ort$a$es e(ecuted by the (ecutor. and within the scope of the ter#s of the last will and testa#ent. 3. and also the subse%uent sales. ?od$es was filed in 3ourt. 3ourt. even before the death of *innie &ane ?od$es. a #otion to authori>e said 3. and all such deeds or leases shall pass the absolute fee si#ple title to the interest so conveyed in such property as he #ay elect to sell. and he is hereby $iven the ri$ht to #a+e any chan$es in the physical properties of said estate. all the sales... leases. 2ll rents. )etition. all the sales. be with authori>ation and approval of the ?on. <2nne( P8Q. any property which he #ay dee# proper to dispose of4 to lease any of the real property for oil. conveyances or #ort$a$es #ade by hi#. J That since the death of *innie &ane ?od$es. J That herein (ecutor.Third5 / desire. 3ourt.= which a$ain was pro#ptly $ranted by the respondent court on Dece#ber 1.. leases. and #ort$a$es in consonance with the wishes of the deceased contained in her last will and testa#ent. 19'1. $as andNor other #inerals. be approved by the ?on. conveyances. 3ity of /loilo. convey.. ?od$es was and is en$a$ed in the buy and sell of real and personal properties. Mr. the successor to all the properties left by the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es.

. :/ 7 E" T? "E@ 8E/. renders the followin$ account of his ad#inistration coverin$ the period fro# &anuary 1.. ?od$es are hereby 2))@E: D. inco#e and e(penses as shown in the individual inco#e ta( return for the estate of the deceased and #ar+ed as 2nne( P2Q is approved. counsel for the (ecutor for the reasons stated in his #otion dated Dece#ber 11. 1908 to Dece#ber 31. as well as the inco#e and e(penses. herein e(ecutor of the deceased. the assets and liabilities. )etition. 1909. <2nne( P?Q. )etition. 1901. conveyances. 1909. leases and #ort$a$es of the properties left by the said deceased *innie &ane ?od$es in consonance with the wishes conveyed in the last will and testa#ent of the latter. 1908. conveyances. 1901. . inco#e and e(penses as shown in the individual inco#e ta( return for the estate of the deceased and #ar+ed as 2nne( P2Q. ?od$es alle$ed5 )ursuant to the provisions of the @ules of 3ourt. in sub#ittin$ his first state#ent of account as (ecutor for approval.= The respondent court approved this state#ent of account on 2pril -1. 3ity of /loilo 2pril 1. /. be approved by the ?onorable 3ourt. in accordance with the last will and testa#ent already probated by the ?onorable court. as herein e(ecutor is the only devisee or le$atee of the deceased.pon petition of 2tty. <2nne( P/Q.= En 2pril 1. to wit5 That a certified public accountant has e(a#ined the state#ent of net worth of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. the assets and liabilities. which account #ay be found in detail in the individual inco#e ta( return filed for the estate of deceased *innie &ane ?od$es. 8ellada. /loilo 3ity.. it is #ost respectfully prayed that. in representation of the (ecutor. 1909 in its order worded thus5 . as substantial co#pliance with the re%uire#ents of the @ules of 3ourt.. assets and liabilities. Dece#ber 1. the state#ent of net worth of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. Ao ordered. copy of which is hereto attached and #ade inte$ral part of this state#ent of account as 2nne( P2Q.2"D4" 2s prayed for by 2ttorney 8ellada. the state#ent of net worth of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. The said (ecutor is further authori>ed to e(ecute subse%uent sales. That no person interested in the )hilippines of the ti#e and place of e(a#inin$ the herein accounts be $iven notice.8. leases and #ort$a$es of all properties left by the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es e(ecuted by the (ecutor 3harles . which the 3ourt considers well ta+en all the sales.

.'-3. ?od$es reported that the co#bined con6u$al estate earned a net inco#e of )31.801.''. )etition. 3.. e(actly one-half of the net inco#e of his co#bined personal assets and that of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. )ursuant to this. 1909 anne(ed thereto.0-. <pp.3-.91.nder date of 2pril -0.'-..etworth of Mr. ?od$es filed his third P2nnual Atate#ent of 2ccount by the (ecutor for the Gear 19'0S of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. /n the PAtate#ent of . <)p. /n the PAtate#ent of . 19'0 and May -. under oath.9. 1909 to Dece#ber 31.. under oath.= ((( ((( ((( .. under oath. 3ity of /loilo 2pril -1.. ?od$es and the state of *innie &ane ?od$esQ as of Dece#ber 31. 3.nder date of &uly -1. 1909. %uoted above4 and the respective orders approvin$ the sa#e. 19'1.... 3. divided evenly between hi# and the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. divided evenly between hi# and the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. he filed an Pindividual inco#e ta( returnQ for calendar year 1909 on the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es reportin$.etworth of Mr.. 1909. 19'0 were sub#itted li+ewise acco#panied by alle$ations identical mutatis mutandis to those of 2pril 1... ?od$es filed his first P2ccount by the (ecutorQ of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. 91. 1909 and &anuary 1. 3.= ((( ((( ((( .AE E@D @ D. dated &uly 30. he filed an Pindividual inco#e ta( returnQ for calendar year 19'0 on the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es reportin$. 19'0.. <p. 19'0 to Dece#ber 31. 3. ?od$es filed his second P2nnual Atate#ent of 2ccount by the (ecutorQ of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. 9--93.31.-8. the said estate as havin$ earned inco#e of )1'.. he filed an Pindividual inco#e ta( returnQ for calendar year 1908 on the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es reportin$. the said estate as havin$ earned inco#e of )101. 1909. e(actly one-half of the net inco#e of his co#bined personal assets and that of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es.-01. ?od$es and the state of *innie &ane ?od$esQ as of Dece#ber 31.311. divided evenly between hi# and the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. 3. <2nne( P&Q.. the said estate as havin$ earned inco#e of )130..nder date of 2pril 1. )ursuant to this. 91-9-... 2ppelleeKs !rief.et 7orth of Mr. 3.. 2ppelleeKs !rief. e(actly one-half of the net inco#e of his co#bined personal assets and that of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. were substantially identical to the above-%uoted order of 2pril -1.. the followin$ assertions related thereto #ade by respondentappellee Ma$no in her brief do not appear fro# all indications discernible in the record to be disputable5 ..= ?is accounts for the periods &anuary 1. )ursuant to this.= . 19'1.. /n connection with the state#ents of account 6ust #entioned. ?od$es reported that the co#bined con6u$al estate earned a net inco#e of )3-8. 19'0 anne(ed thereto. 1909. 2ppelleeKs !rief. 3.. ?od$es and the state of *innie &ane ?od$esQ as of Dece#ber 31.. 1908 anne(ed thereto. /n the PAtate#ent of . 3.. ?od$es reported that the co#bined con6u$al estate earned a net inco#e of )-10.

/n Achedule PMQ of such return. who had been previously actin$ as counsel for ?od$es in his capacity as (ecutor of his wifeKs estate. and that they were really and are interested in the estate of deceased *innie &ane ?od$es.. payin$ debts. it #ay be stated. ta(es and other le$al char$es.one. 1301 until Dece#ber -'.. at this 6uncture. 19'-. ta(es and e(penses of ad#inistration are finally deter#ined and paid. #ost respectfully states5 (ecutor in the above-entitled proceedin$s. 3.Q 2$ain. the sa#e lawyer. ?od$es filed a verified #otion to have @oy ?i$donKs na#e included as an heir. e(tensively fro# so#e of the pleadin$s and orders whenever 7e feel that it is necessary to do so for a #ore co#prehensive and clearer view of the i#portant and decisive issues raised by the parties and a #ore accurate appraisal of their respective positions in re$ard thereto. 2tty. /##ediately. ?e listed all the assets of his con6u$al partnership with *innie &ane ?od$es on a separate balance sheet and then stated e(pressly that her estate which has co#e into his possession as e(ecutor was Pone-half of all the ite#sQ listed in said balance sheet. The order of the court ad#ittin$ the will to probate unfortunately o#itted one of the heirs. 1 2s appointed e(ecutor. when on account of the death of ?od$es the day before. and as such had filed the afore%uoted #otions and #anifestations. 1908.o. 8ellada. on 2u$ust 9. 89-90. ?od$es filed an P/nventoryQ dated May 1-.. to the ?onorable "E@ T? 2))E/. *eon ). he answered5 P. he listed the seven brothers and sisters of *innie &ane as her PheirsQ <see p. e(cept for purposes of ad#inisterin$ the state..T E" 2 . 19'-. liabilities. En the %uestion as to what property interests passed to hi# as the survivin$ spouse. @oy ?i$don <see p. 1. The records of these cases do not show that anythin$ else was done in the above-#entioned Apecial )roceedin$s .@8 . A) 3/2* 2DM/./AT@2T@/M 3EM A the undersi$ned attorney for the 3ourt. 2ppelleeKs !rief. barely four #onths before his death. 8reen @E2=.. filed the followin$5 . 2s an e(ecutor.*i+ewise the followin$5 /n the petition for probate that he <?od$es= filed. 3. that 7e are ta+in$ pains to %uote wholly or at least.T 48$/A"T4 MET/E. he was bound to file ta( returns for the estate he was ad#inisterin$ under 2#erican law. ?e did file such as estate ta( return on 2u$ust 8.= )arenthetically. statin$ that he wanted to strai$hten the records Pin order the heirs of deceased @oy ?i$don #ay not thin+ or believe they were o#itted. he answered PGesQ to the %uestion as to whether he was conte#platin$ Prenouncin$ the willQ. he e(ecuted an PaffidavitQ wherein he ratified and confir#ed all that he stated in Achedule PMQ of his estate ta( returns as to his havin$ renounced what was $iven hi# by his wifeKs will. . -. 1908.TM . /t is the intention of the survivin$ husband of deceased to distribute the re#ainin$ property and interests of the deceased in their 3o##unity estate to the devisees and le$atees na#ed in the will when the debts. 8reen @E2=. <)p.

3ourt dated &une -8. That the #ost trusted e#ployee of both spouses *innie &ane ?od$es and 3. <should= be appointed 2d#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and at the sa#e ti#e Apecial 2d#inistratri( of the estate of 3harles .ewton ?od$es is +ept inside the vault or iron safe in his office.of @ule 10 of the @ules of 3ourt. to ad#inister. 3. ?owever.ewton ?od$es was stric+en ill. as provided for in Aection 1 and -. 3harles . who had been e#ployed for around thirty <30= years. That the estate of deceased *innie &ane ?od$es. and in fact. 1901. because the last will and testa#ent of deceased. her husband. 3harles .ewton ?od$es shall be li%uidated in the testate proceedin$s of the wife. has perfect personal +nowled$e of the e(istence of the last will and testa#ent of 3harles . -. as shown by a copy of the death certificate hereto attached and #ar+ed as 2nne( P2Q. the said 3harles . 0. That in accordance with the provisions of the last will and testa#ent of *innie &ane ?od$es. the said 3harles . the con6u$al partnership of *innie &ane ?od$es and 3harles . That last Dece#ber --. an 2d#inistratri( be appointed for the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and a Apecial 2d#inistratri( for the estate of 3harles . and will be presented in due ti#e before this honorable 3ourt.. whatever real and personal properties that #ay re#ain at the death of her husband 3harles .ewton ?od$es and *innie &ane ?od$es.ewton ?od$es. ri$hts. to perfor# the duties re%uired by law. the estate of both spouses are in dan$er of bein$ lost.ewton ?od$es was appointed as such. 1. unless an ad#inistratri( <and. is still +ept in his safe or vault. That there is delay in $rantin$ letters testa#entary or of ad#inistration. '. in an order issued by this ?on. a resident of the (ecutor and had perfor#ed the duties . That in accordance with the *ast 7ill and Testa#ent of *innie &ane ?od$es <deceased=. as well as that of 3harles . which need to be ad#inistered and ta+en care of.1. said last will and testa#ent of 3harles . it is i#perative and indispensable that. That in the #eanti#e. 8.. a Apecial 2d#inistratri( is appointed. da#a$ed or $o to waste. have not as yet been deter#ined or ascertained. 3harles .ewton ?od$es.ewton ?od$es was to act as (ecutor. That in accordance with the provisions of Aection . the said properties shall be e%ually divided a#on$ their heirs. That there are real and personal properties left by 3harles . collect.ewton ?od$es.ewton ?od$es.. and brou$ht to the /loilo Mission ?ospital for treat#ent. with si#ilar provisions as that contained in the last will and testa#ent of *innie &ane ?od$es. 19'-. credits. 19'-. ?od$es.= at the sa#e ti#e.ewton ?od$es. That the undersi$ned counsel.ewton ?od$es. in the person of Miss 2velina Ma$no. @ule 81 of the @ules of 3ourt. That the said Miss 2velina Ma$no is of le$al a$e. and ta+e char$e of the $oods. chattels. . and in the #eanti#e.ewton ?od$es. and there is necessity for the appoint#ent of a $eneral ad#inistrator to li%uidate and distribute the residue of the estate to the heirs and le$atees of both spouses. but unfortunately. he died on Dece#ber -0. and estate of both spouses.

2t this 6uncture.1-00.= Meanwhile. albeit the #otion was followed on "ebruary --. En the sa#e date this latter #otion was filed. however. trustworthy and well-%ualified person to serve the duties of 2d#inistratri( and Apecial 2d#inistratri( and is willin$ to act as such. <)p. "or the reasons alle$ed in the . Mrs. durin$ his natural lifeti#eQ. with powers and duties provided for by law.2 2. ?od$es be%ueathed her whole estate to her husband Pto have and to hold unto hi#. is Pthe nephew of the deceased <who had= arrived fro# the . -9-33. Pa representative of the heirs of deceased 3harles .= En Dece#ber -9. 19'3 by a separate one as+in$ that 2tty. 19'3 by &oe ?od$es. Miss 2: */. 9. ?arold. 19'-. Mirasol. 2with a prayer for the issuance of letters of ad#inistration to the sa#e &oe ?od$es.000.)hilippines.nited Atates with instructions fro# the other heirs of the deceased to ad#inister the properties or estate of 3harles .nited Atates of 2#erica to help in the ad#inistration of the estate of said deceasedQ was appointed as 3o-Apecial 2d#inistrator of the estate of ?od$es. 8ellada filed in Apecial )roceedin$s 1'1. )etition.2 2.E be i##ediately appointed 2d#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and as Apecial 2d#inistratri( of the estate of 3harles .A2. . accordin$ to the #otion of the sa#e attorney. id.ewton ?od$es. it #ay also be e(plained that 6ust as. thru 2tty. 7? @ "E@ . both real and personal. it is #ost respectfully prayed that.E.D ) AEA <)0.Q <2nne( P)Q. Gellow T @ecord on 2ppeal= only to be replaced as such co-special ad#inistrator on &anuary --. @. M28. under date of &anuary 9. Ma$no is re%uired to file bond in the su# of "/: T?E.00 to be filed by 2velina 2.a petition for the probate of the will of ?od$es. who. 3ourt believes reasonable. a$ain. which the 3ourt finds #eritorious. 19'3. let letters of 2d#inistration be issued to her. Ma$no. 8ellada. "ernando Mirasol be appointed as his co-ad#inistrator.ewton ?od$es is still +ept in his vault or iron safe and that the real and personal properties of both spouses #ay be lost. in the latter case. )etition. she. 19'-. the #ost fit. co#petent. in her will. That Miss 2velina Ma$no is also willin$ to file bond in such su# which the ?on.000.ewton ?od$es. upon ur$ent e#$parte petition of respondent Ma$no herself. wherever . the court issued the correspondin$ order of probate and letters of ad#inistration to &oe ?od$es and 2tty. unless a Apecial 2d#inistratri( is appointed. and after havin$ done so.ewton ?od$es <who had= arrived fro# the .ewton ?od$es in the )hilippines. as prayed for. M28. da#a$ed or $o to waste. because the last will of said 3harles . provided that Pat the death of #y said husband J / $ive devise and be%ueath all of the rest. at the sa#e ti#e or in li+e #anner. the sa#e 2tty. in view of all the fore$oin$. Miss 2: */.r$ent 4#$parte Motion filed by counsel for the (ecutor dated Dece#ber -0. <pp. is hereby appointed 2d#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and as Apecial 2d#inistratri( of the estate of 3harles . That the ?onorable 3ourt fi( the reasonable bond of )1. Davies. <2nne( PEQ. Miss 2velina 2. #y said husband. residue and re#ainder of #y estate.= which respondent court readily acted on in its order of even date thus5 .00=.

the 3ourt finds that everythin$ that happened before Aepte#ber 3.. as appellant in the appealed cases. Miss 2velina 2. as e(ecutor of his wifeKs will. Ma$no. 19'. the situation that ensued upon the death of ?od$es beca#e rather unusual and so. Fui#po. to duly li%uidate the con6u$al partnership. in answer to the char$es contained in the #otion filed by 2tty. Thus. 19'.s for resolution arose. the 3ourt ordered the parties to re#ain in status quo as to their #odus operandi before Aepte#ber 1. 2fter readin$ the #anifestation here of 2tty. 7e cannot discern clearly fro# the record before ..s. %uite understandably. re$retably. Tirol and Tirol and 2tty. ?od$es #ade official and sworn state#ents or #anifestations indicatin$ that as far as he was concerned no Pproperty interests passed to hi# as survivin$ spouse J Pe(cept for purposes of ad#inisterin$ the estate. of which Atate she was a national. 2ttys. throu$h her counsel. 19'. To be$in with. E>aeta. 7e $ather fro# the two records on appeal filed by petitioner. one with $reen cover and the other with a yellow cover. that at the outset. that the incidents and controversies now before . the lower courtKs actuations presently under review are apparently wantin$ in consistency and see#in$ly lac+ proper orientation. 2s #ay be observed. to be e%ually divided a#on$ #y brothers and sisters. 2tty. 2nd it was precisely because no such li%uidation was done.. on pa$es -00--0' of the 8reen @ecord on 2ppeal. ta(es and e(penses of ad#inistration are finally deter#ined and paidQ. . ta(es and other le$al char$esQ and it was the intention of the survivin$ husband of the deceased to distribute the re#ainin$ property and interests of the deceased in their 3o##unity state to the devisees and le$atees na#ed in the will when the debts. a sort of #odus operandi had been a$reed upon by the parties under which the respective ad#inistrators of the two estates were supposed to act con6ointly. further#ore.situated or located. Ma$no. Miss 2velina 2. until after the 3ourt can have a #eetin$ with all the parties and their counsels on Ectober 3. Ma$no. liabilities. 2nd. half of which constituted her estate. @i>al Fui#po. residue and re#ainderQ thereof could be deter#ined and correspondin$ly distributed or divided a#on$ her brothers and sisters. filed a written #anifestation..s the precise perspective fro# which the trial court proceeded in issuin$ its %uestioned orders. 8ibbs and E>aeta. as for#erly a$reed upon between counsels. and. 3esar Tirol on Aepte#ber 3. 19'. 7e have no way of +nowin$ when e(actly such a$ree#ent was entered into and under what specific ter#s.. 2ttys. as already stated. 19'. which was resolved on Aepte#ber 8. @i>al Fui#po. none of the len$thy briefs sub#itted by the parties is of valuable assistance in clearin$ up the #atter. there is the issue of whether the distribution of her estate should be $overned by the laws of the )hilippines or those of Te(as. Pthe rest. it beca#e incu#bent upon ?od$es. for and in behalf of the ad#inistratri(. readin$ thus5 The present incident is to hear the side of ad#inistratri(. was si#ply due to a #isunderstandin$ between the representative of the )hilippine 3o##ercial and /ndustrial !an+ and Miss Ma$no and in order to restore the har#onious relations between the parties. but since no copy of the said a$ree#ent can be found in the record before . to the satisfaction of parties. 2nd while reference is #ade to said modus operandi in the order of Aepte#ber 11. Miss 2velina 2. payin$ debts. share and share ali+e JQ. what is #ore. 2ccordin$ly. /n answer to the said char$es. in order that upon the eventuality of his death.

reference thereto was #ade in the appealed order of Ectober -1. the prayers of 2tty. /loilo 3ity. 2 written opposition has been filed by 2d#inistratri( Ma$no of even date <Ect. as follows5 En record is an ur$ent #otion to allow )3/! to open all doors and loc+s in the ?od$es Effice at -0'--08 8uanco Atreet. /t is alle$ed in said ur$ent #otion that 2d#inistratri( Ma$no of the testate estate of *innie &ane ?od$es refused to open the ?od$es Effice at -0'--08 8uanco Atreet.. !ellosillo dated Aepte#ber 11. 19'. on pa$es -9---90 of the 8reen @ecord on 2ppeal. /t is prayed that an order be issued authori>in$ it <)3/!= to open all doors and loc+s in the said office. 19'0... )ursuant to the order of this 3ourt thru &ud$e !ellosillo dated Aepte#ber 11. it is hereby ordered5 <a= That all cash collections should be deposited in the 6oint account of the estates of *innie &ane ?od$es and estates of 3. /loilo 3ity where )3/! holds office and therefore )3/! is sufferin$ $reat #oral da#a$e and pre6udice as a result of said act. there is nothin$ in the record indicatin$ whatever happened to it afterwards. the 3ourt aside fro# the reasons stated in the ur$ent #otion and opposition heard the verbal ar$u#ents of 2tty. To arrive at a happy solution of the dispute and in order not to interrupt the operation of the office of both estates. 19'0 thru 2tty. AE E@D @ D.. 19'0 in order that the office of said estates could operate for business.. 19'. ?od$es4 <b= That whatever cash collections that had been deposited in the account of either of the estates should be withdrawn and since then deposited in the 6oint account of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and the estate of 3. 19'. the 3ourt hereby orders Ma$no to open all doors and loc+s in the ?od$es Effice at -0'--08 8uanco Atreet. @i>al Fui#po for 2d#inistrati( Ma$no. -1= thru counsel @i>al Fui#po statin$ therein that she was co#pelled to close the office for the reason that the )3/! failed to co#ply with the order of this 3ourt si$ned by &ud$e 2nacleto /. e(cept that a$ain. ?od$es4 .. to ta+e i##ediate and e(clusive possession thereof and to place its own loc+s and +eys for security purposes of the )3/! dated Ectober -1. /loilo 3ity in the presence of the )3/! or its duly authori>ed representative and deputy cler+ of court 2lbis of this branch not later than 1530 to#orrow #ornin$ Ectober -8. 2fter due consideration.. 3esar Tirol. 3esar Tirol for the )3/! and 2tty. to ta+e i##ediate and e(clusive possession thereof and place thereon its own loc+s and +eys for security purposes4 instructin$ the cler+ of court or any available deputy to witness and supervise the openin$ of all doors and loc+s and ta+in$ possession of the )3/!. Fui#po as stated in his #anifestation shall not be resolved by this 3ourt until Ectober 3. to the effect that both estates should re#ain in status quo to their modus operandi as of Aepte#ber 1./n the #eanti#e. 19'.

docu#ents and papers she #ay have in her possession in the sa#e #anner that 2d#inistrator )3/! is also directed to allow 2d#inistratri( Ma$no to inspect whatever records. Ma$no as ad#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. virtually all of the heirs of 3. sub6ect... but in no way chan$ed its reco$nition of the afore-described basic de#and by the )3/! as ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. however. 19'.. ?od$es and 2velina 2.. in para$raph 3 of the petitionerKs #otion of Aepte#ber 1. ?od$es.)... . 19'. na#ely.. 19'. 7illia# !rown and 2rdell Goun$ actin$ for all of the ?i$don fa#ily who clai# to be the sole beneficiaries of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and various le$al counsel representin$ the afore#entioned parties entered into an a#icable a$ree#ent. Ence the estatesK office shall have been opened by 2d#inistratri( Ma$no in the presence of the )3/! or its duly authori>ed representative and deputy cler+ 2lbis or his duly authori>ed representative. 2velina 2. the respondent court re%uired that all collections fro# the properties in the na#e of ?od$es should be deposited in a 6oint account of the two estates. <also found on pp.930. docu#ents and papers it #ay have in its possession4 <e= That the accountant of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es shall have access to all records of the transactions of both estates for the protection of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es4 and in li+e #anner the accountant or any authori>ed representative of the estate of 3. 19'. 93. ?od$es or *innie &ane ?od$es situated in the )hilippines. 83-91 of the Gellow @ecord on 2ppeal= it is alle$ed that5 3. 1'1-= this ?onorable 3ourt a#ended its order of &anuary -. the )3/!Ks clai# to e(clusive possession and ownership of one hundred percent <100U= <or. but a$ain there is nothin$ to show when this situation started. &oe ?od$es and "ernando ). seventy-five percent <10U= of all assets owned by 3... Mirasol actin$ as the two co-ad#inistrators of the estate of 3. 19'3 Motion. En "ebruary 1. which indicates that see#in$ly the so-called modus operandi was no lon$er operative....o. to the aforesaid Ectober 0. 2s #ay be noted. . Ma$no actin$ as the ad#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and Messrs. ?od$es shall have access to the records of transactions of the *innie &ane ?od$es estate for the protection of the estate of 3.<c= That the )3/! should countersi$n the chec+ in the a#ount of )-00 in favor of 2d#inistratri( 2velina 2... *i+ewise. in the alternative.. in this order. ?od$es. which was approved by this ?onorable 3ourt. wherein the parties thereto a$reed that certain su#s of #oney were to be paid in settle#ent of different clai#s a$ainst the two estates and that the assets <to the e(tent they e(isted= of both estates would be ad#inistered 6ointly by the )3/! as ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. AE E@D @ D.. on pa$es 188--01 of the 8reen @ecord on 2ppeal. ?od$es to one hundred percent <100U= of the assets clai#ed by both estates.. <pp. Ma$no as her co#pensation as ad#inistratri( of the *innie &ane ?od$es estate char$eable to the testate estate of *innie &ane ?od$es only4 <d= That 2d#inistratri( Ma$no is hereby directed to allow the )3/! to inspect whatever records... 3"/ @ec. En &anuary -. A. ?od$es. both estates or any of the estates should not close it without previous consent and authority fro# this court.

. between the )3/! and the law fir# of E>aeta. the attorneyKs fees of her lawyers. ?od$es estate wherein it is clai#ed that e(penses of ad#inistration include reasonable counsel or attorneyKs fees for services to the e(ecutor or ad#inistrator.. 2s a #atter of fact the fee a$ree#ent dated "ebruary -1.. . and so. 1839-18. 19'. 19'0.. Man$lapus and Fui#po as prayed for in said Manifestation and . Fui#po filed a Manifestation and . 8ellada filed a #e#orandu# dated &uly -8.r$ent Motion filed by 2ttys. :. Man$lapus and Fui#po be denied because no evidence has been presented in support thereof. Man$lapus and Fui#po for#ally entered their . 19'. :ol. as+in$ that the Manifestation and . authori>ed pay#ent by respondent Ma$no of. Ap. as+in$ for the approval of the 2$ree#ent dated &une '. to the reply to the opposition to the Manifestation and . :ol. 1'. /f pay#ent of the fees of the lawyers for the ad#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es will cause pre6udice to the estate of 3.r$ent Motion alle$in$ principally that the estates of *innie &ane ?od$es and 3. @aul A. ?od$es. :. :. 7e are not infor#ed as to what e(actly are the ter#s of the sa#e which could be relevant in the resolution of the issues herein... 1301=4 that 2ttys.. Aullivan. 2tty.. :ol. 2tty. 19'. .-.r$ent Motion dated &une 10. on pa$es 313-3-0 of the 8reen @ecord on 2ppeal.r$ent Motion is pre6udicial to the 100U clai# of the estate of 3. her own fees as ad#inistratri(. 1'19-1'8. Ap. inter alia. Fui#po and Man$lapus are representin$ conflictin$ interests and the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es should be closed and ter#inated <pp. 1-80-1-8. 19'. Man$lapus and @i>al. 1301=. which 2$ree#ent is for the purpose of retainin$ their services to protect and defend the interest of the said 2d#inistratri( in these proceedin$s and the sa#e has been si$ned by and bears the e(press confor#ity of the attorney-in-fact of the late *innie &ane ?od$es. Ap. Man$lapus and Fui#po is pre#ature andNor unnecessary4 2ttys.but no copy of the #entioned a$ree#ent of 6oint ad#inistration of the two estates e(ists in the record. 19'. Man$lapus filed a reply to the opposition of counsel for the 2d#inistrator of the 3. 2n opposition has been filed by the 2d#inistrator )3/! thru 2tty. 19'. Mr. etc.1-1'. ?od$es is an heir of *innie &ane ?od$es whereas the latter is not an heir of the for#er for the reason that *innie &ane ?od$es predeceased 3. :.8. *eon ).. . 1301=... /t is further prayed that the 2d#inistratri( of the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es be directed to pay the retailers fee of said lawyers. @. said fees #ade char$eable as e(penses for the ad#inistration of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es <pp. Ap. ?od$es <pp. .ove#ber 3. 1801-181. 19'. Ap. ?er#inio E>aeta filed a re6oinder dated 2u$ust 10. in li+e #anner the very a$ree#ent which provides for the pay#ent of attorneyKs fees to the counsel for the )3/! will also be pre6udicial to the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es <pp. :ol. the appealed order of . 1301= which stipulates the fees for said law fir# has been approved by the 3ourt in its order dated March 31. &a#es *. ?od$es4 e#ploy#ent of 2ttys. En the other hand. ?od$es are not si#ilarly situated for the reason that 3. ?er#inio E>aeta dated &uly 11. . :ol. on the $round that pay#ent of the retainers fee of 2ttys. 8ibbs V E>aeta as its counsel <)p. :. . 1301=.. 2tty. as follows5 2d#inistratri( Ma$no thru 2ttys.

:ol ://. 2tty. @o#an Mabanta. 19'. Ap. 1301=. be resolved <pp.0. 19'0 as+in$ that the order dated &anuary . There #ust be assets in the estate to pay for said fees <)p. 2tty. '. 19'0. ''00-''0'. . 19'0 approvin$ the #otion dated &une 10. for the )3/! filed a #otion for reconsideration dated "ebruary -3. Ap. the son of the 6ud$e and in the presence of (ecutive &ud$e @ovira and deputy cler+ 2lbis <Aec. :ol. 1301=... @o#an Mabanta. 19'. '018-'0-3. 19'0 as+in$ that after the consideration by the court of all alle$ations and ar$u#ents and pleadin$s of the )3/! in connection therewith <1= said #anifestation and ur$ent #otion of 2ttys.. 2tty. 2tty.r$ent Motion dated &une 10.. ://. <pp. :ol. 19'0 after the death of &ud$e Fuerubin by )erfecto Fuerubin. for the )3/! filed a counter. /n support of said #anifestation and #otion it is alle$ed that the order of &anuary . /f services are rendered to both. 19'0 as+in$ that the order of &anuary . 1. :ol. 2ttorneys retained should not represent conflictin$ interests4 to the pre6udice of the other heirs not represented by said attorneys4 . Ap. The said order further states5 PThe 2d#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es is authori>ed to issue or si$n whatever chec+ or chec+s #ay be necessary for the above purpose and the ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. fees should be pro-rated between the#4 3. :///. 19'0 is null and void because the said order was never delivered to the deputy cler+ 2lbis of !ranch : <the sala of &ud$e Fuerubin= and the alle$ed order was found in the drawer of the late &ud$e Fuerubin in his office when said drawer was opened on &anuary 13.appearance in behalf of 2d#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es on &une 10. :///. 1301=. of the attorneys for the ad#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and a$ree#ent anne(ed to said #otion.. Man$lapus filed a #anifestation dated Dece#ber 18. &r. ://. &r. 1301=. ?od$es is ordered to countersi$n the sa#e. Ap.--'. '. 1301=. :. 19'. &r.39.ew 3ivil 3ode= <)p.30-'. Ap. &r.03.#anifestation dated &anuary 0.. 2ttorneys retained #ust render services to the estate not to the personal heir4 -. &ud$e Fuerubin issued an order dated &anuary .. . "ees #ust be co##ensurate to the actual services rendered to the estate4 0. 19'. @ule 3'. ''-0-''3'. Man$lapus and Fui#po be denied <pp. :ol.. be reversed on the $round that5 1.. /t is prayed in this #anifestation that the Manifestation and . Ap. @o#an Mabanta. 19'. . <pp. 1'391'. 1301=. 19'0 which was issued by &ud$e Fuerubin be declared null and void and to en6oin the cler+ of court and the ad#inistratri( and ad#inistrator in these special proceedin$s fro# all proceedin$s and action to enforce or co#ply with the provision of the aforesaid order of &anuary . for the )3/! filed a #anifestation and #otion dated &anuary 13. :ol. statin$ therein that &ud$e !ellosillo issued an order re%uirin$ the parties to sub#it #e#orandu# in support of their respective contentions.

. the 3ourt believes that the order of &anuary . 19'. 8ellada and his associates and 2tty. it appears that on 2u$ust '. :ol. 3onsiderin$ the ar$u#ents and reasons in support to the pleadin$s of both the 2d#inistratri( and the )3/!. 19'0 and considerin$ the alle$ations and reasons therein stated. --. is bein$ treated and considered in this instant order. ?od$es and 2tty. 19'0. The ad#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es is hereby directed to be needed to i#ple#ent the approval of the a$ree#ent anne(ed to the #otion and the ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. . 1301=. 1'1. 7? @ "E@ . actin$ on a #otion of petitioner for the approval of deeds of sale e(ecuted by it as ad#inistrator of the estate of ?od$es. AE E@D @ D. 19'0 is hereby declared null and void. )roc. dated &uly 1'. 19'. 131--1313. 8ibbs and E>aeta and Tirol and Tirol and the opposition thereto of 2tty.. 19'. rei#burse#ent for e(penditures and contin$ent fees has also been approved by the 3ourt and said lawyers have already been paid.<:ol. Fui#po <:ol. <pp. 19'0 as+in$ that the #anifestation and ur$ent #otion dated &une 10. :. <)p. )roc. :ol. 19'0 is null and void for the reason that the said order has not been filed with deputy cler+ 2lbis of this court <!ranch := durin$ the lifeti#e of &ud$e Fuerubin who si$ned the said order. which was filed by the attorneys for the ad#inistratri( of the testate estate of *innie &ane ?od$es is $ranted and the a$ree#ent anne(ed thereto is hereby approved. ?od$es is directed to countersi$n the said chec+ or chec+s as the case #ay be. filed by 2tty. /t is worthy to note that in the #otion dated &anuary -. ://. 1301= which has been filed by 2tty.---. the order dated &anuary . 2d#inistrator of the Testate state of 3. Fui#po for 2d#inistratri( Ma$no of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es filed a #otion to sub#it dated &uly 10. :. . :///.. 8ibbs which provides for retainer fee of ). 19'0. !e that as it #ay. Ap. also on appeal herein5 2ctin$ upon the #otion for approval of deeds of sale for re$istered land of the )3/!. The #anifestation and #otion dated &une 10. 1301=. the said #anifestation and ur$ent #otion dated &une 10. hereinbefore #entioned. @i>al @. Ap.11'3. 3esar T. Man$lapus and Fui#po and other incidents directly appertainin$ thereto be considered sub#itted for consideration and approval <pp. pp.. ?od$es in Ap.. '109-'1'0. '811-'813= dated &uly --. the court. 8ibbs and other lawyers in addition to the stipulated fees for actual services rendered. Ap. 19'. )roc. 1301 pp. Ap. :ol. Tirol in representation of the law fir#s of E>aeta. :///..9.2tty. filed by 2ttys. 19'. ?owever.. 8ellada.. . thereby i#plyin$ so#ehow that the court assu#ed the e(istence of independent but si#ultaneous ad#inistrations. and of 2tty. the fee a$ree#ent dated "ebruary -1. :.000 #onthly in addition to specific fees for actual appearances. 11. issued the followin$ order. 1-13-1-19. pp. between the 2d#inistrator of the estate of 3..0=. :ol. a$ain. ?owever. the court believes that the deeds of sale should be .

/n her brief as appellee.o. thereto anne(in$ two <-= final deeds of sale and two <-= cancellations of #ort$a$es si$ned by appellee 2velina 2. "ernando Mirasol and later the appellant= were approved by the lower court upon petition of appellee Ma$noKs counsel. *eon ). 18-018-8=. 19'. 3esar T. J 1 deed of sale4 <c= #otion dated Dece#ber 1. )aulino in the followin$ nu#bers5 <a= #otion dated Aepte#ber -1.= . 19'0 J 8 deeds of sale4 <f= #otion dated May 1.8.otably this order re%uired that even the deeds e(ecuted by petitioner. :ol.si$ned 6ointly by the )3/!.. Ma$no and D. 8reen @E2=. 2d#inistrator of the Testate 2d#inistratri( of the Testate state of 3. . .'. 1301. 1301. 2nd this was not an isolated instance. The $ates havin$ been opened.0-. 19'. #otions for the approval of final deeds of sale <si$ned by appellee 2velina 2. Ma$no and D. )roc. involvin$ properties re$istered in his na#e. J . 19'. pp. 1301 and 1'1.ove#ber .. the appellant. ?od$es the lower court has had to constitute special separate e(pedientes in Apecial )roceedin$s . on the basis of section 8 of @ule 89 of the @evised @ules of 3ourt. 2s an e(a#ple. for the approval of one final deed of sale a$ain si$ned by appellee 2velina 2. <p. which was a$ain approved by the lower court on 2u$ust 1. @. 19'. . Ma$no.. 19'3 <pp.. state of *innie &ane ?od$es and to this effect the )3/! should ta+e the necessary steps so that 2d#inistratri( 2velina 2.-1101=. ?od$es. then 2tty. first &oe ?od$es. 19'. This #otion was approved by the lower court on &uly -1. . /n view of the very e(tensive landholdin$s of the ?od$es spouses and the #any #otions filed concernin$ deeds of sale of real properties e(ecuted by 3.. Tirol. 19'0.o. ?od$es on "ebruary -0. fro# a#on$ the very #any. AE E@D @ D. 8ellada. . :ol. Aubse%uently. after it had ta+en over the bul+ of the assets of the two estates.to include #ere #otions for the approval of deeds of sale of the con6u$al properties of the ?od$es spouses. started presentin$ these #otions itself. Tirol. 2ssistant :ice-)resident and Mana$er of the appellant <3"/ @ecord.. Ma$no and the appellant. 19'. Ma$no and D. /t was followed by another #otion dated 2u$ust .os. counsel for the appellant.. under date of "ebruary 3. filed PMotion for 2pproval of Deeds of Aale for @e$istered *and and . J ' deeds of sale4 <b= #otion dated . 3esar T. 2tty. deeds of sale4 <d= #otion dated "ebruary 3. Ma$no and the ad#inistrator of the estate of 3.. a flood ensued5 the appellant subse%uently filed si#ilar #otions for the approval of a #ultitude of deeds of sales and cancellations of #ort$a$es si$ned by both the appellee 2velina 2. filed by 2tty. 1'9. 1301 alone will show 2tty. . . -. Tirol as havin$ presented for court approval deeds of sale of real properties si$ned by both appellee 2velina 2. :. respondent Ma$no states5 2fter the lower court had authori>ed appellee 2velina 2. as ad#inistrator of the 3 state of ?od$es. should be co-si$ned by respondent Ma$no. 19'. 8reen @ecord on 2ppeal. )aulino. @. 2 rando# chec+ of the records of Apecial )roceedin$ . ?od$es and 2velina 2. Ma$no could si$n the deeds of sale. pp. as counsel for the appellant. )roc. Ap. 19'0 J 9 deeds of sale.o. 3esar T. 2tty. Ma$no to e(ecute final deeds of sale pursuant to contracts to sell e(ecuted by 3. :. @. The first such atte#pt was a PMotion for 2pproval of Deeds of Aale for @e$istered *and and 3ancellations of Mort$a$esQ dated &uly -1. )aulino <3"/ @ecord. Ap.

!acolod 3ity. Ap.Q <)p. /loilo Dao. /n the course of ad#inistration of both estates. )roc. &aro.3ancellations of Mort$a$esQ <3"/ @ecord. consistin$ of deeds of sale in favor J "ernando "e )olicarpio @osario "ederico @eynaldo 2natolio T. M. #ort$a$e debtors have already paid their debts secured by chattel #ort$a$es in favor of the late 3. . '010-'09'= the alle$ations of which read5 P1. @o(as /loilo &ose. this honorable court approve the aforesaid deeds of sale and cancellations of #ort$a$es. /loilo 2nti%ue 3ity /loilo 3ity 3ity 3ity . There are attached hereto docu#ents e(ecuted 6ointly by the 2d#inistratri( in Ap.o. M.Q 2nd the prayer of this #otion is indeed very revealin$5 P7? @ "E@ . . )roc. /loilo /loilo /loilo /loilo Ecc.o. *a :iray. *ibre. Ma$banua. :illarete. !aes. :ol.. Torres. it is respectfully prayed that.= . )areno. *ata%uin.o. Ma$banua. Aan /loilo )ototan. That the approval of the aforesaid docu#ents will not reduce the assets of the estates so as to prevent any creditor fro# receivin$ his full debt or di#inish his dividend. /loilo 3ity and cancellations of #ort$a$es in favor of J )ablo @icardo Ai#plicio 2#ado @oselia 7illia# lpidio M. 3ano. . 1'1-.or#a T.. &aro. @i>al Molo. :///. @ui>. !olo.e$ros 3ity 3ity 3ity 3ity 3ity 3ity !en6a#in @olando. 1301 and the 2d#inistrator in Ap. !ayani. Diana. /loilo *a &aro. 113-111. and are now entitled to release therefro#4 P3. . under @ule 89. . . Aection 8 of the @ules of 3ourt. the late 3. . stan>uela. T. Eton. /loilo )a>. and the prospective buyers under said contracts have already paid the price and co#plied with the ter#s and conditions thereof4 P-. !. 2ppelleeKs !rief. T. /loilo 3ity P. ?od$es. ?od$es e(ecuted P3ontracts to AellQ real property. 1301. pp.. )roc. Man>ano. /n his lifeti#e. Tin$son. )a>.one of these assertions is denied in )etitionerKs reply brief.

to pay petitioner. as 2d#inistrator of the estate of Mrs. as 2d#inistratri( of the estate of Mrs. <)p. on pa$es 33. "or instance. 19'. 33. #ovant @icardo T.330 of the 8reen @ecord on 2ppeal.ove#ber -3. P!Q and P3Q of the #otion.-330. 8reen @ecord on 2ppeal.."urther indicatin$ lac+ of concrete perspective or orientation on the part of the respondent court and its hesitancy to clear up #atters pro#ptly. the respondent court approved pay#ents #ade by her of overti#e pay to so#e e#ployees of the court who had helped in $atherin$ and preparin$ copies of parts of the records in both estates as follows5 3onsiderin$ that the e(penses sub6ect of the #otion to approve pay#ent of overti#e pay dated Dece#ber 10. /nc. .=. The orders of this nature which are also on appeal herein are the followin$5 . coverin$ properties in the na#e of ?od$es. The ad#inistrator of the testate estate of the late 3harles . 8reen @ecord on 2ppeal. AE E@D @ D. thus5 3onsiderin$ that in both cases there is as yet no 6udicial declaration of heirs nor distribution of properties to who#soever are entitled thereto. )resident of appellee 7estern /nstitute of Technolo$y <successor of )anay ducational /nstitutions. are reasonable and are believed by this 3ourt to be a proper char$e of ad#inistration char$eable to the testate estate of the late *innie &ane ?od$es. 7? @ "E@ . the said e(penses are hereby 2))@E: D and to be char$ed a$ainst the testate estate of the late *innie &ane ?od$es. there were instances when respondent Ma$no was $iven authority to act alone.= *i+ewise. irrespective of whether they were e(ecuted by hi# before or after the death of his wife. ?od$es and the ad#inistratri( of the testate estate of *innie &ane ?od$es or to either one of the two estates is proper and le$al.. 19'0. pursuant to Pcontracts to sellQ e(ecuted by ?od$es. on pa$e --1 of the 8reen @ecord on 2ppeal. Aalas can pay to both estates or either of the#. --1----. in its other appealed order of .= En the other hand.. the respondent court approved deeds of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no alone. one of the parties with who# ?od$es had contracts that are in %uestion in the appeals herein. said respondent court allowed the #ovant @icardo Aalas.ewton ?od$es is hereby ordered to countersi$n the chec+ or chec+s necessary to pay the said overti#e pay as shown by the bills #ar+ed 2nne( P2Q. ?od$es. as stated earlier. the 3ourt believes that pay#ent to both the ad#inistrator of the testate estate of 3. <)p. in the other appealed order of Dece#ber 19. 19'. ?od$es. AE E@D @ D. as 2d#inistrator of the estate of ?od$es andNor respondent Ma$no.

after the death of his wife. id. pursuant to a Pcontract to sellQ si$ned by ?od$es on "ebruary 0. 19'0. 19'' for failure of appellee 3atedral to pay the install#ents due on ti#e. '. id. on pp. approvin$ the deed of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no in favor of appellee *oren>o 3arles on "ebruary -. 19''. -. respectively. for failure of appellee )ablico to pay the install#ents due on ti#e. 19'0 in view of failure of said appellee to pay the install#ents on ti#e. on pp. pursuant to Pcontracts to sellQ si$ned by ?od$es on &une 9.. Erder of &une 1. approvin$ the deed of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no in favor of appellee !elce>ar 3ausin$ on May -. 19''. that is. Erder of 2pril -0.-180. on pp. id. on p. on pp. approvin$ the deed of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no in favor of appellees 8raciano *ucero and Mel%uiades !atisanan on &une ' and &une 3. 1908. 19''. Erder of 2pril -0. 19''. 19'1. before the death of his wife.. id.. respectively. id. 303-30.. 1909. 19''. 19''.. after the death of his wife. which contract petitioner clai#s was cancelled by it for failure of 3arles to pay the install#ents due on &anuary 1. respectively. 2pril 18. 19''. 19'' and 2u$ust 3. .. 19'0. insofar as it approved the deed of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no in favor of appellee )epito /yulores on Aepte#ber '.. 19''.. 11. Erder of &une -1. 19''. 138-139.. 19''. 19''. 19''. which contract petitioner clai#s it had cancelled on "ebruary 1'. Erder of Dece#ber -. 1901. 19''. -11--1-. 1908. 19''.. id. approvin$ the deed of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no in favor of appellee "lorenia !arrido on March -8... on pp. which contract petitioner clai#s it had cancelled on &une -9. id. on pp. 19'' pursuant to a Pcontract to sellQ si$ned by ?od$es on Aepte#ber 13. 19''.0. on pp. after the death of his wife. pursuant to a Pcontract to sellQ si$ned by ?od$es on May -'. 19''. pursuant to a Pcontract to sellQ si$ned by ?od$es on &une 11. on pp. 0. 10. approvin$ the deed of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no in favor of appellee 2rtheo Tho#as &a#ir on &une 3. on pp. after the death of his wife. 1909 and . Erder of 2pril 0. approvin$ the deed of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no in favor of appellee &ose )ablico on March 1. 19''. 19''. 8.. on pp. 7inifredo spada and @osario 2lin$asa on Aepte#ber '. after the death of his wife. id. respectively. 1900. Erder of 2pril 0. approvin$ the deed of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no in favor of appellee Aalvador 8u>#an on "ebruary -8. pursuant to a Pcontract to sellQ si$ned by ?od$es on March 1. 3. 19'0 and 2u$ust -0. 19'' pursuant to a Pcontract to sellQ si$ned by ?od$es on 2u$ust 1. approvin$ the deed of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no in favor of appellees spiridion )artisala. 131 of the 8reen @ecord on 2ppeal. which contract petitioner clai#s it cancelled on March 3. Erder of March 30. pursuant to Pcontracts to sellQ si$ned by ?od$es on 2pril -0. 19'1. 139-1. 18. 19''. after the death of his wife. 9. 19'0. 131-138. Erder of Dece#ber -. Erder of &une -1. before the death of his wife. 19'0. approvin$ the deed of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no in favor of appellee 2lfredo 3atedral on March -. 19''. approvin$ the deed of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no in favor of appellee )urificacion 3oronado on March -8. 2u$ust 11.ove#ber -1. 19''. 303-30. 1908. 19'1.. 1. 1'8-1'9... after the death of his wife. after the death of his wife. pursuant to a Pcontract to sellQ si$ned by ?od$es on "ebruary -1. pursuant to a Pcontract to sellQ si$ned by ?od$es on May -9. pursuant to a Pcontract to sellQ si$ned by ?od$es on "ebruary 10. Erder of 2pril 0. id. id. 190. . 1'1-1'8.1. -1---13. after the death of his wife.

?od$es as (ecutor of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es <pp. 1909. and Ectober 31. 1901 filed by *eon ). 2velina 2. 190.. H2D-4S 480ST07. 19''. on the basis of the followin$ alle$ations in a Motion dated Dece#ber 11.ove#ber 3. @ec. /n li+e #anner. approvin$ three deeds of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no. @ec.. over the si$nature of 2tty.. <. which are sub6ect of this appeal. 1901 *innie &ane ?od$es died in /loilo 3ity. 1301=. ?od$es.ow. id. '?@A /%6S A%% TH4 "47TS. and as already e(plained before. Mirasol. there were also instances when respondent court approved deeds of sale e(ecuted by petitioner alone and without the concurrence of respondent Ma$no. . superseded by the particular orders approvin$ specific final deeds of sale e(ecuted by the appellee.1-. the followin$ self-e(planatory #otion was filed5 6"-47T !2T027 52" A7 ACC267T07. /n the first abovecited error.ove#ber --. 8ibbs V E>aeta. )hilippine 3o##ercial and /ndustrial !an+. ?od$es5 state of . 190. 8ibbs in representation of the law fir# of E>aeta. which were never appealed by the appellee.9-100 of its brief as appellant thus5 The points of fact and law pertainin$ to the two abovecited assi$n#ents of error have already been discussed previously. <-= En &une -8. 330-33'. others of #ore funda#ental and all e#bracin$ si$nificance developed. after her death. En Ectober 0. 1901 this ?onorable 3ourt ad#itted to probate the *ast 7ill and Testa#ent of the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es e(ecuted ..--0. the order alluded to was $eneral. .. 4!2%6!47TS A7D 07C2!4 TH4"45"2!. respectively.= En Dece#ber 1. .o less than petitioner points this out on pa$es 1. throu$h his undersi$ned attorneys in the above-entitled proceedin$s.E7 the co-ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. 3EM A . 1301=. 19'1. .AS 25 !A< =>. on pp.A7D D4%0:4"< T2 AD!070ST"AT027 25 TH4 4STAT4 25 C. H2D-4S 25 A%% 25 TH4 ASS4TS 25 TH4 C27J6-A% /A"T74"SH0/ 25 TH4 D4C4AS4D %07704 JA74 H2D-4S A7D C 7. 2velina 2. pursuant to separate Ppro#ises to sellQ si$ned respectively by ?od$es on May -'. nor by any party for that #atter. 1901 this ?onorable 3ourt issued *etters Testa#entary to 3. si#ultaneously with the fore$oin$ incidents. it was. before the death of his wife. 19'3. Ap.. Ap. 1901 this ?onorable 3ourt. 2llison &. Ma$no. as well as the particular orders approvin$ specific final deeds of sale e(ecuted by the appellant. as counsel for the co-ad#inistrators &oe ?od$es and "ernando ). Erder of &anuary 3. 8ellada as attorney for the e(ecutor 3. )roc. 19'' and . &oe ?od$es. ?od$es in the *innie &ane ?od$es <p. and which are now therefore final. 30. and to this ?onorable 3ourt respectfully alle$es5 <1= En May -3. one in favor of appellees Aantia$o )acaonsis and two in favor of appellee 2delfa )re#aylon on Dece#ber 0. Ma$no.and appointed 3. . -. as ad#itted by the lower court itself. )roc. 7. 1900 and &anuary 30. and such approvals have not been the sub6ect of any appeal.. . <3= En &uly 1.

Ap. 13014 e#phasis supplied. 3. of the ti#e and place of e(a#inin$ the herein account. Ma$no . @ec. as herein 4#ecutor is the onl. <is= not only part owner of the properties left as con6u$al.. the successor to all the properties left &. )roc. in accordance )ith the last )ill and testament of the deceased. in accordance with the last will and testa#ent of the deceased.Q <p. 19'0 this ?onorable 3ourt approved the P2nnual Atate#ent of 2ccountQ sub#itted by 3.. . . in accordance )ith the last )ill and testament alread.= issued the followin$ order5 P2s prayed for by 2ttorney 8ellada. but also. alread. devisee or legatee of the deceased %innie Jane Hodges. 8ellada on 2pril -0. pro&ated &. ?od$es died.= <1= En May -. @ec.'.Q <pp. 8ellada filed only in Apecial )roceedin$ . this ?onorable 3ourt appointed 2velina 2. 8ellada on 2pril 1. 19'1 this ?onorable court approved the P2nnual Atate#ent of 2ccount !y The (ecutor for the Gear 19'0S sub#itted throu$h *eon ).. 19'1 wherein he alle$ed5 That no person interested in the )hilippines be $iven notice. @ec. this Honora&le Court . 1909 this ?onorable 3ourt approved the inventory and accountin$ sub#itted by 3. )roc. be $iven notice. pro&ated &. @ec. )roc. conveyances. <pp. leases and #ort$a$es of the properties left by the said deceased *innie &ane ?od$es in consonance )ith the )ishes contained in the last )ill and testament of the latter. '?@A )hich the court considers )ell taken . Ap. on the . Ap. leases and #ort$a$es of all properties left by the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es are hereby 2))@E: D. ?od$es throu$h his counsel *eon ).Q <p.= <8= En Dece#ber -0. be $iven notice as herein e#ecutor is the onl. 13014 e#phasis supplied.= <0= En 2pril -1. 19'-. 19'-. 1301. 8ellada on &uly -1. 90-91. @ec... as herein e#ecutor is the onl. )roc. ?od$es throu$h his counsel *eon ). The said e(ecutor is further authori>ed to e(ecute subse%uent sales. counsel for the (ecutory. devisee or legatee of the deceased %innie Jane Hodges .PThat herein (ecutor. 81-8-.o. 13014 e#phasis supplied. 13014 e#phasis supplied. all the sales. 13014 e#phasis supplied. the Honora&le Court .r$ent 4#$parte Motion of *eon ). for the reasons stated in his motion dated Decem&er ''. 1909 wherein he alle$ed a#on$ other thin$s PThat no person interested in the )hilippines of the ti#e and place of e(a#inin$ the herein account. Ap.. conveyances.Q <pp.. . devisee or legatee of the deceased. 11-18. 19'0 wherein he alle$ed a#on$ other thin$s5 PThat no person interested in the )hilippines of the ti#e and place of e(a#inin$ the herein account.=. Ap. <9= En Dece#ber -0. already probated by this ?onorable 3ourt. the deceased %innie Jane Hodges . <'= En &uly 30. . )roc.

da#a$ed or $o to waste. 111. 19'. 19'3 issued *etters of 2d#inistration to5 <a= 2velina 2.ewton ?od$es. Ae autori>a i$ual#ente a la #is#a a fir#ar escrituras de cancelacion de hipoteca tanto de bienes reales co#o personales cada ve> %ue la consideracion de cada hipoteca este total#ente pa$ada. in the latter case. 100.ewton ?od$es4 and <c= &oe ?od$es as 3o-Apecial 2d#inistrator of the state of 3harles . <p. )roc. 10-. Ap. )roc. 1301= issued the followin$ order5 PR se autori>a a a%uella <2velina 2.ewton ?od$es <pp. 8ellada of &anuary -1.ewton ?od$es.-11'. )roc. )roc. @eply to Motion "or @e#oval of &oe ?od$esC state of 3harles . 1301= <10= En Dece#ber -'.Q <p. B)ar 1 <c=. P3ada una de dichas escrituras %ue se otor$uen debe ser so#etida para la aprobacion de este &u>$ado. )roc. 19'3 this ?onorable 3ourt on petition of *eon ). Ap. en vida. 1301= <11= En &anuary --. fir#ados. por el finado 3harles .Q <p.ewton ?od$es is still +ept in his vault or iron safe and that the real and personal properties of both spouses #ay be lost.Q <p.3. 19'3 this ?onorable 3ourt on the basis of a #otion filed by *eon ). 19'P7ith full authority to ta+e possession of all the property of said deceased in any province or provinces in which it #ay be situated and to perfor# all other acts necessary for the preservation of said property. . 8ellada as le$al counsel on "ebruary 1'. @ec. 1301=.P2d#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and as Apecial 2d#inistratri( of the estate of 3harles . Ma$no as 2d#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es4 <b= 2velina 2. 19'3 for 2velina 2. @ec. unless a Apecial 2d#inistratri( is appointed.*etters of 2d#inistration were issued to 2velina Ma$no pursuant to this ?onorable 3ourtKs aforesaid Erder of Dece#ber -0. Ma$no actin$ as 2d#inistratri( of the . because the last will of said 3harles . cada ve> %ue el precio estipulado en cada contrato este total#ente pa$ado. said 2d#inistratri( andNor Apecial 2d#inistratri( havin$ filed a bond satisfactory to the 3ourt. Ma$no= a fir#ar escrituras de venta definitiva de propiedades cubiertas por contratos para vender. 11. Ap. Ap. @ec.ewton ?od$es. 1301= <1-= En "ebruary -0. Ap. Ma$no as Apecial 2d#inistratri( of the state of 3harles .

both estates of *innie &ane ?od$es and 3harles . *eon ). . .<13= En Aepte#ber l'. actin$ as attorney for 2velina 2. alle$es5 3. and the purchasers have been de#andin$ the e(ecution of definite deeds of sale in their favor. fro# #anifestations #ade by 2velina 2. J That hereto attached are thirteen <13= copies deeds of sale e(ecuted by the 2d#inistratri( and by the co-ad#inistrator <"ernando ).. 19'3 are all re$istered in the na#e of the deceased 3. Ap... Ma$no. has been advertisin$ in the newspaper in /loilo thusly5 "or Aale Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es and 3harles . . 2.ewton ?od$es. J That since &anuary.. Mirasol= of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and 3harles . Ma$no as 2d#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. has paid and still is payin$ su#s of #oney to sundry persons.ewton ?od$es have been receivin$ in full.= The properties involved in the aforesaid #otion of Aepte#ber 1'. 0. <10= 2velina 2. Ma$no and her le$al counsel. <11= &oe ?od$es throu$h the undersi$ned attorneys #anifested durin$ the hearin$s before this ?onorable 3ourt on Aepte#ber 0 and '. 8ellada. 19'3.ewton ?od$es respectively. Ma$no.. ?od$es. . . <18= 2velina 2. ?od$es. pay#ents for those Pcontracts to sellQ entered into by 3. 2velina 2d#inistratri( <1'= 2velina 2. it is alle$ed on infor#ation and belief.Q <1. ?od$es was clai#in$ all of the assets belon$in$ to the deceased spouses *innie &ane ?od$es and 3. it is alle$ed on infor#ation and belief. ?owever.. 19'3 *eon ). e#olu#ents and inco#e therefro# belon$ to the ?i$don fa#ily who are na#ed in para$raphs "ourth and "ifth of the 7ill of *innie &ane ?od$es <p. in co#pliance with the ter#s and conditions of the respective Pcontracts to sellQ e(ecuted by the parties thereto. Ma$no . 19'3 that the estate of 3.. 8ellada. 2ll @eal state or )ersonal )roperty will be sold on "irst 3o#e "irst Aerved !asis. @ec. )roc. ?od$es situated in )hilippines because of the aforesaid election by 3. ?od$es wherein he clai#ed and too+ possession as sole owner of all of said assets durin$ the ad#inistration of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es on the $round that he was the sole devisee and le$atee under her *ast 7ill and Testa#ent. there is no %uestion she will clai# that at least fifty per cent <00U= of the con6u$al assets of the deceased spouses and the rents. ?od$es durin$ his lifeti#e. . Ma$no has sub#itted no inventory and accountin$ of her ad#inistration as 2d#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and Apecial 2d#inistratri( of the estate of 3. 1301=. .

&oe ?od$es actin$ as the co-ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. . or on Aepte#ber 1. '?@A /%6S A%% 25 TH4 "47TS. -3. #olu#ents and &ane ?od$es and 3. . .= Auch other relief as this ?onorable 3ourt #ay dee# 6ust and e%uitable in the pre#ises. after the co-ad#inistrators &oe ?od$es and "ernando ). ?od$es /nco#e Therefro#Q <pp. throu$h the undersi$ned attorneys. 19'3.. 1'1-=. . A. Mirasol were replaced by herein petitioner )hilippine 3o##ercial and /ndustrial !an+ as sole ad#inistrator.!2T027 T2 S4T 52" H4A"07. an P.. Ma$no to stop. 1901 )lus 2ll Ef The @ents. pre#ises considered. in Apecial )roceedin$s . 4!2%6!47TS A7D 07C2!4 TH4"45"2! 25 2CT214" @. petitioner filed the followin$5 !A7054STAT027 A7D !2T027. 7. . 2velina 2. <2nne( PTQ. ?od$es which have co#e into her possession... .-.7? @ "E@ . 03'-0. . #ovant respectfully prays that this ?onorable 3ourt.. '?C>. 8ibbs. ?od$es all of the funds. such as the undersi$ned attorneys= as the 3o-ad#inistrator and attorney-in-fact of a #a6ority of the beneficiaries of the estate of 3.A7D D4%0:4"< T2 AD!070ST"AT2"S 25 TH4 4STAT4 25 C. ).r$ent Motion "or 2n 2ccountin$ and Delivery To 2d#inistrator of the state of 3. H2D-4S 480ST07.A7D "4S2%:4 B6"-47T !2T027 52" A7 ACC267T07. 1'1-. properties and assets of any character belon$in$ to the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es and 3. En Ectober 0. 07C%6D07. properties and assets of any character re#ainin$ in her possession4 <3= )endin$ this ?onorable 3ourtKs ad6udication of the aforesaid issues.. ?od$es5 <a= 2dvertisin$ the sale and the sale of the properties of the estates5 <b= #ployin$ personnel and payin$ the# any co#pensation. deceased. 19'3 had not yet been heard due to the absence fro# the country of 2tty. pursuant to an a$ree#ent of all the heirs of ?od$es approved by the court. <..E7 )hilippine 3o##ercial and /ndustrial !an+ <hereinafter referred to as )3/!=. 3"/ @ec.o.. and because the above #otion of Ectober 0. )etition. ?od$es filed.AS 25 !A< =>. . order5 <1= 2velina 2. 7. Ma$no to sub#it an inventory and accountin$ of all of the funds. 3EM A .o.. throu$h its undersi$ned counsel.= 2l#ost a year thereafter. Ma$no to turn over and deliver to the 2d#inistrator of the estate of 3. H2D-4S 25 A%% TH4 ASS4TS 25 TH4 C27J6-A% /A"T74"SH0/ 25 TH4 D4C4AS4D %07704 JA74 H2D-4S A7D C. ?od$es of all Ef The 2ssets Ef The 3on6u$al )artnership of The Deceased *innie (istin$ as Ef May. and to this ?onorable 3ourt respectfully alle$es that5 1. unless she first secures the confor#ity of &oe ?od$es <or his duly authori>ed representative. with full details of what she has done with the#4 <-= 2velina 2. . the ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. after due hearin$. 19'. ?od$es.

Hodges and Avelina A. 19'. 19'. ?od$es. This ?onorable 3ourt set for hearin$ on &une 11. resolved the dispute over who should act as ad#inistrator of the estate of 3.. ?od$es by appointin$ the )3/! as ad#inistrator of the estate of 3.. 19'3. . ?od$es should be ad#inistered. Ma$no ille$ally acts as if she is in e(clusive control of all of the assets in the )hilippines of both estates includin$ those clai#ed by the estate of 3. . . ?od$es <pp.= <or.-. 19'3. 2velina 2. . 19'. . . ?od$es.. Aince its appoint#ent as ad#inistrator of the estate of 3.. 19'. 93.. 3"/ @ec. . . 3. of 2velina 2. 19'. seventy-five percent B10UC of all assets owned by 3. because the undersi$ned 2llison &. En &anuary -. 3"/ @ec. 0.nited Atates. and Messrs. 19'. &. .930. 1'1-= and issuin$ letters of ad#inistration to the )3/!. e#istedEof &oth estates )ould &e administrated Fointl.. the /C01 as administrator of the estate of C. 3"/ @ec. ..o. by the two co-ad#inistrators of the estate of 3. 19'3. the )3/! filed a PMotion to @esolveQ the aforesaid Motion of Ectober 0. . sub6ect. /loilo 3ity on 2u$ust 31.... 8ibbs was absent in the . 900-90'.. A.o. ?od$es <p. 19'3 Motion.. the Motion of Ectober 0. ). 1'1-=.. ). 19'. which was approved by this ?onorable 3ourt. ). . 1'1-= this ?onorable 3ourt a#ended its order of &anuary -... to the aforesaid Ectober 0. <b= 2velina 2. ?od$es to one hundred percent <100U= of the assets clai#ed by both estates.. En "ebruary 1. &oe ?od$es and "ernando ). 7. this ?onorable 3ourt ordered the indefinite postpone#ent of the hearin$ of the Motion of Ectober 0.. the )3/!Ks clai# to e(clusive possession and ownership of one-hundred percent <10011.. ?od$es or *innie &ane ?od$es situated in the )hilippines. A. En &anuary -. 19'. En "ebruary 10. . Ma$no and those who clai# to act for her as ad#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es5 <a= 2velina 2. 19'. . on the basis of an a#icable a$ree#ent entered into on &anuary -3. A. a#on$ others. wherein the parties thereto a$reed that certain su#s of #oney were to be paid in settle#ent of different clai#s a$ainst the two estates and that the assets Dto the e#tent the. this ?onorable 3ourt. and refusin$ to reopen sa#e until ordered to do so by this ?onorable 3ourt on Aepte#ber 1. 19'. Mirasol actin$ as the two co-ad#inistrators of the estate of 3. ?od$es as evidenced in part by her loc+in$ the pre#ises at -0'--08 8uanco Atreet. who the )3/! shall e#ploy and how #uch they #ay be paid as evidenced in party by her refusal to si$n chec+s issued by the )3/! payable to the undersi$ned counsel pursuant to their fee a$ree#ent approved by this ?onorable 3ourt in its order dated March 31. En &une 11. na#ely. ?od$es because of the followin$ acts. '. 19'. 7illia# !rown and 2rdel Goun$ 2ctin$ for all of the ?i$don fa#ily who clai# to be the sole beneficiaries of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and various le$al counsel representin$ the aforena#ed parties entered into an a#icable a$ree#ent. 91-. Ma$no actin$ as the ad#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. but in no way chan$es its reco$nition of the aforedescribed basic de#and by the )3/! as ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. virtually all of the heirs of 3. . . !agno as administratri# of the estate of %innie Jane Hodges . <pp. however.. in the alternative.o.... ?od$es the )3/! has not been able to properly carry out its duties and obli$ations as ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. Ma$no ille$ally acts as thou$h she alone #ay decide how the assets of the estate of 3. ?od$es and virtually all of the heirs of 3.

. deceased. 3"/ @ec. 19'-. . 1'1-= who thereupon was appointed on &anuary --. . Davies as co-special ad#inistrator of the estate of 3.. A. . . <ii= Special Administratri# of the estate of C. 19'3 by (ecutor of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es <p. particularly those of &anuary -. ?od$esK death. 19'-. 3. 19'-. ?od$es. and were in his possession and re$istered in his na#e alone.. 1. Hodges <p. The )3/! +nows of no assets in the )hilippines re$istered in the na#e of *innie &ane ?od$es. . which e(isted in the )hilippines on the date of 3. and the #andate contained in its *etters of 2d#inistration issued on &anuary -. 1301=. . ?od$es who on May -8. . .. alone or were derived therefro# since his death on Dece#ber -0. 10-. 19'. 19'. the )3/! clai#s the ri$ht to the i##ediate e(clusive possession and control of all of the properties.. ?od$es Pand to perfor# all other acts necessary for the preservation of said property. . 30-3'. this ?onorable 3ourt appointed Miss 2velina 2. . 19'3. to wit5 <a= En Dece#ber -0. with the confor#ity of 2velina 2. . Aullivan. 1901 1301=.. <d= 2velina 2.)... 108-111. 1901 was appointed Apecial 2d#inistrator <p. ?od$es. as evidenced in part by the cashin$ of his personal chec+s. . 19'. . 10-. 1301= and on &uly 1.o. 3"/ @ec.. 3"/ @ec. A. Dece#ber -0. 3"/ @ec. 3"/ @ec...)... &a#es *.. . ?arold I. The )3/! as the current ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. A. Ma$no ille$ally $ives access to and turns over possession of the records and assets of the estate of 3.Q <p. ?od$es... <c= En &anuary --.o. .. and "ebruary 1.). Ma$no ille$ally refuses to e(ecute chec+s prepared by the )3/! drawn to pay e(penses of the estate of 3. ?od$esK death. .o.. Davies resi$ned in favor of &oe ?od$es <pp. includin$ the docu#entary records evidencin$ sa#e. 1301=. court cases.. accounts receivables. 91. Ma$no. . Ma$no si#ultaneously as5 <i= 2d#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es <p. 9. A. the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. 2s ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. ?od$es. or..nder and pursuant to the orders of this ?onorable 3ourt. ).o.). Mr. ?od$es to the attorney-in-fact of the ?i$don "a#ily.). <b= En Dece#ber -9. 19'-. 3"/ @ec. ban+ accounts and other assets.. ?od$es as evidenced in part by the chec+ drawn to rei#burse the )3/!Ks advance of ). succeeded to all of the ri$hts of the previously duly appointed ad#inistrators of the estate of 3. date of 3.o. A. 13.= 8.8.this ?onorable 3ourt appointed ?arold I. ?od$es. 3"/ @ec.00 to pay the 19'.<c= 2velina 2.. ?od$es. 30. inco#e ta(es reported due and payable by the estate of 3.o. ).. ?od$es alon$ with 2velina 2.... 1'1-..o. 2ll of the assets of which the )3/! has +nowled$e are either re$istered in the na#e of 3. A.0. 1301= to replace the deceased 3. (ecutor of the state of *innie &ane ?od$es on Dece#ber -0. Ma$no <pp. A. it has Pfull authority to ta+e possession of all the property of the deceased 3. 7.. to the )3/!. .

3"/ @ec. of the )3/! as the sole ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. . 19'3 of &oe ?od$es and "ernando ). 19'.8. ). . <b= The accountin$ of &oe ?od$es and "ernando ). 19'3 <pp.. . to wit5 <a= The accountin$ of ?arold I. too+ possession of all )hilippine 2ssets now clai#ed by the two estates.. . 3. a Te(as lawyer actin$ for the ?i$don fa#ily who clai# to be the only heirs of *innie &ane ?od$es <pp. A.. 7ith the appoint#ent by this ?onorable 3ourt on "ebruary --. they le$ally were entitled to ta+e over fro# Miss Ma$no the full and e(clusive possession of all of the assets of the estate of 3. *e$ally.... Mirasol as of &anuary -3.. . . Ma$no actin$ as P2d#inistratri( of the Apecial 2d#inistratri( of the state of 3. 3"/ @ec. ?od$es. . Mirasol. Ma$no. Ma$no of her acts as ad#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es or special ad#inistratri( of the state of *innie &ane ?od$es and . .o. Miss 2velina 2.ote5 This accountin$ was approved by this ?onorable 3ourt on March 3..). . A. Mirasol as the co-ad#inistrators of the estate of 3. ?od$es in substitution of &oe ?od$es and "ernando ).).. 11. 19'.. <d= En "ebruary --.3.ote5 This accountin$ was approved by this ?onorable 3ourt on &anuary --. 1'1-=.. ?od$es.. The )3/!Ks predecessors sub#itted their accountin$ and this ?onorable 3ourt approved sa#e. .. ?od$es. 1'1-= alon$ with Miss Ma$no who at that ti#e was still actin$ as special co-ad#inistratri( of the estate of 3. ?od$es alone only in her capacity as Apecial 2d#inistratri( of the state of 3.o. -0-33.0 V . 1'-33. 180'-18. 19'.o. without ob6ection on the part of 2velina 2.. 19'. 38-.and pp. pursuant to the orders of this ?onorable 3ourt of Dece#ber -0.). 81 V 80. ?od$es. ?od$es <pp.this ?onorable 3ourt as special co-ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. the )3/! le$ally beca#e the only party entitled to the sole and e(clusive possession of all of the assets of the estate of 3.o.). ?od$es. 3"/ @ec.. A..o. 19'-..). Ma$no. 10... a Te(as lawyer actin$ for the heirs of 3. filed "ebruary -.o. Miss Ma$no could ta+e possession of the assets re$istered in the na#e of 3. . Mirasol as co-ad#inistrators of the estate of 3.. 1'1-=. 1'1. 3"/ @ec. 1301=.. A. 3"/ @ec. ?od$es <pp. A. Davies dated &anuary 18. <pp.o. ?od$esQ4 <ii= 3onfor#ity of *eslie chols. ). 3"/ @ec. 18. 19'3.. A.. 3"/ @ec. 1'1-=. . 1'1-=4 which shows or its face the5 <i= 3onfor#ity of 2velina 2. ?od$es4 and <iii= 3onfor#ity of 7illia# !rown. this ?onorable 3ourt appointed &oe ?od$es and "ernando ). 990-1000. 1'-18... 7ith the appoint#ent on &anuary -. <c= The )3/! and its undersi$ned lawyers are aware of no report or accountin$ sub#itted by 2velina 2.. A. 19'3 <p. .

.estate of 3.. 2velina 2.. 19'3 to which Miss Ma$no #anifested her confor#ity < supra=. Ma$no a$reed to receive )10.. properties and assets in the na#e of 3. the )3/! is not in e(clusive control of the aforesaid records.. this ?onorable 3ourt on Aepte#ber 1. unless it is the accountin$ of ?arold I. e#s.. ?od$es. . 19'. ?od$es durin$ his lifeti#e.00 for her services as an e#ployee of both estates. ?od$es is entitled to the e(clusive possession of all records. 19'. . /loilo 3ity and continues to deny the )3/! its ri$ht to +now the co#binations to the doors of the vault and safes situated within the pre#ises at -0'--08 8uanco Atreet despite the fact that said co#binations were +nown to only 3. En Aepte#ber 1.. . ?od$es is the sole beneficiary of the assets of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es situated in the )hilippines. . . the )3/! as ad#inistrator of the estate of 3.. 19'. 19'. 1-. ?owever.. ordered Miss Ma$no to reopen the aforesaid pre#ises at -0'--08 8uanco Atreet and per#it the )3/! access thereto no later than Aepte#ber 8..00 Pfor her services as ad#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$esQ and in addition she a$reed to be e#ployed. /n the aforesaid a$ree#ent of &anuary -. !ecause of Miss Ma$noKs refusal to co#ply with the reasonable re%uest of )3/! concernin$ the assets of the estate of 3.. 10. ?od$es or the possession of &oe ?od$es or "ernando ). 19'. . 19'. ?od$es. . 13. Ma$no and her le$al counsel at no ti#e have %uestioned the validity of the aforesaid assess#ent and the pay#ent of the correspondin$ )hilippine death ta(es. ?od$es dated &anuary 18. . ... ?od$es as of the date of his death on Dece#ber -0..Q -.. Miss Ma$no loc+ed the pre#ises at -0'-08 8uanco Atreet and denied the )3/! access thereto.. The )hilippine estate and inheritance ta(es assessed the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es were assessed and paid on the basis that 3. ?od$es. and the orders of this ?onorable 3ourt of sa#e date.. at Pa #onthly salary of )000.000.. . Davies as special co-ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. ?od$es effective 2u$ust 31. 19'. 1.which were in the possession of the deceased 3. Mirasol as co-ad#inistrators of the estate of 3. 19'.nder the aforesaid a$ree#ent of &anuary -.. Miss 2velina 2.r$ent Motion of the )3/! dated Aepte#ber 3. ?od$es on that date and which then passed to the possession of Miss Ma$no in her capacity as Apecial 3o-2d#inistratri( of the estate of 3. startin$ "ebruary 1.. the )3/! dis#issed Miss Ma$no as an e#ployee of the estate of 3. properties and assets because Miss Ma$no continues to assert the clai#s hereinabove outlined in para$raph '. 1'.pon the .. continues to use her own loc+s to the doors of the aforesaid pre#ises at -0'--08 8uanco Atreet.. .. 19'. ?od$es. . The )3/! pursuant to the aforesaid orders of this ?onorable 3ourt is a$ain in physical possession of all of the assets of the estate of 3.

?od$es alone. Ma$no to sub#it an inventory and accountin$ as 2d#inistratri( of the *innie &ane ?od$es and 3o-2d#inistratri( of the state of state of 3. . . order 2velina 2.. .= )endin$ this ?onorable 3ourtKs ad6udication of the aforesaid issues. properties and assets of any character re#ainin$ in her possession4 <.E7 )hilippine 3o##ercial and /ndustrial !an+ <hereinafter referred to as )3/!=. Auch assets as #ay have e(isted of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es were ordered by this ?onorable 3ourt in special )roceedin$s ... the )3/! respectfully petitions that this ?onorable court5 <1= Aet the Motion of Ectober 0. 18. throu$h the undersi$ned counsel.Q )etition. ?od$es.. 19'3 and $rant the )3/! the e(clusive possession and control of all of the records. . 1301 to be turned over and delivered to 3. ?e in fact too+ possession of the# before his death and asserted and e(ercised the ri$ht of e(clusive ownership over the said assets as the sole beneficiary of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es.. and to this ?onorable 3ourt respectfully alle$es that5 .= En &anuary 8. . . 19'0.othin$ further re#ains to be done in the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es e(cept to resolve the aforesaid Motion of Ectober 0.4 <'= n6oin &a#es *. ?od$es. properties and assets of any character belon$in$ to the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es and 3..o. Ma$no and her representatives to stop interferrin$ with the ad#inistration of the estate of 3. .11. Ma$no to turn over and deliver to the )3/! as ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. Aullivan.. with full details of what she has done with the#4 <3= Erder 2velina 2. 2ttorneys Man$lapus and Fui#po and others alle$edly representin$ Miss Ma$no fro# enterin$ the pre#ises at -0'--08 8uanco Atreet. /loilo 3ity as an e#ployee of the estate of 3. Ma$no fro# wor+in$ in the pre#ises at -0'--08 8uanco Atreet. . ?od$es of all of the funds. /loilo 3ity or any other properties of 3.. ?od$es all of the funds. 19'. properties and assets of the estate of 3. pre#ises considered. . as ad#inistrator of the estate of the late 3. 7? @ "E@ . ?od$es and approve her dis#issal as such by the )3/! effective 2u$ust 31. ?od$es by the )3/! and its duly authori>ed representatives4 <0= n6oin 2velina 2. <2nne( P.. ?od$es which have co#e into her possession. 19'3 for hearin$ at the earliest possible date with notice to all interested parties4 <-= Erder 2velina 2. . petitioner also filed a #otion for PEfficial Declaration of ?eirs of *innie &ane ?od$es stateQ alle$in$5 3EM A . ?od$es without the e(press per#ission of the )3/!4 <1= Erder such other relief as this ?onorable 3ourt finds 6ust and e%uitable in the pre#ises.

that he shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any of the i#proved property now owned by us located at. devise and be%ueath all of the rest. to be e%ually divided a#on$ #y brothers and sisters. *eonard ?i$don. to #y husband. which we %uote in full hereunder. *innie &ane ##a ?owell. / $ive.ewton ?od$es and *innie &ane ?od$es. "E. J-4 Ap. ?e shall have the ri$ht to sub-divide any far#land and sell lots therein. Aadie @ascoe. as above provided.. share and share ali+e. residue and re#ainder of #y estate. any property which he #ay dee# proper to dispose of4 to lease any of the real property for oil. however. and fourth provisions. use and en6oy said estate durin$ his lifeti#e. 190-. En . #ana$e and en6oy the sa#e durin$ his lifeti#e. ac%uired a do#icile of choice in said city. Durin$ their #arria$e. this ?onorable 3ourt.ewton ?od$es. 1'1-. and he is hereby $iven the ri$ht to #a+e any chan$es in the physical properties of said estate by sale of any part thereof which he thin+ best. $as andNor other #inerals. ra !o#an and .ove#ber --. 19'.. The be%uests in said will pertinent to the present issue are the second. <3"/ @ecord.ove#ber 1.. or located.A. A 3E..o.1. 3harles .i#ray . e#olu#ents and inco#e fro# said estate shall belon$ to hi#. wherever situated. wherever situated or located. En . 3harles . #y said husband durin$ his natural lifeti#e. Te(as. ac%uired and accu#ulated considerable assets and properties in the )hilippines and in the Atates of Te(as and E+laho#a. 2ll rents. therefore. /t is provided herein. control. to have and to hold unto hi#. both personal and real. na#ely5 P sta ?i$don. T?/@D5 / desire. 2lthou$h Te(as was the do#icile of ori$in of the ?od$es spouses.@T?5 2t the death of #y said husband. 3. -.. Ap. devise and be%ueath all of the rest. ?i$don. and #ay sell uni#proved town lots. *innie &ane ?od$es e(ecuted in the 3ity of /loilo her *ast 7ill and Testa#ent. third.Q . 1903. spouses 3harles . @oy ?i$don.D5 / $ive. )roc. in or near the 3ity of *ubboc+.o. . /n said 7ill. and all such deeds or leases shall pass the absolute fee si#ple title to the interest so conveyed in such property as he #ay elect to sell.. p. 3. and he is further authori>ed to use any part of the principal of said estate as he #ay need or desire. J-=. 3. . a copy of which is hereto attached as Anne# B1 B. 2ll said properties constituted their con6u$al estate. ?od$es desi$nated his wife. but he shall have the full ri$ht to lease.2.nited Atates of 2#erica. . 3harles . . in its orders dated March 31 and Dece#ber 1-. which they retained until the ti#e of their respective deaths. . shall have the ri$ht to #ana$e. . a copy of which is hereto attached as Anne# BAG.ewton ?od$es. pp.ewton ?od$es. ?od$es e(ecuted in the 3ity of /loilo his *ast 7ill and Testa#ent. residue and re#ainder of #y estate both real and personal. 2#erican citi>ens ori$inally fro# the Atate of Te(as. conveyin$ in fee si#ple or for any other ter# or ti#e. and the purchase of any other or additional property as he #ay thin+ best4 to e(ecute conveyances with or without $eneral or special warranty. )roc. 1301. direct and provide that #y husband. conclusively found and cate$orically ruled that said spouses had lived and wor+ed for #ore than 00 years in /loilo 3ity and had.

1901. 2t the ti#e of her death.. predeceasin$ her husband by #ore than five <0= years. of inheritance. 0. the 3onflict of *aw of Te(as. 7. upon the death of *innie &ane ?od$es on May -3. 8. as approved and applied by our Aupre#e 3ourt in the case of P/n The Matter Ef The Testate 3hristensenQ. )roc. discuss what law should $overn the assets of *innie &ane ?od$es located in E+laho#a and Te(as. This is the onl. Ap. upon dissolution. '.o. emoluments and income from said estate shall &elong to him DC. provide that the do#iciliary law <)hilippine law J see para$raph -. be enhanced or increased by inco#e. the a#ount of successional ri$hts. for convenience.. *innie &ane ?od$es. Thus applyin$ the P@envoi DoctrineQ. one-half <1N-= of the entirety of the assets of the ?od$es spouses constitutin$ their con6u$al estate pertained auto#atically to 3harles . and the intrinsic of its testa#entary provisions. En &une -8. . . e(cept her husband. portion of the conFugal estate capa&le of inheritance &. . &ut in his o)n right as partner in the conFugal partnership. 30. 3. intended )hilippine laws to $overn her 7ill4 <b= 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode provides that Pthe national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. state of duard . . 8. whatever #ay be the nature of the property and re$ardless of the country wherein said property #ay be foundQ. )a. under a clear and specific provision of her 7ill. )hilippine law should apply to the 7ill of *innie &ane ?od$es and to the successional ri$hts to her estate insofar as her mova&le and immova&le assets in the )hilippines are concerned. this ?onorable 3ourt issued letters testa#entary to 3. she had no forced or co#pulsory heir.nder )hilippine and Te(as law. ?owever. . which is the Pnational lawQ of the testatri(. p. should be $overned by )hilippine laws because5 <a= The testatri(. shall prevail. 7e shall not. not &. The 7ill of *innie &ane ?od$es. <3"/ @ecord. HodgesE and he is further authori. 1901. ?od$es as e(ecutor of her estate without bond. . with respect to the order of succession. 1901. *innie &ane ?od$es.= 1.--0=. and the law of the situs of the property <also )hilippine law as to properties located in the )hilippines= with re$ards i##ovable <real properties=.. This one-half <1N-= portion of the con6u$al assets pertainin$ to *innie &ane ?od$es cannot. we shall refer to as the ?/8DE. Ap. earnin$s.9. En &uly 1.@. at this sta$e.o.?od$es. 19'3. The other one-half <1N-= portion of the con6u$al estate constituted the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. . Thus. 1901 *innie &ane ?od$es died in /loilo 3ity. because the only assets in issue in this #otion are those within the 6urisdiction of this #otion 3ourt in the two above-captioned Apecial )roceedin$s. ?od$es in the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. 1901. rents. En May -3. as his beneficiary usin$ the identical lan$ua$e she used in the second and third provisos of her 7ill. <3"/ @ecord. which. this ?onorable 3ourt ad#itted to probate the *ast 7ill and Testa#ent of the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es <2nne( P2Q=. )roc. ?od$es. 1301. supra. 1301. pro#ul$ated &anuary 31.o. be divided e%ually between the#. *innie &ane ?od$esK 7ill provides that P all rents.ed . or e#olu#ents accruin$ after her death on May -3. -. her heirs .ewton ?od$es.A. 9. and appointed 3. pp. Ahe was survived also by various brothers and sisters #entioned in her 7ill < supra=. the con6u$al or co##unity estate of spouses shall. supra= should $overn the testa#entary dispositions and successional ri$hts over #ovables <personal properties=. *-1'1.

2ll these acts of 3. capa&le of inheritance &. Ap.. "or the convenience of this ?onorable 3ourt.= 3learly. =>.o. en$a$in$ and doin$ while the late *innie &ane ?od$es was still alive.. <2rticle 88'. '?@A .= Thus. to at least one-half <1N-= of the estate of the deceased. specific testamentar. located at. which we have cited above. /n his capacity as sole heir and successor to the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es as above-stated. Thus. The late *innie &ane ?od$es desi$nated her husband 3. p. as follows5 <a= /n an Erder dated May -1.ew 3ivil 3ode provides that Pthe ri$hts of the successor are trans#itted fro# the death of the decedentQ.. in his o)n name alone. consisted e#clusivel. or -0U by way of inheritance and le$iti#e= plus all Prents. e#olu#ents and inco#eQ accruin$ to said con6u$al estate fro# the #o#ent of *innie &ane ?od$esK death <see para$raph 9. 2rticle 111 of the . as e(clusive heir and owner of all the assets constitutin$ her estate. 1901. . Thus. . designation of his )ife. shortly after the death of *innie &ane ?od$es. e(cept only with re$ards certain properties Powned by us. as a #atter of ri$ht and by way of irrevocable le$iti#e. 13. to his )ifeIs estate in the /hilippines. part of the principal of said estate as he ma. 11. 6pon his death on Decem&er =@.Q <3"/ @ecord. 3. her heirs. '?C=. ?od$es. and no testa#entary disposition by the deceased can le$ally and validly affect this ri$ht of the survivin$ spouse. . . Te(asQ. Hodges.. 1301. 6ust as he had been operatin$. en$a$ed in business and perfor#ed all acts in connection with the entirety of the con6u$al estate. &. by specific provision of *innie &ane ?od$esK 7ill.ew 3ivil 3ode provide that the survivin$ spouse of a deceased leavin$ no ascendants or descendants is entitled.= . even without relyin$ on our laws of succession and le$iti#e. of no more than one$ half D'H=E of the conFugal estate. ?od$es were authori>ed and sanctioned e(pressly and i#pliedly by various orders of this ?onorable 3ourt. 10. . 990 and 1001 of the . we attached hereto as 2nne( P3Q a $raph of how the con6u$al estate of the spouses ?od$es should be divided in accordance with )hilippine law and the 7ill of *innie &ane ?od$es. ?od$es. 3ivil 3ode. 1. i##ediately upon the death of *innie &ane ?od$es. ?e operated all the assets.. . 1901. her husband is entitled to said onehalf <1N-= portion of her estate by way of le$iti#e. and registered in his name alone... title to the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es was trans#itted to 3. 7.or 00U by way of con6u$al partnership share and 1N. &ut as e#clusive o)ner of all said assets. this ?onorable 3ourt ruled that 3. appropriated to hi#self the entirety of her estate. . ?od$es was the owner of at least three-fourths <3N. therefore. ?od$es i##ediately upon her death on May -3. )as entitled to the entirel. computed as of the time of her death on !a. ?od$es as her sole and e(clusive heir with full authority to do what he pleased. 2nne( P2Q. <1N. C. and to perfor# acts which he had been doin$ while the deceased was livin$. 1-. Clearl.. therefore. /n fact. 3. need or desire .= or seventy-five <10U= percent of all of the con6u$al assets of the spouses.to use an. therefore. ?od$es Pis allowed or authori>ed to continue the business in which he was en$a$ed. all said conFugal assets )ere in his sole possession and control. not as e#ecutor. e#olu#ents and inco#eQ #ust be credited to the one-half <1N-= portion of the con6u$al estate pertainin$ to 3. supra=. Pall rents. )roc. in or near the 3ity of *ubboc+.Q <)ara$raph 3. 11. the estate of %innie Jane Hodges.. 2rticles 900..

. 1301. pro&ated &. pp. . . p. ?od$es throu$h his counsel *eon ). Ap. 90-914 e#phasis supplied. ?od$es throu$h his counsel *eon ). pp.= <d= En &uly -0. 1909 wherein he alle$ed a#on$ other thin$s. this ?onorable 3ourt approved the verified P2nnual Atate#ent of 2ccount !y The (ecutor "or the Gear 19'0S sub#itted throu$h *eon ). as herein e#ecutor is the onl. .o. 8ellada on 2pril 1. . but also. the successor to all the properties left by the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es. alle$ed in the verified Motion dated Dece#ber 11. leases and #ort$a$es of the properties left by the said deceased *innie &ane ?od$es in consonance )ith the )ishes contained in the last )ill and testament of the latter . Ap. as herein e#ecutor is the onl.<b= En Dece#ber 1. . Ap. this ?onorable 3ourt. )roc. Decem&er ''. 19'0 wherein he alle$ed.Q <3"/ @ecord. counsel for the (ecutor. '?@A. 19'1 wherein he alle$ed5 PThat no person interested in the )hilippines be $iven notice. e#s <c= En 2pril -1.. 8ellada on 2pril -0.'4 e#phasis supplied. already probated by this ?onorable 3ourt. 1301. 19'1.. a#on$ other thin$s.= issued the followin$ order5 P2s prayed for by 2ttorney 8ellada. )hich the Court considers )ell taken . . p. 8ellada as attorney for the e(ecutor 3. ofthe ti#e and place of e(a#inin$ the herein account. alread. this ?onorable 3ourt approved the verified P2nnual Atate#ent of 2ccountQ sub#itted by 3. )roc. this ?onorable 3ourt approved the verified inventory and accountin$ sub#itted by 3.Q <3"/ @ecord. the Honora&le Court . 8ellada on &uly -1. <is= not only part owner of the properties left as con6u$al. 1301. PThat no person interested in the )hilippines of the ti#e and place of e(a#inin$ the herein account.. .= <e= En May -.o. in accordance )ith the last )ill and testament ofthe deceased. )roc. be $iven notice. Ap. all the sales. .o.= . devisee or legatee of the deceased. this Honora&le Court .= -. ?od$es5 That herein (ecutor.ewton ?od$es are hereby 2))@E: D. )roc. on the basis of the followin$ fact... 1301. conveyances.K <3"/ @ecord. )roc. be $iven notice as herein e#ecutor is the onl. 19'0. The said (ecutor is further authori>ed to e(ecute subse%uent sales.Q <3"/ @ecord. devisee or legatee of the deceased %innie Jane Hodges . 1909. pp. devisee or legatee of the deceased %innie Jane Hodges.Q <3"/ @ecord. conveyances.o. . PThat no person interested in the )hilippines of the ti#e and place of e(a#inin$ the herein account. leases and #ort$a$es of all the properties left by the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es e(ecuted by the 3harles . pro&ated &. Ap.o. 81-8-4 e#phasis supplied. in accordance )ith the last )ill and testament alread.4 e#phasis supplied. 1301. 1901 filed by *eon ). 11-184 e#phasis supplied. 1901. for the reasons stated in his motion dated (ecutor. in accordance with the last will and testa#ent ofthe deceased..

no need to li%uidate the con6u$al estate of the spouses.. there was. residue and re#ainder of #y estate both real and personal.i#ray . !y e(pressly authori>in$ 3. but in accordance with the dispositions of her will. 19'-. Thus. . ?i$don. in anyway.. ?od$es ac%uired by way of inheritance fro# his wife *innie &ane ?od$es upon her death.= <b= 2rticle 8'. provides as follows5 P2t the death of #y said husband. . . "ebruary -8.A. The 7ill of *innie &ane ?od$es <2nne( P2Q=. ?od$es as sole heir in accordance with the ter#s and conditions of her 7ill. .. . / $ive. 990 and 1001 of the .. <3onsolacion "lorentino de 3risolo$o. *-1381'. 81. the le$iti#e of a survivin$ spouse is 1N. ?od$es was the sole and e(clusive heir of *innie &ane ?od$es. ?od$es ac%uired. . the above-#entioned provision in the 7ill of *innie &ane ?od$es is ##a ?owell. vs. Aince 3.... assu#in$ this proviso in *innie &ane ?od$esK 7ill is valid and bindin$ a$ainst the estate of 3. @oy ?i$don. *eonard ?i$don.Q !ecause of the facts hereinabove set out there is no Prest. ?od$es as the sole heir of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. Thus. but absolute title and ownership to her estate. 3. this ?onorable 3ourt has <1= declared 3. @. 3. 1'. operate and control all the con6u$al assets as owner.A under the above-%uoted provision of *innie &ane ?od$esK 7ill is without #erit because said provision is void and invalid at least as to the )hilippine assets. not #erely a usufructuary ri$ht. 8. 19'-. therefore this ?onorable 3ourt sanctioned and authori>ed. ?od$es on Dece#ber -0. 2ny clai#s by the ?/8DE.ew 3ivil 3ode. 18. fourth para$raph.ewton ?od$es. . the Aupre#e 3ourt held that the heir first desi$nated ac%uired full ownership of the property be%ueathed by the will.. to be e%ually divided a#on$ #y brothers and sisters. and <-= delivered and distributed her estate to 3. ra !o#an and . ?od$es or his heirs to the properties. under the provisions of 2rticles 900. <a= /n spite of the above-#entioned provision in the 7ill of *innie &ane ?od$es. et al. as above-stated. affect the ri$hts of the estate of 3.o.ew 3ivil 3ode clearly provide that no char$e. 11. althou$h the Pestate of *innie &ane ?od$esQ still e(ists as a le$al and 6uridical personality. not only by law. . at least to the e(tent of the )hilippine assets.and 88' of the . /n a recent case involvin$ a very si#ilar testa#entary provision.. ?od$es to act as he did in connection with the estate of his wife. residue and re#ainderQ. /t should not. . Manuel Ain$son. 3onse%uently. it had no assets or properties located in the )hilippines re$istered in its na#e whatsoever at the ti#e of the death of 3. na#ely5 P sta ?i$don. 3harles . share and share ali+e. which 3. which re#ains to vest in the ?/8DE.. not #ere usufructuary ri$hts.10... wherever situated or located. devise and be%ueath all of the rest. ?od$es to #ana$e. in fact.of the estate of the deceased spouse. The entirely of said con6u$al estate pertained to hi# e(clusively. condition or substitution whatsoever upon the le$iti#e can be i#posed by a testator. . Aadie @ascoe. ?od$es. .

110. ?od$es. this ?onorable 3ourt declare5 . of the entire con6u$al estate of the deceased. ?od$es which can not be affected by any testa#entary disposition=. in case the first instituted heir dies &efore the testator. is covered by the le$iti#e of 3. ?od$es did not die before *innie &ane ?od$es. the substitution provided for by the above-%uoted provision of the 7ill is not authori>ed by the 3ode.. pa$. 1 a ed. in which two estates e(ist under separate ad#inistration.. 19. . . . y por falleci#iento de este no#bra otro u otros.. . 3. <3onsolacion *-1381'. Therefore J <a= /f the ?/8DE. . .A wish to enforce their dubious ri$hts as substituted heirs to 1N. the provision for substitution contained in *innie &ane ?od$esK 7illis void. . Aince 3. ?od$esK inheritance to the entirety of the *innie &ane ?od$es estate is irrevocable and final. )hen another heir is designated to inherit upon the death of a first heir. ?owever. 2ll other substitutions are #erely variations of these. <c= There are $enerally only two +inds of substitution provided for and authori>ed by our 3ivil 3ode <2rticles 801-810=. na#ely... if any. Manuel Ain$son.clearly invalid insofar as the le$iti#e of 3. therefore. Thus. to preserve the properties for the substitute heirs. co##entin$ on these +isses of substitution. ?od$es. Manresa. <d= /n view of the invalidity of the provision for substitution in the 7ill. therefore. is ano#alous. where the ad#inistratri( of the *innie &ane ?od$es estate e(ercises an officious ri$ht to ob6ect and intervene in #atters affectin$ e(clusively the 3. ?od$esK death. it is #ost respectfully prayed that after trial and reception of evidence.= 2t "lorentino #ost. that a vulgar or simple substitution.. order a vulgar or simple substitution can be valid. is to file their clai# a$ainst the estate of 3. it de is 3risolo$o et al.of the 1Nportion of the con6u$al estate. )hether or not that )as the true intention of said testator . na#ely. the second designation can have effect onl. that the first desi$nated heir <1= should die before the testator4 or <-= should not wish to accept the inheritance4 or <3= should be incapacitated to do so. 7? @ "E@ .= /n other words. of the con6u$al estate <the other 1N. ?od$es as the first heir desi$nated. it is void.. ?od$es was concerned. three alternative conditions #ust be present. their re#edy.. ?od$es estate. . <' Manresa. RQ. vs.. so#eti#es referred to as vulgar substitution <2rticle 809=. <b= The present proceedin$s.one of these conditions apply to 3. . and. which consisted of 1N. in 8. @. . which should be entitled at the present ti#e to full custody and control of all the con6u$al estate of the spouses. The substitution provided for by para$raph four of the 7ill of *innie &ane ?od$es is not fideico##issary substitution.o. the entirety of the con6u$al estate appeared and was re$istered in hi# e(clusively as owner. . #eanin$fully stated that5 PR cuando el testador instituyeun pri#er heredero. and <-= fideico##issary substitution <2rticle 8'3=. <1= simple or common substitution. fuera o no esta su verdadera intencion. ha de entenderse %ue estas se$undas desi$naciones solo han de lle$ar a tener efectividad en el caso de %ue el pri#er instituido #uera antes %ue el testador.. the presu#ption is that all said assets constituted his estate. or 1N. !e that as it #ay. and. at the ti#e of 3. because there is clearly no obli$ation on the part of 3.

. .o. . Ma$no.. 1901. e#olu#ents and inco#eQ above-#entioned. has no ri$ht to intervene or participate in the ad#inistration of the 3. "olio /. e#olu#ents and inco#eQ of the con6u$al estate accruin$ after *innie &ane ?od$esK death pertains to 3. on Dece#ber -1. and several relatives na#ed in her last will and testa#ent4 state of *innie &ane . unto this ?onorable 3ourt #ost respectfully states and #anifests5 1. pp. . That the other half of the con6u$al estate pertained e(clusively to 3. That 2velina 2. That all Prents.. 1301. ?od$es was the sole and e(clusive heir of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es4 0. .. -'0--11= !efore all of these #otions of petitioner could be resolved. capable of distribution to his heirs upon ter#ination of Apecial )roceedin$s . That the spouses 3harles . That on . That 3.Q <@ecord. 19'0. pp. the entire con6u$al estate of the spouses located in the )hilippines. 3harles . That.o. therefore. . That the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es was and is co#posed e(clusively of one-half <1N-= share in the con6u$al estate of the spouses ?od$es.A. ?od$es as his share as partner in the con6u$al partnership4 3. control and #ana$e#ent of all said properties4 and 1. 190-. 19014 -. That )3/!. ?od$es. as ad#inistrator of the estate of 3.ove#ber --. *innie &ane ?od$es died at the 3ity of /loilo at the ti#e survived by her husband.1. ?od$es estate. is entitled to full and e(clusive custody. ?od$es4 .. however. plus all the Prents. ?od$es.. as well as the ?/8DE.ewton ?od$es. . co#puted as of the date of her death on May -3. )roc.E7 the 2d#inistratri( of the state of *innie &ane ?od$es and.. throu$h undersi$ned counsel. . private respondent Ma$no filed her own PMotion for the Efficial Declaration of ?eirs of the ?od$esQ as follows5 3EM A . )3/! further prays for such and other relief as #ay be dee#ed 6ust and e%uitable in the pre#ises. That on May -3.ewton ?od$es and *innie &ane ?od$es were 2#erican citi>ens who died at the 3ity of /loilo after havin$ a#assed and accu#ulated e(tensive properties in the )hilippines4 -. *innie &ane ?od$es e(ecuted a last will and testa#ent <the ori$inal of this will now for#s part of the records of these proceedin$s as (hibit P3Q and appears as Ap. 11-18=4 3. 1'1-4 '. as ad#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. now constitutes the estate of 3.

)roc. residue and re#ainder of #y estate. #y said husband. nor ratified by this ?onorable 3ourt4 '. published and posted <Ap. and. devise and be%ueath all of the rest. 3. *eonard ?i$don. direct and provide that #y husband. durin$ his natural lifeti#e.@T?5 2t the death of #y said husband. -.ewton ?od$es. "olio /. to be e%ually divided a#on$ #y brothers and sisters. wherever situated or located. he is hereby $iven the ri$ht to #a+e any chan$es in the physical properties of said estate. a petition therefor havin$ been priorly filed and duly heard. . ?i$don. this ?onorable 3ourt issued an order ad#ittin$ to probate the last will and testa#ent of *innie &ane ?od$es <Ap. any property which he #ay dee# proper to dispose of4 to lease any of the real property for oil. control. 2ll rents. T?/@D5 / desire.. 1301. na#ely5 sta ?i$don. Aadie @ascoe.D5 / $ive. 3harles . e#olu#ents and inco#e fro# said estate shall belon$ to hi#. That the last will and testa#ent of *innie &ane ?od$es already ad#itted to probate contains an institution of heirs in the followin$ words5 PA 3E. residue and re#ainder of #y estate. ra !o#an and . approved by the 2d#inistratorN2d#inistratri( of the said estate.0= and the re$la#entary period for filin$ such clai#s has lon$ a$o lapsed and e(pired without any clai#s havin$ been asserted a$ainst the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. use and en6oy said estate durin$ his lifeti#e. -'--8=4 0. that he shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any of the i#proved property now owned by us located at. @oy ?i$don. and #ay sell uni#proved town lots. #ana$e and en6oy the sa#e durin$ his lifeti#e. $as andNor other #inerals. conveyin$ in fee si#ple or for any other ter# or ti#e. both personal and real. That the re%uired notice to creditors and to all others who #ay have any clai#s a$ainst the decedent.ewton ?od$es. pp. /t is provided herein.. ?e shall have the ri$ht to subdivide any far# land and sell lots therein. "olio /.i#roy . above. in or near the 3ity of *ubboc+ Te(as. prior to the death of #y husband. )roc. 3harles .--0. "E.o. both real and personal. 1901. 3harles . ..ewton ?od$es to have and to hold unto hi#. pp.Q ##a ?owell.o. above provided. share and share ali+e. wherever situated or located. and he is further authori>ed to use any part of the principal of said estate as he #ay need or desire. 3harles . *innie &ane ?od$es has already been printed.ewton ?od$es. to #y beloved husband. shall have the ri$ht to #ana$e. however. / $ive. devise and be%ueath all of the rest. 1301. and the purchase of any other or additional property as he #ay thin+ best4 to e(ecute conveyances with or without $eneral or special warranty. and all such deeds or leases shall pass the absolute fee si#ple title to the interest so conveyed in such property as he elect to sell. then it is #y will and be%uest that the heirs of such deceased brother or sister shall ta+e 6ointly the share which would have $one to such brother or sister had she or he survived. by sale of any part thereof which he #ay thin+ best. "/"T?5 /n case of the death of any of #y brothers andNor sisters na#ed in ite# "ourth. That on &une -8. but he shall have the full ri$ht to lease.

nited Atates of 2#erica4 10. and a vested re#ainder-estate or the na+ed title over the sa#e estate to her relatives na#ed therein4 8. while it #ay have earned e(actly the sa#e a#ount of Prents. 2#erican citi>ens. e#olu#ents and inco#eQ as that of the share pertainin$ to *innie &ane ?od$es. on the other hand. 3harles . to wit5 sta ?i$don. with residence at the Atate of Te(as. 2line ?i$don and David ?i$don. Aadie @ascoe ra !o#an and . That the one-half interest of *innie &ane ?od$es in the co#bined con6u$al estate was earnin$ Prents. e#olu#ents and inco#eQ until her death on May -3. disclai#ed and repudiated his life-estate and usufruct over the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es4 9. which properties are now bein$ ad#inistered so#eti#es 6ointly and so#eti#es separately by the 2d#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es andNor the 2d#inistrator of the estate of 3.ewton ?od$es hi#self on Dece#ber -0. continued to be burdened by char$es. she was the co-owner <to$ether with her husband 3harles . accordin$ly.1. May -3. the one-half interest of 3harles . both interests have continually earned e(actly the sa#e a#ount of Prents. the entire estate havin$ been continually devoted to the business of the spouses as if they were alive4 1-. 19'-4 . when it ceased to be saddled with any #ore char$es or e(penditures which are purely personal to her in nature. . renounced.ewton ?od$es= of an undivided one-half interest in their con6u$al properties e(istin$ as of that date. but durin$ the lifeti#e of 3harles . That under the provisions of the last will and testa#ent already above-%uoted. as there has been no such separation or se$re$ation up to the present. ?od$es but all of which are under the control and supervision of this ?onorable 3ourt4 11. *eonard ?i$don. e#olu#ents and inco#eQ. une%uivocably and clearly throu$h oral and written declarations and sworn public state#ents.ewton ?od$es in the co#bined con6u$al estate e(istin$ as of May -3. . That. That at the ti#e of the death of *innie &ane ?od$es on May -3.ewton ?od$es to who# they were be%ueathed for life under the last will and testa#ent of *innie &ane ?od$es4 13. 1901. ##a ?owell. disclai#ed and repudiated by 3harles .i#roy ?i$don. That.ewton ?od$es. 1901. until the death of 3harles . *innie &ane ?od$es $ave a life-estate or a usufruct over all her estate to her husband. the only heirs left to receive the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es pursuant to her last will and testa#ent. 1901.ewton ?od$es with full and co#plete +nowled$e of the life-estate or usufruct conferred upon hi# by the will since he was then actin$ as 2d#inistrator of the estate and later as (ecutor of the will of *innie &ane ?od$es. e(penditures. the latter two bein$ the wife and son respectively of the deceased @oy ?i$don. are her na#ed brothers and sisters. and other dispositions which are purely personal to hi# in nature. all of le$al a$es.ewton ?od$es. or their heirs. and her estate +ept on earnin$ such Prents. the said 3harles . e#olu#ents and inco#eQ by virtue of their havin$ been e(pressly renounced. 1901. That because there was no separation or se$re$ation of the interests of husband and wife in the co#bined con6u$al estate.. That after the death of *innie &ane ?od$es and after the ad#ission to probate of her last will and testa#ent.

ra !o#an and . 1901 up to Dece#ber -0. 19'0 afore%uoted. 19'' alle$in$ in part that5 1. 38--391= whereupon. Deter#inin$ the e(act value of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es in accordance with the syste# enunciated in para$raph 1. the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es is clearly entitled to a portion #ore than fifty percent <00U= as co#pared to the portion to which the estate of 3harles . 19'. disburse#ents and other dispositions #ade by 3harles . That of all the assets of the co#bined con6u$al estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and 3harles . sta ?i$don. e#olu#ents and inco#eQ of all these assets J a$ain onehalf of these belon$ to the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es4 c. after #a+in$ a deduction of char$es.ewton ?od$es as they e(ist today. 2fter such deter#ination orderin$ its se$re$ation fro# the co#bined con6u$al estate and its delivery to the 2d#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es for distribution to the heirs to who# they properly belon$ and appertain.i#roy ?i$don. as it had been doin$ before. to wit5 David ?i$don. 2line ?i$don. which portions can be e(actly deter#ined by the followin$ #anner5 a. 19'-. That there re#ains no other #atter for disposition now insofar as the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es is concerned but to co#plete the li%uidation of her estate. 2n accountin$ #ust be #ade of the Prents. and distribute the# to her heirs pursuant to her last will and testa#ent. it is #ost respectfully #oved and prayed that this ?onorable 3ourt. as the sole heirs under the last will and testa#ent of *innie &ane ?od$es and as the only persons entitled to her estate4 b.. issue an order5 a. *eonard ?i$don. disburse#ents and other dispositions #ade for hi# and in his behalf since Dece#ber -0. 7? @ "E@ . instead of further pressin$ on its #otion of &anuary 8. Declarin$ the followin$ persons. Aadie @ascoe. <8reen @ecord on 2ppeal.ewton ?od$es personally and for his own personal account fro# May -3. se$re$ate the# fro# the con6u$al estate. petitioner withdrew the said #otion and in addition to opposin$ the above #otion of respondent Ma$no. pp.1. as well as other char$es. of this #otion4 c. pre#ises considered. 2d6ust#ents #ust be #ade. 2n inventory #ust be #ade of the assets of the co#bined con6u$al estate as they e(isted on the death of *innie &ane ?od$es on May -3.ewton ?od$es #ay be entitled. after a hearin$ on the factual #atters raised by this #otion. That it has received fro# the counsel for the ad#inistratri( of the supposed estate of *innie &ane ?od$es a notice to set her PMotion for Efficial Declaration of ?eirs of the state of *innie &ane ?od$esQ4 . filed a #otion on 2pril --.up to the present4 10. ##a ?owell. 1901 J one-half of these assets belon$ to the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es4 b.

)roc. The e(a#ination already ordered by this ?onorable 3ourt of docu#ents relatin$ to the alle$ation of 2velina Ma$no that 3harles . Declare the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es <Ap. That P.ewton ?od$es. . /##ediately order 2velina Ma$no to account for and deliver to the ad#inistrator of the state of 3. particularly because the bond filed by 2velina Ma$no is $rossly insufficient to answer for the funds and property which she has inofficiously collected and held. and which involve no issues of fact.r$ent Motion for 2n 2ccountin$ and Delivery to the state of 3. ... as well as those which she continues to inofficiously collect and hold4 0.. )etition.ewton ?od$es Pthrou$h R written declarations and sworn public state#ents. ?od$es (istin$ as of May -3. prayed that5 1. That it is a #atter of record that such state of affairs affects and inconveniences not only the estate but also third-parties dealin$ with it4Q <2nne( P:Q.ewton ?od$es4 . i##ediately order 2velina Ma$no to turn over all her collections to the ad#inistrator )hilippine 3o##ercial V /ndustrial !an+4 3.o. 1301= closed4 . plus all the rents. 19'.= and then.. e#olu#ents and inco#e therefro#4 -. ?od$es. That before the aforesaid #otion could be heard. there are #atters pendin$ before this ?onorable 3ourt. That the #aintenance of two separate estate proceedin$s and two ad#inistrators only results in confusion and is unduly burdenso#e upon the Testate state of 3harles .. Manifestation of Aepte#ber 1. by %uotin$ the#. That whatever clai#s any alle$ed heirs or other persons #ay have could be very easily threshed out in the Testate state of 3harles .. 1901 )lus 2ll the @ents. and therefore re%uire only the resolution of %uestions of law4 3. )endin$ the consideration of this #otion. #olu#ents and /nco#e Therefro#Q4 c. all facts involved therein bein$ #atters of record.. detailin$ acts of interference of 2velina Ma$no under color of title as ad#inistratri( of the state of *innie &ane ?od$es4 which are all pre6udicial. after further re#indin$ the court. .. 2nne( . ?od$es of 2ll the 2ssets of the 3on6u$al )artnership of the Deceased *innie &ane ?od$es and 3. renounced. such as5 a. disclai#ed and repudiated life-estate and usufruct over the estate of *innie &ane ?od$esK4 b. :arious #otions to resolve the aforesaid #otion4 d. of the relevant alle$ations of its earlier #otion of Aepte#ber 1. . 19'.-. ?od$es all the assets of the con6u$al partnership of the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es and 3. ...

These #atters. disclai#ed and repudiated his life-estate and usufruct over the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es <b= the ur$ent #otion for accountin$ and delivery to the estate of 3. ?od$es.319-. .. as already indicated at the outset of this opinion. 1909 statin$ therein that e(ecutor 3. . ?od$es all assets of the con6u$al partnership of the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es and 3... 1901 filed by 2tty.. Defer the hearin$ and consideration of the #otion for declaration of heirs in the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es until the #atters hereinabove set forth are resolved. are all pre-6udicial involvin$ no issues of facts and only re%uire the resolution of %uestion of law4 that in the #otion of Ectober 0. e#olu#ents and inco#e therefro#4 <-= )endin$ the consideration of this #otion. Aaid #otion of Dece#ber 11. ?od$es thru counsel 2tty. 2nne( P:Q of )etition.. 19''. <)rayer. M. That on 2pril -1. ?od$es. . 19'' of ad#inistrator )3/! prayin$ that <1= /##ediately order 2velina Ma$no to account for and deliver to the ad#inistrator of the estate of 3. ?od$es e(istin$ as of May -3. *eon 8ellada as attorney for the e(ecutor 3.. .390= dated 2pril --.. *eon 8ellada in a #otion filed on 2pril 1. 19'. 1901 was approved by the 3ourt in consonance with the wishes contained in the last will and testa#ent of *innie &ane ?od$es. ?od$es is the only devisee or le$atee of *innie &ane ?od$es in accordance with the last will and testa#ent already probated by the 3ourt. ?od$es is not only part owner of the properties left as con6u$al but also the successor to all the properties left by the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es. the respondent court denied the fore$oin$ #otion... detailin$ acts of interference of 2velina Ma$no under color of title as ad#inistratri( of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. Ap. 1909 this 3ourt approved the inventory and accountin$ sub#itted by 3. . )roc. .. holdin$ thus5 E@D @ En record is a #otion <:ol. accordin$ to the instant #otion. 1301= closed4 and <. e#olu#ents and inco#e therefro#4 <c= various #otions to resolve the aforesaid #otion4 and <d= #anifestation of Aepte#ber 1. This #otion is predicated on the fact that there are #atters pendin$ before this court such as <a= the e(a#ination already ordered by this ?onorable 3ourt of docu#ents relatin$ to the alle$ation of 2velina Ma$no that 3harles . 1901 plus all the rents. . 19'3 it is alle$ed that in a #otion dated Dece#ber 11. 1'1-.ewton ?od$es thru written declaration and sworn public state#ents renounced. state of *innie &ane ?od$es until .o.. .= Defer the hearin$ and consideration of the #otion for declaration of heirs in the Testate the #atters hereinabove set forth are resolved. i##ediately order 2velina Ma$no to turn over all her collections to the ad#inistrator )3/!4 <3= Declare the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es <Ap. ?od$es of all the assets of the con6u$al partnership of the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es and 3. . .. the said e(ecutor 3. pp.= En Ectober 1-.. plus all the rents.

.... because if said #otion is found #eritorious and $ranted by the 3ourt. will beco#e #oot and acade#ic since they are pre#ised on the assu#ption and clai# that the only heir of *innie &ane ?od$es was 3.. 19'0 the 3ourt approved the annual state#ent of accounts sub#itted by the e(ecutor 3. ?od$es situated in the )hilippines4 that ad#inistratri( Ma$no has e(ecuted ille$al acts to the pre6udice of the testate estate of 3.-1= dated 2pril -1. /t is alle$ed in the aforesaid opposition that the e(a#ination of docu#ents which are in the possession of ad#inistratri( Ma$no can be #ade prior to the hearin$ of the #otion for the official declaration of heirs of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es.10-. 19'0 which filed a #otion for official declaration of heirs of *innie &ane ?od$es that the clai# of any heirs of *innie &ane ?od$es can be deter#ined only in the ad#inistration proceedin$s over the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and not that of 3. 19'0 wherein it is stated that the e(ecutor.. have been consolidated for the purpose of presentation and reception of evidence with the hearin$ on the deter#ination of the heirs of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es.. . . 19'.. since the heirs of *innie &ane ?od$es are clai#in$ her estate and not the estate of 3. durin$ said hearin$. ..That on &uly 13.. ?od$es.. the )3/!Ks #otions of Ectober 0. 19'3 and Aepte#ber 1. 19'3 <as well as the other #otion= dated Aepte#ber 1. :ol. pp. 1'1-. 19'1 wherein it is stated that e(ecutor ?od$es is the only devisee or le$atee of the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es4 That durin$ the hearin$ on Aepte#ber 0 and '. pp.. 3. That the )3/! and counsel are estopped fro# further %uestionin$ the deter#ination of heirs in the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es at this sta$e since it was )3/! as early as &anuary 8. 1'1-. 19'' of the )3/! has been filed alle$in$ that the #otion dated 2pril --. 8ellada on 2pril -0.. ?od$es is the only devisee or le$atee of the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es4 that on May -. . M. 2 reply <Ap. 19'' of the )3/! is not to see+ defer#ent of the hearin$ and consideration of the #otion for official declaration of heirs of *innie &ane ?od$es but to declare the testate estate of *innie &ane ?od$es closed and for ad#inistratri( Ma$no to account for and deliver to the )3/! all assets of the con6u$al partnership of the deceased spouses which has co#e to her possession plus all rents and inco#e.. M. 19'. ?od$es clai#ed all the assets belon$in$ to the deceased spouses *innie &ane ?od$es and 3. 19'1 the 3ourt approved the annual state#ent of accounts sub#itted by e(ecutor. ?od$es for the year 19'0 which was sub#itted by 2tty. . . 19'. ?od$es.3'-. ?od$es. 19'3 the estate of 3.. 19'' of ad#inistratri( Ma$no has been filed as+in$ that the #otion be denied for lac+ of #erit and that the #otion for the official declaration of heirs of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es be set for presentation and reception of evidence. . .. :ol. . . ?od$es thru his counsel 2tty.. That the #atters raised in the )3/!Ks #otion of Ectober 0. . . 8ellada on &uly -1. 2n opposition <Ap..= dated May 11. 3. /t is further alle$ed in the opposition that the #otion for the official declaration of heirs of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es is the one that constitutes a pre6udicial %uestion to the #otions dated Ectober 0 and Aepte#ber 1. ?od$es.

. 19'' for the reconsideration of this order.. and #ort$a$es RQ be approved and authori>ed. . .. the 3ourt finds the opposition and re6oinder to be well ta+en for the reason that so far there has been no official declaration of heirs in the testate estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and therefore no disposition of her estate. petitioner alle$ed inter alia that5 /t cannot be over-stressed that the #otion of Dece#ber 11. leases.. Aaid last will and testa#ent vested upon the said late 3harles . 3onsiderin$ the alle$ations and ar$u#ents in the #otion and of the )3/! as well as those in the opposition and re6oinder of ad#inistratri( Ma$no. *i+ewise.. <2nne( P7Q.2 re6oinder <Ap.. in its order of Dece#ber 1.ewton ?od$es...ewton ?od$es. conveyances. the late 3harles .ewton ?od$es was the sole heir instituted insofar as her properties in the )hilippines are concerned4 b. M. but also authori>ed Pall subse%uent sales. $ranted the sa#e. leases and #ort$a$es of all properties left by the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es e(ecuted by the late 3harles . Aaid late 3harles . Pfor the reasons statedQ in the aforesaid #otion. Pnot only part owner of the properties left as con6u$al.. 1901 was based on the fact that5 a. but also all Pthe subse%uent sales. 7? @ "E@ . conveyances. 1901 only sou$ht the approval of all conveyances #ade by 3. but also. the successor to all the properties left by the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es. 1901.ewton ?od$es was. conveyances. ?od$es and re%uested the 3ourt authority for all subse%uent conveyances that will be e(ecuted by 3. and #ort$a$es e(ecuted byQ the late 3harles . *innie &ane ?od$es. :ol. the #otion of Dece#ber 11. )etition= /n its #otion dated .nder the last will and testa#ent of the deceased. the #otion of the )3/! dated 2pril --. ?od$es4 that 3. ?od$es represented by counsel never #ade any clai# in the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and never filed a #otion to declare hi#self as the heir of the said *innie &ane ?od$es despite the lapse of #ore than five <0= years after the death of *innie &ane ?od$es4 that it is further alle$ed in the re6oinder that there can be no order of ad6udication of the estate unless there has been a prior e(press declaration of heirs and so far no declaration of heirs in the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es <Ap. spell ownership. ?od$es4 that the order dated Dece#ber 1.'-= of ad#inistratri( Ma$no dated May 19. absolute and in fee si#ple4 c. 1901 only approved the conveyances #ade by 3. This ?onorable 3ourt. 1'1-.08-. 19'' is hereby D . 19'' has been filed alle$in$ that the #otion dated Dece#ber 11. 2$ain. and not only approved all the sales. .. . in su#. therefore. . pp.ove#ber -.ewton ?od$es ri$hts over said properties which. . leases. 1901 prayed that not only Pall the sales./ D. 1301= has been #ade. it cannot be over-stressed that the aforesaid #otion was $ranted by this ?onorable 3ourt Pfor the reasons statedQ therein.

19'0. the present petition was filed on 2u$ust 1. id. 1. closed with the virtual declaration of ?od$es and ad6udication to hi#. 19'1 <albeit petitioner had to pay another doc+etin$ fee on 2u$ust 9. 2nne( 8.o. 19'0 <pp. as well as the order of Ectober -1. id.= denyin$ reconsideration.= en6oinin$ the deposit of all collections in a 6oint account and the sa#e order of "ebruary 10. etc. Gellow @ecord on 2ppeal. Gellow @ecord on 2ppeal= denyin$ reconsideration of said approval. 19'1. &avier. --1. 19'0. To$ether with such petition. 308-309. id. -31--3-. and pp. '. 19'' #entioned in . in the order of Dece#ber 1. 30'-308. 19'0. . id. 3. --1. on &uly 19. on pp.= and "ebruary 10. <pp.= allowin$ appellee 7estern /nstitute of Technolo$y to #a+e pay#ents to either one or both of the ad#inistrators of the two estates as well as the order of March 1. already referred to above. The order of &anuary 3. <pp. 19'1. . /n conse%uence of all these develop#ents. 19'0 <pp. as sole universal heir of all the properties of the estate of his wife. 19'' should be considered or #odifiedQ. since the orders in %uestion were issued in two separate testate estate proceedin$s. Atill unpersuaded. The order of . on &uly 18. authori>in$ pay#ent by respondent Ma$no of overti#e pay. The order of . 19'' <p. The order of Ectober -1. 8reen @ecord on 2ppeal= to$ether with the subse%uent orders of &anuary 9.'-. 313-3-0. 19'0 <pp. 19'' denyin$ reconsideration thereof. as to which no #otion for reconsideration was filed. 19'. )ablito. 3oronado. . <pp. the #otion of respondent Ma$no Pfor official declaration of heirs of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$esQ. in favor of appellees )acaonsis and )re#aylon. in the court below=.= repeatedly denyin$ #otions for reconsideration thereof. althou$h not le$ally.-330. and. 19'1.= re%uirin$ that deeds e(ecuted by petitioner to be co-si$ned by respondent Ma$no. as those in . . 330-33'. approvin$ si#ilar deeds of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no.ove#ber -3.os.. <see pp. 1901. 1301 and 1'1-. leases and #ort$a$es of the properties left by the said deceased *innie &ane ?od$es. The order of 2u$ust '. 19'0 <pp. 19'' <pp. appeals fro# the followin$5 1. 19'1. 19'' <pp. 0.= Ectober -1. -9---90. to$ether with the two separate orders both dated Dece#ber -. )etition= and reiterated its funda#ental pose that the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es had already been factually. The various orders hereinabove earlier enu#erated approvin$ deeds of sale e(ecuted by respondent Ma$no in favor of appellees 3arles.00-.s for resolution herein. id. fees of the respondent ad#inistratri(.= directin$ the pay#ent of attorneyKs fees. respondent court denied said #otion for reconsideration and held that Pthe court believes that there is no 6ustification why the order of Ectober 1-. -.o. '.8. id. 19'0 <pp. 1 above which included the denial of the reconsideration of this order of Ectober -1. id. -.conveyances. <2nne( PMQ. *ucero and !atisanan. 33. 30 to 31 of this opinion=. 8u>#an. there are now pendin$ before . The order of Dece#ber 19..0'. was set for hearin$. !arrido. . 3ausin$. 3atedral.ove#ber 3. -1'--11= denyin$ reconsideration. id. and the order of "ebruary 1'.

D 2)) ** A. petitioner has assi$ned a total of seventy-ei$ht <*MM:///= alle$ed errors.s. @EA2@/E 2*/. : @ )2/D /. 233E@D2. 7?/* 23T/. &avier. .D . 1---0 thereof.8 T? D DA E" A2* /.8 7?/3? 7 @ : to :/// T? *E7 @ 3E. "2:E@ E" T? A)2D2 2.T@23TA TE E" *2. 2))@E:/. 2. . petitioner has to pay also thirty-one <31= #ore doc+et fees. thirty-three <33= appeals before .T@23TA TE A **.D T? M 3. D T @M/. 8u>#an./"@ DE 3.A/A. 2))@E:/. 10-=. /t is as well perhaps to state here as elsewhere in this opinion that in connection with these appeals. <*ET . A)/@/D/E. therefore. 7/. "2:E@ E" T? 2)) ** A 2D *"2 )@ M2G*E.8 T? M 3. )2@T/A2*2. !arrido. 2))@E:/. )ablito.E. 10. @A?/) E: @ @ 2* A)/@/D/E.8 T? A. M28.3 7/T? T? E@/8/. ) )/TE 8. 2: */. 3E: @/.82A2.*E@ A.@T.@T @@ D /. "2:E@ E" T? A)2D2 2.@T @@ D /.8 )2@3 *A E" *2. A2. thus #a+in$ it feasible and #ore practical for the 3ourt to dispose of all these cases to$ether. A)/@/D/E. 3atedral. ?ED8 A.8 )2@3 *A 3E. *astly.2* D 2)) ** DA E" A2* /. 2.E. )@E) @TG E" T? 2)) ** A)2D2 2. 7TE./"@ DE 3.@T @@ D /. )2@T/A2*2. 3E: @/.D E7. directin$ petitioner to surrender to appellees *ucero. on pp.8 2A 2 )@E!2T 3E.** /. 3E: @/.82A2./.T D !G T? "/. 7/./"@ DE 3. !atisanan.@T @@ D /.8 )@ M2G*E. /G.D 2D *"2 . and considerin$ that the above orders deal with different #atters. the respective discussions and ar$u#ents under all of the# coverin$ also the funda#ental issues raised in respect to the petition for certiorari and prohibition.T D !G T? 2)) ** "/. M28. 3?2@* A . )2@T/A2*2.2* 3E.T/28E )232E. 19''. as outlined by petitioner in its brief as appellant on pp. 9 The assi$n#ents of error read thus5 / to /: T? E@D @ 3E.T D !G ?/M D.E. /M to M// T? *E7 @ 3E.2 2.2* D DA E" A2* /. @EA2@/E 2*/. Gellow @ecord on 2ppeal. 2)) ** A.8.2 2. 6ust as they affect distinctly different individuals or persons. and 3oronado. 7/.D "E@ 7?/3? T? G ?2: ". ) )/TE 8. D !G T? D 3 2A D. 3ausin$. there are. the order of Dece#ber -.D @EA2@/E 2*/. /G. /G.*E@ A.8 ?/A */" T/M . 2: */.82A2. for which reason.@/. @/8?TA E" E7. as to which no #otion for reconsideration was filed either. Atrictly spea+in$.E. A ** 3E: @/. ) )/TE 8.*E@ A.8 T? M 3. 300-30'. M/// to M: T? *E7 @ 3E. <*ET .=. the certificates of title coverin$ the lands involved in the approved sales.

3E@E.T@23TA TE A ** 3E: @/. 3E: @/. 2)) ** 2)) ** A.@/.T/28E )232E.)2@3 *A E" *2. 10-=. &EA )2!*/3E.D T? M 3.2* D DA E" A2* /.@T @@ D /. D T @M/.OM2. <*ET . A2.8 T? "/.@/. )@E) @TG E" T? 2)) ** A 2D *"2 )@ M2G*E. 2.D 3E.@T.2DE.D E7./2 !2@@/DE 2.8 2A 2 )@E!2T 3E.8 )2@3 *A E" *2.T@23TA TE A **. "*E@ . 2.D A2*:2DE@ A.@T @@ D /.2* D DA E" A2* /. MMM: to MMM:/ T? *E7 @ 3E.T D !G ?/M D.OE 32@* A.A/A. ?ED8 A. <*ET .8 )2@3 *A E" *2.8 T? "/.@T. : @ )2/D /.D A2*:2DE@ A. 10.8 ?/A */" T/M . 2))@E:/.D A2*:2DE@ A.@T @@ D /.= 3E: @/. M28. D !G T? D 3 2A D. <*ET .@T @@ D /. 2))@E:/. "2:E@ E" T? 2)) ** 8. 3E.D D.8 T? @/8?TA E" E7.E.8 )2@3 *A E" *2.T TE 3E. 10-=. . A2.OM2.8 7?/3? 7 @ MM:/ to MM/M T? *E7 @ 3E. 8./. 8. "2:E@ E" T? 2)) ** A 2D *"2 )@ M2G*E. "2:E@ E" )2!*/3E. .E.T@23TA TE A) ** 7?/3? 7 @ 32. 7TE. "2:E@ E" T? M 3. 7TE./.OE 32@* A.8 T? 2)) ** "/.E.T D !G T? )2!*/3E. 2))@E:/. &EA D E" A2* M 3. ".D T? M 3.. *E@ .E. ?ED8 A.T D !G T? D 3 2A D.D T? M 3.OM2. &EA M 3.T/28E )232E. D T @M/. 3E.D 2D *"2 )@ M2G*E. M/M to MM/ T? *E7 @ 3E. MMM to MMM/: T? *E7 @ 3E. 10.2 2.** /. @A?/) E: @ @ 2* )@E) @TG E" T? *E@ .@/"/323/E.@A.8 2A 2 )@E!2T 3E.8 T? D DA E" A2* /. A *E@ . @A?/) E: @ @ 2* .8 7?/3? 7 @ .T D !G ?/M D. ).T@23TA TE A ** 3E: @/.@T @@ D /. 2. 2*"@ DE 32T D@2* 2.8 ?/A */" T/M . 3?2@* A .8 7?/3? 7 @ M:/ to M:/// T? *E7 @ 3E.T D /.3 ** D 2. M28. MM// to MM: T? *E7 @ 3E. 7?/* 23T/. D !G T? D 3 2A D.D 2D *"2 )@ M2G*E. <*ET . 2*"@ DE 32T D@2* 2. D !G T? 3?2@* A .E. 3?2@* A .2.D ).@/. 2))@E:/.2* 3E.3 7/T? T? E@/8/.8 ?/A */" T/M .2* D T? 2)) ** A.2 2.D E7.D @ A3/. 2.T@23TA TE A ** E7. ?ED8 A.OE 32@* A.T D !G ?/M D. 2*"@ DE 32T D@2* 2. 2: */. 2: */. 3E: @/. 7TE. 2.D "E@ 7?/3? T? G ?2: 233E@D2.@T @@ D /.A/A..E.= 7?/* 23T/.8 T? @/8?TA E" E7. 3E: @/.

TE 32. M*/ to M*/// T? *E7 @ 3E.T@23TA TE A ** . T? D DA E" A2* /. /./2D A !2T/A2. 7TE.D ). M28.@T.@/"/323/E. 2@/T E T?EM2A &2M/@ 2. 3?2@* A . M @3/A D T?@E. 2)) ** T? G A. T? 32. E" /. M @3/A D T?@E.T@23TA TE A ** E" T? 2)) **2.E *.AT2.D/T/E.8? ?/A 2DM/.-8./2 !2@@/DE 3E.T D !G T? 7?/3? 7 @ M*/: to M*:/ T? D 3 2A D.)E.T@23TA TE A ** E" T? 2)) ** 2)) ** * T? *E7 @ 3E.8 2A 2 )@E!2T 3E. 2: */.2* D D E" A2* /. 8@23/2.8.T 2)) ** A.3 @E.D E7.MMM:// to MMM:/// T? *E7 @ 3E.E.T. ?ED8 A. 2))@E:/. TE @/8?TA E" T? A2/D A. ?ED8 A.2. 7TE. 3E@E.2.@/"/323/E.8 )2@3 *A E" *2.8 M 3.'80. M 3. 3?2@* A .T@23T.. E" /.../2 !2@@/DE 2. 3E: @/.D M *F.8 T? D 3 2A D. 2: */. T? 3E. 2@/T E T?EM2A &2M/@ 2.D 3E. "2:E@ E" T? /.TA 28@ M 3. D )@/:/. 2))@E:/. D )@/:/.8? T? G 7 @ )2GM ./2D A !2T/A2. ! *3 A2@ 32. "2:E@ E" T? 2)) ** . 8@23/2.T@23TA TE A ** 3E: @/. M28.D /.3 * T? 2..T..@T @@ D /. D T @M/.E *. ?ED8 A.3 * T? 3E.2.00 and )./.2 2. 3E@E. @ A) 3T/: *G.3 @E.A E" 7?/3? T? G ?2: ). 3?2@* A .T D !G T? . T? 7/T?. M*:// to M*/M T? *E7 @ 3E.8 T? D .T@23T TE A ** 7?/3? 2ME.8? ?/A 2DM/. "/.2. "*E@ ./AT@2TE@.8 T? A E: @ @ 2* )@E) @TG 7?/* 23T/./2D A !2T/A2.D M *F.AT2.D T? M 3. 7TE. D !G 3E.8 T? D 3 2A D.T 2)) **2.@T @@ D /. ?ED8 A. 2))@E:/.T D !G ?/M D. T? E@/8/.8 T? "/. 2)) ** . : @ 3EM)*/ D T @MA 2. 3?2@* A .T TE 3E.@T @@ D /.A/. /..@/. 2*T?E..2* 3E. *E7 @ 3E./AT@2T/E.@T @@ D /. 2.E *.2* @/8?T.2DE.2DE. 2. ?ED8 A.D ). 3?2@* A . 2@/T E T?EM2A ?/A @/8?T. . 8@23/2.90. M 3.3 @E.2 2.8 T? &2M/@ 2.8 ?/A */" T/M . MMM/M to M* T? T? *E7 @ 3E.T E" )10.T D 7/T? T? D 3 2A D.D M *F. T? 2@@ 2@A /. 2))@E:/.T D !G T? M 7/T? T? D 3 2A D.@T @@ D /.E.2* D DA E" A2* 2)) ** /. "*E@ .8 T? "/. "2:E@ E" T? 2)) ** T? A.@T @@ D /. 7TE. 7TE.2* D DA E" A2* /. "2:E@ E" T? 2)) ** A.@A.

I TE A.8? ? T? E@/8/. 2.@T @ A) 3T/: 72A .D 8@23/2.T D !G T? A. /.T E" T 3?.8 T? A2M D D E" A2* /.TA 28@ M 3.. 19'0.T@23TA TE A ** 3E: @/. E" T? 2)) ** .OM2.A/D @/. /.3 @E.8 ! *M/// T? E" T 3?. 8@2. ? 2@/.@T @@ D /.G 3E)G T? @ E" .AT/T. /.8 T? D 2)) **2. /.. */// to *M/ T? T? *E7 @ 3E.3 @@ D /. 19'0.AT/T. 19'0. T? D . T? 2!A .2. E" T? 2)) ** .I. 7? . @2* @ */ " 3E. 3EMM @3/2* V /. D 3 2A D.A/. 2)) ** /. *M: . ). 2*T?E. D2T D . 2*"@ DE 32T D@2*.@/"/323/E.E.8 ?/A */" T/M .E: M! @ -0. 3?2@* A .@@ . T? . .D E: @ .T D !G ?/M D. )?/*/))/. A2*:2DE@ A. 7TE.8.E*E8G..@/. *E7 @ 3E.D E7.ET M 3.T2/. T? 2)) **2.8 T? @ E" 72A "E@ .00.T.E: M! @ -3. 3?2@* A .D. /TA MET/E. 2.D 3E.@T @@ D /.AT@/2* !2. 2))@E:/.2DE./2 !2@@/DE.E *.AT/T.8 T? MET/E. T? 3E. T? 2ME..8 2. "2:E@ E" T? 2)) ** 7/T? T? .)E.E*E8G 2 @ */ " ET? @ T?2. M2M/M2 !2T/A2. 19'0.8 7?/3? 7 @ */ T? *E7 @ 3E. D2T D . 2@@ 2@A /.8 )2@3 *A E" *2.@T @@ D /.T D 7/T? T? .E: M! @ 3rd.2* 3E. 7 AT @. &EA *ETA 3E: @ D !G T? 2: */.E: M! @ 3. /.@T @@ D /.A/. *M/: T? *E7 @ 3E. DA E" A2* 3EMM @3/2* 2.AT@/2* !2. "*@ . E. D2T D .E: M! @ 3.* A E" 3E.8? T? @. *M// T? *E7 @ 3E.331.T@23T TE A ** 7?/3? ? DA E" A2* /. /.T D /. ! *3 A2@ 32.)E.8 T? MET/E. 233E@D2. A @: D .D.3E: @/. 2@/T E T?EM2A &2M/@. 7TE.T E" )-.D @ T? E7.8. @ AE*:/.)*/32T ET? @ 2)) ** 3 @T/"/32T A E" T/T* M 3. 7 AT @.@T @@ D /. "2:E@ E" T? 2)) ** )2GM .8. /.T E" T 3?. 72A /. 8. 2))@E:/. )?/*/))/.@T.T. ! *3 A2@ 32. *// T? *E7 @ 3E. T?2T )@2G D "E@ /.T 2. D T? @ /. ?ED8 A. 3E@E. M28.8 T? 2)) ** . E@D @/.8 T? D ! *3 A2@ 32.T ?2:/.D M 3.T/.E*E8G.3 E" 2 )@2G @ "E@ 8 . 19'0.ET/3 "E@ T? ? 2@/. 7 AT @. "2:E@ E" T? )2!*/3E.2 2. D !G T? D 3 2A D. ?ED8 A. *. 7/T?E. 2*T?E. @KA D.A/.

2**E7/.T D 7/T? T? @/8?TA E" T? 2)) ** . . /M)* M .AT/T.)E.!& 3T M2TT @ E" T? D 3 2A D.D D 3 2A D. E@D @/./ ?ED8 A.8 T? )@ M2T.@ D/AT@/!. "/3/2@/ A T? @ E". M .T E" T 3?.T E" T 3?.T@23T TE A ** M 3.8 T? 3E.@A.T/.TA !G T? 2)) ** .*"/**. T? ? /@A E" T? *27G @A. *M:/ T? *E7 @ 3E. E@D @/.8 T? AT2T E" T? 2** 8 D 28@ &2.T D A. ET? @ T?2. 3?2@* A .8 T? )2GM . 7?/* 3E..))EA D AT2T E" T? D 3 2A D.@T @@ D /.@T @@ D /. */./ &2.))EA D A.8 T?2T 2** "/.. 2 3E. E@D @/. 3?2@* A . /.T@23T TE A ** /T 23T/.8 T? M 3.T? *E7 @ 3E.D T? /@ T? *E7 @ 3E. 2 3E.TE !G T? DA E" A2* M 3. @KA " *MM// T? *E7 @ 3E.E*E8G.@T T? @@ D /.@T @@ D /.)E. 7 AT @.AT/T.T @ D /.A E" 7?/3? /T ?2A "2/* D TE ". ).2. /T? @ A. 7 AT @..D 3E.E@ 2AA TA T? @ E". TE 3E.T/.D/T/E. T? @ A "@EM T? /A . /. */.AT/T.E*E8G.T/E. *M:/// T? *E7 @ 3E. . ?/A *27".8 2A 2 )@E!2T 3E. 2**E7/.T E" @ T2/.T/. ?ED8 A. @KA " &2.@T.T E" @ T2/. 7TE.E*E8G E: @ T? @ 2* )@E) @TG A. 7TE. 7TE.. D T @M/. *MM/ A. *M:// *E7 @ 3E. /.T TE 3E. 7? .@T AT2T @@ D /. TE 2 ) @AE.T D !G /T 2. E@D @/./ )2GM .**G 2))E/.T@23TA TE A ** D 3 2A D. ?ED8 A. E" )2GM . 7 AT @. @KA " A E" *27G @A E" 2** 8 D ? /@A TE T? A.T ! T7 .2T/E.@T @@ D /.2* D .8 T? E" T? D 3 2A D.@T @@ D /. E" AT2T 2AA TA TE 2** 8 D ? /@A E@ ! . 2.))EA D D 3 2A D. 3?2@* A . !G 72G E" @ T2/. )2GM . ?ED8 A.T@23T TE A ** T? T @MA 2.8 T? 2)) ** . *MM T? *E7 @ 3E.3? AT2T ./. *M/M T? *E7 @ 3E.@T @@ D /.T E" T 3?.T D 2DM/..TA . */. ?ED8 A./AT@2TE@.

8 T?2T T? ".@T @@ D /./ &2. 7?E /A 2 3EM)* T AT@2.D T? 2)) **2.8 @ TE T? 2"E@ A2/D AT2T . D.2 2.= To co#plete this rather elaborate.A A.T. M) .8 T? A.A A "@EM T? /A .))EA D AT2T E" T? D 3 2A D./AT@2T@/M E" T? ?ED8 A.2 2. M28./ &2.D.3? ). 2. 2 &E/.D. M28.E.2* 233 AA TE T? 13-83.. ! 8/: . ?ED8 A.AT@/2* !2.E. <)p. E@D @/. ! 2)) **2. T? /. *MM:/// T? *E7 @ 3E.2 2. "/3/2@/ A T? @ E". /A . *MM/// T? *E7 @ 3E. *ope> in her @ 3E@DA E" T? T AT2T AT2T . A/8. 7? . */.T E" T? 2)) ** 2. )?/*/))/.@)E@T D 2DM/. TE T? AT2T E" T? D 3 2A D. E" AT2T 2AA TA TE 2** 8 D ? /@A E@ ! .8 ?/A */" T/M .I.A A E" *27G @A E" 2** 8 D ? /@A TE T? A.E@ 2AA TA T? @ E". E@D @/. M28.*G 2A T? *27".T 2)) ** AT2T . 2: */. 2"E@ A2/D AT@2. and unavoidably e(tended narration of the factual settin$ of these cases.D T? AT2T E" T? . E@D @/.@/. 7TE.?ED8 A.I.T 233E.D . *MM:// . ! 2.E@ 2AA TA T? @ E".@T AT2T @@ D /. 3EMM @3/2* 2. */. ?ED8 A.AT@/2* !2.T/E. /T? @ A./AT@2TE@ E" ?/A AT2T . 2: */. *MM: T? *E7 @ 3E.T D 2DM/.. M28.T E" * 82* &2. D &E/. 3?2@* A AT2T .8 T? )@ M2T.E. 2: */.8 @ TE T? .@T @@ D /.2 )*23 D /. A? /A 2 3EM)* T .@T @@ D /.@T @@ D /. 7TE.E.ET !G T? *2TT @ E.@ D/AT@/!.DA E" T? T AT2T D 3 2A D. T? @ T? *E7 @ 3E.T E" 3EM) . E@D @/.3? AT2T .T*G !G T? 2)) ** . 7? .AT2.T E" * 82* M) . 2ppellantKs !rief. E" T? D 3 2A D. with the proposed appoint#ent of !enito &.8 T? )2GM .))EA D ?ED8 A. !G 72G E" * 82* M) .**G 2))E/. /T? @ A..))EA D )2GM ./ )2GM . *MM/: T? *E7 @ 3E.D /. ?od$es to have respondent Ma$no re#oved as ad#inistratri(. 2: */. )?/*/))/. 7? . 2. 3?2@* A . */. E@D @/.A2T/E. it #ay also be #entioned that an atte#pt was #ade by the heirs of Mrs. ?ED8 A.D /. E@D @/. 3EMM @3/2* 2.T. *MM:/ T? *E7 @ 3E.8 T?2T T? 2)) ** F..8 T? E" T? D 3 2A D. T? @ A..@T @@ D /.

. certain other heirs of ?od$es representin$ 11. // The /ropriet. and.infor#ed the 3ourt that a #otion had been filed with respondent court for the re#oval of petitioner )3/! as ad#inistrator of the estate of 3.T/E. petitionersK continuation as ad#inistrator of the ?od$es estate. 2tty. that these appeals revolve around practically the sa#e #ain issues and that it is ad#itted that so#e of the# have been ti#ely ta+en. if not possibly untenable.9'81. unless resolved in one sin$le proceedin$. ?od$es fro# certain heirs of her husband. ?od$es. #oreover.3100U of his estate were 6oinin$ cause with the heirs of Mrs. will inevitably cause the proliferation of #ore or less si#ilar or closely related incidents and conse%uent eventual appeals. )@E?/!/T/E. and without ta+in$ account any#ore of the unnecessary additional effort. and that respondent court did actually order such proposed replace#ent.3. . . in the answer of )3/! to the #otion of respondent Ma$no to have it declared in conte#pt for disre$ardin$ the 3ourtKs resolution of Aepte#ber 8. ?od$es had already been bou$ht by the heirs of Mrs. Auch contention fails to ta+e into account that there is a co##on thread a#on$ the basic issues involved in all these thirty-three appeals which. e(pense and ti#e which would be involved in as #any individual appeals .. which re#oval #otion alle$ed that --. T? C4"T02"A"0 2. 19'1.D of the /resent Appeals The priority %uestion raised by respondent Ma$no relates to the alle$ed tardiness of all the afore#entioned thirty-three appeals of )3/!.#odifyin$ the in6unction of 2u$ust 8. . ?od$es in Apecial )roceedin$s 1'1-. A /. appeared no lon$er for the proposed ad#inistrator *ope> but for the heirs the#selves. 191.. infor#in$ said court that in addition to the fact that --U of the share of 3. 1913=. as already stated. 7e do not dee# it necessary to pass upon the ti#eliness of any of said appeals. "urther. /f for this consideration alone. 19'1. thereby #a+in$ so#ewhat precarious.s. frain !. 191. @ AE*. 32A A / As to the Alleged Tardiness E" /AA. Trenas. ?od$es as a$ainst )3/!.and "ebruary 1. Here of Certiorari and /rohi&ition instead of Appeal The other preli#inary point of the sa#e respondent is alle$ed i#propriety of the special civil action of certiorari and prohibition in view of the e(istence of the re#edy of appeal which it clai#s is proven by the very appeals now before . Aubse%uently. appearin$ to have been filed with respondent court.9U of the share of 3. in this connection. said petitioner anne(ed thereto a 6oint #anifestation and #otion. but the 3ourt declared the said order of respondent court violative of its in6unction of 2u$ust 8. ?od$es had already been ac%uired by the heirs of Mrs. however. 191. one of the lawyers of said heirs. their final results hereinbelow to be stated and e(plained #a+e it of no conse%uence whether or not the orders concerned have beco#e final by the lapsin$ of the respective periods to appeal the#. 3onsiderin$. hence without force and effect <see @esolution of Aepte#ber 8.place. and in a #otion dated Ectober -'.

pursued by petitioner. 7e co#e now to the errors assi$ned by petitioner-appellant.. deal with practically the sa#e basic issues that can be #ore e(peditiously resolved or deter#ined in a sin$le special civil action. the contention of )3/! is that in view of said order.as the nu#ber of such incidents. nothin$ #ore than a for#al declaration of ?od$es as sole and e(clusive heir of his wife and the conse%uent for#al un%ualified ad6udication to hi# of all her estate re#ain to be done to co#pletely close Apecial )roceedin$s 1301. in instances wherein lac+ or e(cess of 6urisdiction or $rave abuse of discretion is alle$ed. /// 2n 4state and Whether !rs. 1901 the sense bein$ read into it by )3/!. au$#ented e(pense and trouble and unnecessary repetition of the sa#e wor+ attendant to the present #ultiple appeals. the settlin$ of such co##on funda#ental issues would naturally #ini#i>e the areas of conflict between the parties and render #ore si#ple the deter#ination of the secondary issues in each of the#. 7e cannot find anywhere in respondent Erder of Dece#ber 1. is ma. as 7e do hold. which. ?od$es since then.. #a+e the re#edies of certiorari and prohibition. and this . for purposes of resolvin$ the co##on basic issues raised in all of the#. hence respondent Ma$no should be considered as havin$ ceased to be 2d#inistratri( of the Testate state of Mrs. it is the position of )3/! that the respondent court e(ceeded its 6urisdiction or $ravely abused its discretion in further reco$ni>in$ after Dece#ber 1. /n other words. Ebviously. Main $round for such posture is that by the afore%uoted order of respondent court of said date. 2ccordin$ly. that the re#edy of appeal is not ade%uate in the present cases. nothin$ else re#ains to be done in Apecial )roceedin$s 1301 e(cept to for#ally close it. <)3/!. hence. To start with. /art to of the her !agno is Testate &rothers the Hodges AdFudicated respondent unquestioned Administratri# in special /roceedings '>JA. after all. despite the conceded availability of appeal. of Still &e )hich An. preferable. respondent Ma$noKs ob6ection to the present re#edy of certiorari and prohibition #ust be overruled. it is lo$ical and proper to hold. appeal would better serve the interests of 6ustice. )hilippine 3o##ercial V /ndustrial !an+. 1901 the e(istence of the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es and in sanctionin$ purported acts of ad#inistration therein of respondent Ma$no. sisters or as 7ot her There that estate. %uoted earlier. it is not enou$h that the re#edy of appeal e(ists or is possible. /t is indispensable that ta+in$ all the relevant circu#stances of the $iven case. /n deter#inin$ whether or not a special civil action of certiorari or prohibition #ay be resorted to in lieu of appeal. !esides. /n the petition. for short= in the petition as well as in its #ain brief as appellant. ?od$es was already allowed to assert and e(ercise all his ri$hts as universal heir of his wife pursuant to the provisions of her will. 7e feel constrained to hold that such pose is patently untenable fro# whatever an$le it is e(a#ined. The tenor of said order bears no su$$estion at all to such effect. the lon$er delay. 2fter carefully $oin$ over the record. The declaration of heirs and distribution by the probate court of the estate of a decedent is its #ost i#portant function.

the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases. or of a person interested in the estate. . as the case #ay be. shall assi$n the residue of the estate to the persons entitled to the sa#e. plain and specific in #a+in$ orders in such re$ard. Aection 1 of @ule 90 provides5 A 3T/E. cate$orical and une%uivocal. conditioned for the pay#ent of said obli$ations within such ti#e as the court directs. the pay#ent of all debts. to which each is entitled. the devisees and le$atees. 1. funeral char$es. should +now with certainty what are and when their respective ri$hts and obli$ations ensuin$ fro# the inheritance or in relation thereto would be$in or cease. the law on the #atter is specific. such an order is usually issued upon proper and specific application for the purpose of the interested party or parties. When order for distri&ution of residue made . R it is only after. which is but lo$ical and proper. and the e(ecutor or ad#inistrator thereof be re$arded as auto#atically dischar$ed and relieved already of all functions and responsibilities without the correspondin$ definite orders of the probate court to such effect. or any other person havin$ the sa#e in his possession. it would naturally be al#ost #inisterial for the court to issue the final order of declaration and distribution. li+e the heirs. etc. and inheritance ta( shall have been effected that the court should #a+e a . and such persons #ay de#and and recover their respective shares fro# the e(ecutor or ad#inistrator. J 7hen the debts. but <-= such order shall not be issued until after it is shown that the Pdebts. e(penses of ad#inistration. char$eable to the estateQ have been paid. in a su# to be fi(ed by the court. or parts. if for no other reason than that all parties concerned. char$eable to the estate in accordance with law have been paid. allowance to the widow. or any of the# $ive a bond. and not of the court.3ourt is not disposed to encoura$e 6ud$es of probate proceedin$s to be less than definite. the creditors. the allowance to the widow and inheritance ta(. These provisions cannot #ean anythin$ less than that in order that a proceedin$ for the settle#ent of the estate of a deceased #ay be dee#ed ready for final closure. the respective ri$hts of all the parties concerned be dee#ed definitely settled. thereby avoidin$ precisely the le$al co#plications and conse%uent liti$ations si#ilar to those that have developed unnecessarily in the present cases. and #ost of all the $overn#ent. on the application of the e(ecutor or ad#inistrator. allowances. funeral e(penses. /f there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law. and after hearin$ upon notice. ta(es. na#in$ the# and the proportions. <1= there should have been issued already an order of distribution or assi$n#ent of the estate of the decedent a#on$ or to those entitled thereto by will or by law.o distribution shall be allowed until the pay#ent of the obli$ations above #entioned has been #ade or provided for. /ndeed. the court. still it is inconceivable that the special proceedin$ instituted for the purpose #ay be considered ter#inated. <3= !esides. and e(penses of ad#inistration. unless the distributees. and not before. 7hile it is true that in instances wherein all the parties interested in the estate of a deceased person have already actually distributed a#on$ the#selves their respective shares therein to the satisfaction of everyone concerned and no ri$hts of creditors or third parties are adversely affected. funeral char$es. e(penses of ad#inistration. if any.

fro# the tenor of said #otions. and the #otion of Dece#ber 11. pendin$ its final li%uidation. has the ri$ht to sell. 1901 was issued. p. 8.T . 2s already stated. 31 Eff. 7e cannot see in the order of Dece#ber 1. *ope>. 7e cannot discern fro# the volu#inous and varied facts. which. '8 )hil. //.. <Aantiesteban vs. 7e are not persuaded that the proceedin$s leadin$ to the issuance of said order. as *e$atee <sic=. 7e are #ore inclined to believe that ?od$es #eant to refer to the for#er. . in appropriate cases. plus a $eneral advance authori>ation to enable said P (ecutor J to e(ecute subse%uent sales. leases and #ort$a$es of all the properties left by the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es e(ecuted by the (ecutor 3harles . -nd ed.0. conveyances. 8'. 8a>. when it appears that no creditors of the con6u$al partnership would be pre6udiced thereby. 1901. @ule 90= what brin$s an intestate <or testate= proceedin$ to a close is the order of distribution directin$ delivery of the residue to the persons entitled thereto after payin$ the indebtedness.. 7hat is #ore. the order of even date. ?od$es had already been co#plied with when the order of Dece#ber 1. althou$h said #otion did alle$e that Pherein (ecutor <?od$es= is not only part owner of the properties left as con6u$al. 0. v. :ol. certainly.9 )hil. ?od$esQ <after the death of his wife and prior to the date of the #otion=. :-!. all afore%uoted.8= <p.= /n the cases at bar. pleadin$s and orders before . )hil. leases and #ort$a$es of the properties left the said deceased *innie &ane ?od$es in consonance with wishes conveyed in the last will and testa#ent of the latterQ. <see the @evised @ules of 3ourt by "rancisco. but also. 1901. 2ppelleeKs !rief= ((( ((( ((( . constitutin$ barely of the #otion of May -1. p. 881= albeit. citin$ 3apistrano vs. /n fact. 310.adurata. the #otion of Dece#ber 11. 3'1. 3o##ents on the @ules of 3ourt. advance or partial i#ple#entation of the ter#s of a duly probated will before final ad6udication or distribution when the ri$hts of third parties would not be adversely affected thereby or in the established practice of allowin$ the survivin$ spouse to dispose of his own share of he con6u$al estate. 1901.nder Aection 103 of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure. it si$nificantly added that Pherein (ecutor.= <&/ME82-E.s that the above indispensable prere%uisites for the declaration of heirs and the ad6udication of the estate of Mrs. 1-'4 *ope> vs. :ol. 0. 2nne( . .declaration of heirs or of such persons as are entitled by law to the residue. Aantiesteban. 7e are fully persuaded that the %uoted alle$ations of said #otions read to$ether cannot be construed as a . 2nne( D of the petition. 3091. are what the law conte#plates. ! *ME. <Moran. the successor to all the properties left by the deceased *innie &ane ?od$esQ. 1901 on which the court predicated the order in %uestion did not pray for any such ad6udication at all. 1910 ed. if any. 2nne( ?. lease or dispose of the properties in the )hilippines J durin$ his lifeti#eQ... so #uch relied upon by the petitioner. cannot a#ount to the order of ad6udication of the estate of the decedent to ?od$es conte#plated in the law. convey. /n any event. /n other words. anythin$ #ore than an e(plicit approval of Pall the sales. <correspondin$ to Aection 1.. pendin$ the ter#ination of the proceedin$s. thereby indicatin$ that what said #otion conte#plated was nothin$ #ore than either the en6oy#ent by ?od$es of his ri$hts under the particular portion of the dispositions of his wifeKs will which were to be operative only durin$ his lifeti#e or the use of his own share of the con6u$al estate. 391. the authority referred to in said #otions and orders is in the nature of that conte#plated either in Aection .of @ule 109 which per#its. conveyances. left by the deceased..

/n any event. /ndeed. nowhere in the record does it appear that the trial court subse%uently acted upon the pre#ise su$$ested by petitioner. 7e do not believe that the trial court could have acted in the sense pretended by petitioner. 2nd it #ay be added here that the fact that no one appeared to oppose the #otions in %uestion #ay only be attributed. Pin both cases <Apecial )roceedin$s 1301 and 1'1-= there is as yet no 6udicial declaration of heirs nor distribution of properties to who#soever are entitled thereto. on . even assu#in$ that by the alle$ations in his #otion. En the contrary. which it would not have done if it were really convinced that the order of Dece#ber 1. it prayed inter alia that the court declare that P3. even in the ter#s in which they have been worded. and. 19'0. 7e would have no hesitancy in declarin$ the# null and void. already %uoted in full on pa$es 0.-'1 of this decision. that in its own #otion of &anuary 8. 19'0. as (ecutor. they could not have ta+en said #otions to be for the final distribution and ad6udication of the estate. ?od$es be%ueathed her whole estate to her husband and $ave hi# what a#ounts to full powers of do#inion over the sa#e durin$ his lifeti#e.. ?od$esK brothers and sisters to whatever have not been disposed of by hi# up to his death. . as su$$ested by petitioner. firstly. .Q /n this connection. ?od$es was the sole and e(clusive heir of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$esQ. of May -1. no one can ri$htly contend that the testa#entary provision in %uestion allowed hi# to so ad6udicate any part of the estate to hi#self as to pre6udice the#. by way of so#e +ind of estoppel. to the fact that even if they had been notified. to the failure of ?od$es to send notices to any of the#. therefore. what was absolutely $iven to ?od$es was only so #uch of his wifeKs estate as he #i$ht possibly dispose of durin$ his lifeti#e4 hence. if the orders of May -1. as already observed.ove#ber -3. Atated differently.one of the# could have deprived his brothers and sisters-in-law of their ri$hts under said will.. or #a+e use of his own share of the con6u$al estate.repudiation of the ri$hts une%uivocally established in the will in favor of Mrs. the trial courtKs orders $rantin$ said #otions. #ay be allowed under the broad ter#s of Aection .. 1901 was already the order of ad6udication and distribution of her estate. pendin$ such final distribution and ad6udication. she i#posed at the sa#e ti#e the condition that whatever should re#ain thereof upon his death should $o to her brothers and sisters. which. /t #ust be borne in #ind that while it is true that Mrs. 1901 and Dece#ber . as ad#itted in the #otion itself. for surely. could not have had the effect of an absolute and unconditional ad6udication unto ?od$es of the whole estate of his wife. irrespective of whatever #i$ht have been ?od$esK intention in his #otions.of @ule 109. That said #otion was later withdrawn when Ma$no filed her own #otion for deter#ination and ad6udication of what should correspond to the brothers and sisters of Mrs. it cate$orically held that as of said date. but #erely for hi# to be able. /n other words. 1901 were really intended to be read in the sense contended by petitioner. to either e(ercise durin$ his lifeti#e ri$hts of do#inion over his wifeKs estate in accordance with the be%uest in his favor. not only because of the clear lan$ua$e of the will but also because none of the interested parties had been duly notified of the #otion and hearin$ thereof. 1901. it #ay be stated further a$ainst petitioner. secondly. . . 19'0. such unilateral act could not have affected or di#inished in any de$ree or #anner the ri$ht of his brothers and sisters-in-law over what would re#ain thereof upon his death.ove#ber -3. when the court resolved the #otion of appellee 7estern /nstitute of Technolo$y by its order 7e have %uoted earlier. he did intend to ad6udicate the whole estate to hi#self. ?od$es does not alter the indubitable i#plication of the prayer of the withdrawn #otion. 1901 and Dece#ber 11. /n effect.

%ue verificada la ad6udicacion. el 6u>$ado declara. %ue una ve> prestada la fian>a #encionada al principio de este auto. 10.2. Maria :entenilla.)etitioner cites the case of Austria vs. <unreported but a partial di$est thereof appears in 99 )hil.a del testa#ento4 3. her#anos del testador.o. 10'9= in support of its insistence that with the orders of May -1 and Dece#ber 1. @. )E@ TEDE *E M).o. @a#on Aoriano. Aepte#ber 19. 9. se$un la ley. confor#e esta #andado en las clausulas 8. el 6u>$ado la encuentra procedente ba6o la condicion de %ue no se hara entre$a ni ad6udicacion de los bienes a los herederos antes de %ue estos presten la fian>a correspondiente y de acuerdo con lo prescrito en el 2rt.o5 no haber lu$ar a la #ocion de @a#on :entenilla y otros4 -.. del 3odi$o de )rocedi#ientos5 pues. de la donacion hecha por el testador a favor de la scuela a )ublica del Municipio de Man$atare#. 1. . 190'. 2s %uoted in that decision. despues de deducir de ellos la porcion %ue corresponde a cada uno de sus coherederos. There the trial court had in fact issued a clear. y cancelando su fian>a.a y 13. "elicitas :entenilla. her#ana del testador. &ose Aoriano. 1-. ade#as %ue la heredera 2le6andra 2ustria tiene derecho al re#anente de todos los bienes de6ados por el finado. 3reo %ue no es obice para la ter#inacion del e(pediente el hecho de %ue la ad#inistradora no ha presentado hasta ahora el inventario de los bienes4 pues.o.a. y aparece en el testa#ento %ue la ad#inistradora 2le6andra 2ustria reune dicha condicion. 11.. final#ente. . . y. !ut the parallel atte#pted to be drawn between that case and the present one does not hold. distinct and e(press order of ad6udication and distribution #ore than twenty years before the other heirs of the deceased filed their #otion as+in$ that the ad#inistratri( be re#oved.ndoubtedly. Maria :entenilla. declara asi#is#o %ue los unicos herederos del finado 2ntonio :entenilla son su esposa 2le6andra 2ustria. 3atalino y "roilan. revelandole toda responsabilidad a la ad#inistradora.a. 8. se ha$a la entre$a y ad6udicacion de los bienes. ATE. *-10018. en autos no aparece %ue hayan sido no#brados co#isionados de avaluo y recla#aciones. Dicha fian>a podra ser por un valor i$ual al de los bienes %ue correspondan a cada heredero se$un el testa#ento. se aprueba el pa$o hecho por la ad#inistradora de los $astos de la ulti#a enfer#edad y funerales del testador. etc. the closure of Mrs.o. u$enio :entenilla y 2le6andra :entenilla. 8abriela :entenilla. confor#e se dispone en el testa#ento y se acaba de declarar en este auto4 0. To#as. declarando. ?od$esK estate has beco#e a #ere for#ality. en representacion de los difuntos &uan. *oren>o :entenilla. :entenilla. 2A/ A E@D . 1901. se dara por ter#inada la ad#inistracion. y @a#on :entenilla. the order of the lower court in that respect read as follows5 n orden a la #ocion de la ad#inistradora. y de las #isas en sufra$io del al#a del finado4 . the closure of any proceedin$s for the settle#ent of the estate of a deceased person cannot be but perfunctory. inas#uch as said orders a#ounted to the order of ad6udication and distribution ordained by Aection 1 of @ule 90. ulalio Aoriano.a. 10.o. after the issuance of an order of such tenor. estan e(entos de esta for#alidad os ad#inistradores %ue son le$atarios del residuo o re#anente de los bienes y hayan prestado fian>a para responder de las $estiones de su car$o.a.

)ursuant to this. in accordance with the last will and testa#ent already probated... id.''.. he filed an Pindividual inco#e ta( returnQ for calendar year 1908 on the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es reportin$. the ter#s of his wifeKs will did not $ive hi# such a ri$ht. ?od$es and the state of *innie &ane ?od$esQ as of Dece#ber 31. the circu#stances attendant to its issuance do not su$$est that such was the intention of the court.. the two orders relied upon by petitioner do not appear e#$facie to be of the sa#e tenor and nature as the order 6ust %uoted. #uch less warranted by the facts of record herein. ?od$es filed his third P2nnual Atate#ent of 2ccount by the (ecutor for the year 19'0S of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. ?od$es and the state of *innie &ane ?od$esQ as of Dece#ber 31.. for nothin$ could have been #ore violative of the will of Mrs./n the case at bar. 91-9-. 19'0 anne(ed thereto. 3. 19'1. . ?od$es.. wherein he repeatedly clai#ed that Pherein e(ecutor <bein$= the only devisee or le$atee of the deceased. e(actly one-half of the net inco#e of his co#bined personal assets and that of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. and. ?od$es alle$ed. I and M. . ?od$es reported that the co#bined con6u$al estate earned a net inco#e of )3-8. the said estate as havin$ earned inco#e of )130. to infer fro# ?od$esK said #otions and fro# his state#ents of accounts for the years 1908.. 1909 and 19'0.'-. thru counsel..-01. 19'0. )ursuant to this. and even pro#ised that Pproper accountin$ will be had J in all these transactionsQ which he had sub#itted for approval and authori>ation by the court.= . there are enou$h circu#stances e(tant in the records of these cases indicatin$ that he had no such intention to i$nore the ri$hts of his co-heirs. 2s alle$ed by respondent Ma$no in her brief as appellee5 . divided evenly between hi# and the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. to inherit the properties of the decedentP. /ndeed.= .. the said estate as havin$ earned inco#e of )1'. divided of *innie &ane . what is #ore. .. 3. /n the PAtate#ent of .etworth of Mr. .etworth of Mr. /n his very #otions in %uestion. 3.. . is to i#pute bad faith to hi#. divided evenly between hi# and the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. ?od$es filed his first P2ccount by the (ecutorQ of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. he filed an Pindividual inco#e ta( returnQ for calendar year 1909 on the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es reportin$.nder date of 2pril 1. /n the PAtate#ent of .'-3. /n the PAtate#ent of . an i#putation which is not le$ally per#issible.. 1908 anne(ed thereto. <p. under oath. ?od$es reported that the co#bined con6u$al estate earned a net inco#e of )31. 91.31.311. <pp.Q there is Pno <other= person interested in the )hilippines of the ti#e and place of e(a#inin$ herein account to be $iven noticeQ. 3.et 7orth of Mr.3-. 2ppelleeKs !rief. 3. that the Pdeceased *innie &ane ?od$es died leavin$ no descendants and ascendants. ?od$es filed his second P2nnual Atate#ent of 2ccount by the (ecutorQ of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. 3. ?od$es reported that the co#bined con6u$al estate earned a net inco#e of )-10. an intent to ad6udicate unto hi#self the whole of his wifeKs estate in an absolute #anner and without re$ard to the contin$ent interests of her brothers and sisters. ?od$es and the state of *innie &ane ?od$esQ as of Dece#ber 31. respectively. 1909. 1909 anne(ed thereto. 2 2nne(es /. under oath. e#cept &rothers and sisters and herein petitioner. le$ally spea+in$.0-.nder date of &uly -1. 3. thereby i#plyin$ that he was aware of his responsibilities vis-a-vis his co-heirs.. as surviving spouse. "actually.9.801. 3. .. as already pointed out above. . e(actly one-half of the net inco#e of his co#bined personal assets and that of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es. .nder date of 2pril -0. ?od$es +new or ou$ht to have +nown that. 3. .

. <pp. he filed an Pindividual evenly between hi# and the estate inco#e ta( returnQ for calendar year 19'0 on the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es reportin$.Q. Aaid alle$ations read5 . 3harles . pendin$ the actual trans#ission of the re#ainin$ portion of her estate to her other heirs. 9--93. he listed the seven brothers and sisters of *innie &ane as her PheirsQ <see p. 2tty. The only conclusion one can $ather fro# this is that he could have been preparin$ the basis for the eventual trans#ission of his wifeKs estate. @oy ?i$don <see p. a P@e%uest for /nclusion of the . *eon ). 2s a #atter of fact. 1901 and Dece#ber 11. *innie &ane ?od$esQ wherein it was alle$ed that Pin accordance with the provisions of the last will and testa#ent of *innie &ane ?od$es. at least. ?od$es had to be considered as her sole heir.. and that they were really and are interested in the estate of deceased *innie &ane ?od$esQ. who verified the #otion. -. 7ithout purportin$ to rule definitely on the #atter in these proceedin$s.Q 2nd it appearin$ that said attorney was ?od$esK lawyer as (ecutor of the estate of his wife. 1901. statin$ that he wanted to strai$hten the records Pin order <that= the heirs of deceased @oy ?i$don #ay not thin+ or believe they were o#itted. the alle$ations in the #otion of the sa#e 2tty. and whatever ad6ust#ent #i$ht be warranted should there be any such re#ainder then is a #atter that could well be ta+en care of by the internal revenue authorities in due ti#e. 3. if in his own way. are over the oath of ?od$es hi#self. etc. upon the eventuality of his death. so #uch thereof as he would not have been able to dispose of durin$ his lifeti#e. ?e never considered the whole estate as a sin$le one belon$in$ e(clusively to hi#self. 2nd assu#in$ that he did pay the correspondin$ estate and inheritance ta(es in the )hilippines on the basis of his bein$ sole heir. id.. to her brothers and sisters in accordance with her e(pressed desire. under oath.91.-8. 8ellada. such pay#ent is not necessarily inconsistent with his reco$nition of the ri$hts of his co-heirs. who si$ned the #otions of May -1. it stands to reason that his understandin$ of the situation. 8reen @E2=.ewton ?od$es. Thus. 19'. The order of the court ad#ittin$ the will to probate unfortunately o#itted one of the heirs. and for purposes of the applicable inheritance ta( laws. /t is to be noted that the lawyer.. 7e #i$ht say here that 7e are inclined to the view that under the peculiar provisions of his wifeKs will. he reco$ni>ed. whatever real properties that #ay re#ain at the death of her husband. 1. the said properties shall be e%ually divided a#on$ their heirs. the separate identity of his wifeKs estate fro# his own share of the con6u$al partnership up to the ti#e of his death. as inti#ated in his ta( return in the . 8reen @E2=. could so#ehow be reflective of ?od$esK own understandin$ thereof.nited Atates to be #ore e(tensively referred to anon. )ursuant to this. #ore than five years after that of his wife. or. reference to which is #ade in the above %uotation fro# respondent Ma$noKs brief.?od$es. 1901 and the afore#entioned state#ents of account was the very sa#e one who also subse%uently si$ned and filed the #otion of Dece#ber -'. i#plicit in his alle$ations 6ust %uoted. /##ediately. 8ellada dated &uly 1. the said estate as havin$ earned inco#e of )101. e(actly one-half of the net inco#e of his co#bined personal assets and that of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es.a#e of @oy ?i$don in the Erder of the 3ourt dated &uly 19. 1901.= /n the petition for probate that he <?od$es= filed.for the appoint#ent of respondent Ma$no as P2d#inistratri( of the state of Mrs. ?od$es filed a verified #otion to have @oy ?i$donKs na#e included as an heir.

. the real attitude of ?od$es in re$ard to the testa#entary dispositions of his wife.nited Atates Ta(ation authorities. and residents of Fuinlan. 2ccordin$ to the infor#ation and belief of the person or persons filin$ the return. -'3= /n addition. p. and that the. J That to straighten the records.of Ma$noKs 2nswer J @ecord. orderin$ the probate of the will. payin$ debts. it is re%uested of the ?on.. ta#es and e#penses of administration are finall. 2nne( 0. 3ourt. bein$ duly sworn. ?od$es appears to have answered the pertinent %uestion thus5 -a. or a statutory interestL <M= Ges < = . /n connection with this point of ?od$esK intent. and are interested in the estate of deceased %innie Jane Hodges. in the petition as well as in the testi#ony of (ecutor durin$ the hearin$. <2nne( . identified as Achedule M.1.. ?od$es. . 1901. in the supposed affidavit of ?od$es. J That in said order of the ?on. )ere reall. 7e note that there are docu#ents. and interests of the deceased in their Communit. PDescription of property interests passin$ to survivin$ spouseQ the followin$5 . )ere omitted. lia&ilities. 3ourt dated &une -9.A. 2nswer J @ecord. curtesy or a statutory interestL <M= Ges < = . p. <2nne( .o -d. 1908. of her answer= and his supposed affidavit of renunciation. -'3= and to have further stated under the ite#. 2nne( 0. the relatives of the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es were enu#erated. which purportedly contain ?od$esK own sole#n declarations reco$ni>in$ the ri$ht of his co-heirs. Higdon ma. 4state to the devisees and legatees named in the )ill )hen the de&ts. Does the survivin$ spouse conte#plate renouncin$ the will and electin$ to ta+e dower.. / renounced and disclai#ed any and all ri$ht . wife and son of deceased @oy ?i$don in the said order of the ?on. 2nswer J @ecord. such as the alle$ed ta( return he filed with the . 3. e(cept for purposes of ad#inisterin$ the state. ta(es and other le$al char$es. curtesy. 3. /n said Achedule M. 1901.one. J That the ?on. ?owever. not think or &elieve the.nited Atates state Ta( @eturn was filed in the state of *innie &ane ?od$es on 2u$ust 8. these italici>ed alle$ations indicate. #ore or less. 1 to 3. 2nne( . but deceased. 3ourt to insert the na#es of 2line ?i$don and David ?i$don. <pars. ?ad the survivin$ spouse the ri$ht to declare an election between <1= the provisions #ade in his or her favor by the will and <11= dower. determined and paid . -. it is stated5 /. Te(as. the na#e @oy ?i$don was #entioned.o 3.2. 0t is the intention of the surviving hus&and of deceased to distri&ute the remaining propert. copies of which are anne(ed to respondent Ma$noKs answer. -'0= 2s can be seen. /t was unintentionally o#itted the heirs of said @oy ?i$don who are his wife 2line ?i$don and son David ?i$don.o <2nne( . on oath affir# that at the ti#e the . p. 3ourt issued orders dated &une -9. all of a$e. is any action described under %uestion 1 desi$ned or conte#platedL < = Ges <M= . and in order the heirs of deceased "o..

0''4 . 1 )hil.1'. '0 )hil. 7e find it very hard to believe that ?od$es did as+ the court and that the latter a$reed that he be declared her sole heir and that her whole estate be ad6udicated to hi# without so #uch as 6ust annotatin$ the contin$ent interest of her brothers and sisters in what would re#ain thereof upon his de#ise. and confirm. 10 )hil. in which that court discussed the powers of the survivin$ spouse in the ad#inistration of the co##unity property.. 2ttention was called to the fact that the survivin$ husband. and 7e cannot.. e#olu#ents and inco#e fro# said estate.1'4 Aochaysen$ vs. 908.. 1901.0 )hil.nited Atates and of the )hilippines. 3904 De la @a#a vs.able &ose. had in #ind the followin$ ad#onition #ade by the 3ourt in /amittan vs. serve to lessen any possible apprehension that Eur conclusion fro# the other evidence of ?od$esK #anifest intent vis-a-vis the ri$hts of his co-heirs is without basis in fact. . rely on the# for the purpose of the present proceedin$s..able &ose vs. This affidavit is #ade to absolve #e or #y estate fro# any liability for the pay#ent of inco#e ta(es on inco#e which has accrued to the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es since the death of the said *innie &ane ?od$es on May -3. still. Arnold <'' Te(as. -.pon the death of !ernarda in Aepte#ber. Tru6illo..atividad.o. 104 2#ancio vs. En the contrary. <2nne( 0. the declaration made in Schedule ! of said return and hereby for#ally disclai# and renounce any ri$ht on #y part to receive any of the said rents.1 )hil.to receive the rents. The purpose of this affidavit is to ratif. De la @a#a. 1 )hil. 113. ' )hil. 1901. *a$era. it see#s to us #ore factual and fairer to assu#e that ?od$es was well aware of his position as e(ecutor of the will of his wife and. said lands continued to be con6u$al property in the hands of the defendant *asa#. . :erily. in the #ana$e#ent of the con6u$al property after the death of the wife. 1.18 of the 3ivil 3ode that upon the dissolution of the con6u$al partnership. a copy of which schedule is attached to this affidavit and #ade a part hereof. 1908.04 )rado vs. -'. e#olu#ents and inco#e fro# the estate of #y deceased wife. as shown by the state#ent contained in Achedule M at pa$e -9 of said return. %asam. 7e cannot close our eyes to their e(istence in the record nor fail to note that their tenor 6ibes with Eur conclusion discussed above fro# the circu#stances related to the orders of May -1 and Dece#ber 1. 2nswer J @ecord.5 . 311' of . *innie &ane ?od$es.ove#ber -. these docu#ents. 11 )hil. Ain$son Ton$son. considerin$ they are supposed to be copies of their ori$inals found in the official files of the $overn#ents of the .= /n the last #entioned case this court %uoted with approval the case of %eather)ood vs.. -914 @o6as vs.. /t is provided in article 1. 31 )hil. 0 Ao#ehow. as such. therefore.= 2lthou$h it appears that said docu#ents were not duly presented as evidence in the court below. 913-91. . with such elo%uent #anifestations of his $ood intentions towards the other heirs of his wife.= has repeatedly held that in the event of the death of the wife. :ictoria.. 13 )hil.. . p. an inventory shall i##ediately be #ade and this court in construin$ this provision in connection with section '80 of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure <prior to its a#end#ent by 2ct . )ardo. et al. . . . the law i#poses upon the husband the duty of li%uidatin$ the affairs of the partnership without delay <desde lue$o= <2lfonso vs. 19-. and 0 do here&. .04 nri%ue> vs.. was a trustee of uni%ue character who is liable for any ..11=.1... Molera. 1034 Molera vs. ratif. at pp. and confirm..

its creditors. . such as the heirs. which have for their evident funda#ental purpose the protection of parties interested in the estate. 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure= is possession Punder a clai# of title e(clusive of any other ri$htQ.fraud co##itted by hi# with relation to the property while he is char$ed with its ad#inistration. however. This solution is definitely preferable in law and in e%uity. that to read the orders of May -1 and Dece#ber 1. Ene of the conditions of title by prescription <section . ?e should have #ade a li%uidation i##ediately <desde lue$o=. he had wide powers <as the law stood prior to 2ct . not as ad6udicatory. but #erely as approvin$ past and authori>in$ future dispositions #ade by ?od$es in a wholesale and $eneral #anner. withal. and. is that fro# such point of view.. 7e find no le$al inconvenience in nor i#pedi#ent to Eur $ivin$ sanction to the blan+et approval and authority contained in said orders. )3/! insists.o. however. for to view said orders in the sense su$$ested by )3/! would result in the deprivation of substantive ri$hts to the brothers and sisters of Mrs. "or a trustee to #a+e such a clai# would be a #anifest fraud. relative to )3/!Ks observations based on @ule 89.o li%uidation was ever #ade by *asa# J hence. /n the li%uidation of the con6u$al partnership.Q The survivin$ husband in the ad#inistration and li%uidation of the con6u$al estate occupies the position of a trustee of the hi$hest order and is not per#itted by the law to hold that estate or any portion thereof adversely to those for whose benefit the law i#poses upon hi# the duty of ad#inistration and li%uidation. still re#ains con6u$al property.1. 7e are not convinced that ?od$es arro$ated everythin$ unto hi#self leavin$ nothin$ at all to be inherited by his wifeKs brothers and sisters. a continuin$ and subsistin$ trust. the con6u$al property which ca#e into his possession on the death of his wife in Aepte#ber. 1901. 1908. ?od$es. the result would only be that the said orders should be declared ineffective either way they are understood. will $ive peace of #ind and stability of ri$hts to the innocent parties who relied on the# in $ood faith. in the li$ht of the peculiar pertinent provisions of the will of said decedent. 2nd +nowin$ thus his responsibilities in the pre#ises. with relation to prescription. what sur$es i##ediately to the surface. particularly the $overn#ent on account of the ta(es due it4 and since it is apparent here that none of such parties are ob6ectin$ to said orders or would be pre6udiced by the unobservance by the trial court of the procedure pointed out by )3/!. ?e cannot now be per#itted to ta+e advanta$e of his own wron$. considerin$ 7e have already seen it is le$ally i#possible to consider the# as ad6udicatory. 2s a #atter of fact. Aection 38 of 3hapter /// of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure. . the supposed irre$ularity would involve no #ore than so#e non-6urisdictional technicalities of procedure. /f 7e sustained such a view. provides that Pthis chapter shall not apply R in the case of a continuin$ and subsistin$ trust. would necessarily render the said orders void for bein$ violative of the provisions of @ule 89 $overnin$ the #anner in which such dispositions #ay be #ade and how the authority therefor and approval thereof by the probate court #ay be secured. 311'= and the hi$h de$ree of trust reposed in hi# stands out #ore clearly in view of the fact that he was the owner of a half interest in his own ri$ht of the con6u$al estate which he was char$ed to ad#inister. ?e could therefore no #ore ac%uire a title by prescription a$ainst those for who# he was ad#inisterin$ the con6u$al estate than could a $uardian a$ainst his ward or a 6udicial ad#inistrator a$ainst the heirs of estate. whereas readin$ the# the other way will not cause any pre6udice to anyone.

;ow, the inventory sub#itted by ?od$es on May 1-, 1908 referred to the estate of his wife as consistin$ of PEne-half of all the ite#s desi$nated in the balance sheet, copy of which is hereto attached and #ar+ed as P2nne( 2Q.Q 2lthou$h, re$rettably, no copy of said 2nne( 2 appears in the records before ,s, 7e ta+e 6udicial notice, on the basis of the undisputed facts in these cases, that the sa#e consists of considerable real and other personal +inds of properties. 2nd since, accordin$ to her will, her husband was to be the sole owner thereof durin$ his lifeti#e, with full power and authority to dispose of any of the#, provided that should there be any re#ainder upon his death, such re#ainder would $o to her brothers and sisters, and further#ore, there is no pretension, #uch less any proof that ?od$es had in fact disposed of all of the#, and, on the contrary, the indications are rather to the effect that he had +ept the# #ore or less intact, it cannot truthfully be said that, upon the death of ?od$es, there was no #ore estate of Mrs. ?od$es to spea+ of. /t is Eur conclusion, therefore, that properties do e(ist which constitute such estate, hence Apecial )roceedin$s 1301 should not yet be closed. ;either is there basis for holdin$ that respondent Ma$no has ceased to be the 2d#inistratri( in said proceedin$. There is no showin$ that she has ever been le$ally re#oved as such, the atte#pt to replace her with Mr. !enito *ope> without authority fro# the 3ourt havin$ been e(pressly held ineffective by Eur resolution of Aepte#ber 8, 191-. )arenthetically, on this last point, )3/! itself is very e#phatic in stressin$ that it is not %uestionin$ said respondentKs status as such ad#inistratri(. /ndeed, it is not clear that )3/! has any standin$ to raise any ob6ection thereto, considerin$ it is a co#plete stran$er insofar as the estate of Mrs. ?od$es is concerned. /t is the contention of )3/!, however, that as thin$s actually stood at the ti#e of ?od$esK death, their con6u$al partnership had not yet been li%uidated and, inas#uch as the properties co#posin$ the sa#e were thus co##in$led pro indiviso and, conse%uently, the properties pertainin$ to the estate of each of the spouses are not yet identifiable, it is )3/! alone, as ad#inistrator of the estate of ?od$es, who should ad#inister everythin$, and all that respondent Ma$no can do for the ti#e bein$ is to wait until the properties constitutin$ the re#ainin$ estate of Mrs. ?od$es have been duly se$re$ated and delivered to her for her own ad#inistration. Aee#in$ly, )3/! would li+en the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es to a party havin$ a clai# of ownership to so#e properties included in the inventory of an ad#inistrator of the estate of a decedent, <here that of ?od$es= and who nor#ally has no ri$ht to ta+e part in the proceedin$s pendin$ the establish#ent of his ri$ht or title4 for which as a rule it is re%uired that an ordinary action should be filed, since the probate court is without 6urisdiction to pass with finality on %uestions of title between the estate of the deceased, on the one hand, and a third party or even an heir clai#in$ adversely a$ainst the estate, on the other. 7e do not find such contention sufficiently persuasive. 2s 7e see it, the situation obtainin$ herein cannot be co#pared with the clai# of a third party the basis of which is alien to the pendin$ probate proceedin$s. /n the present cases what $ave rise to the clai# of )3/! of e(clusive ownership by the estate of ?od$es over all the properties of the ?od$es spouses, includin$ the share of Mrs. ?od$es in the co##unity properties, were the orders of the trial court issued in the course of the very settle#ent proceedin$s the#selves, #ore specifically, the orders of May -1 and Dece#ber 1., 1901 so often #entioned above.

/n other words, the root of the issue of title between the parties is so#ethin$ that the court itself has done in the e(ercise of its probate 6urisdiction. 2nd since in the ulti#ate analysis, the %uestion of whether or not all the properties herein involved pertain e(clusively to the estate of ?od$es depends on the le$al #eanin$ and effect of said orders, the clai# that respondent court has no 6urisdiction to ta+e co$ni>ance of and decide the said issue is incorrect. /f it was within the co#petence of the court to issue the root orders, why should it not be within its authority to declare their true si$nificance and intent, to the end that the parties #ay +now whether or not the estate of Mrs. ?od$es had already been ad6udicated by the court, upon the initiative of ?od$es, in his favor, to the e(clusion of the other heirs of his wife instituted in her willL 2t this point, it bears e#phasis a$ain that the #ain cause of all the present proble#s confrontin$ the courts and the parties in these cases was the failure of ?od$es to secure, as e(ecutor of his wifeKs estate, fro# May, 1901 up to the ti#e of his death in Dece#ber, 19'-, a period of #ore than five years, the final ad6udication of her estate and the closure of the proceedin$s. The record is bare of any showin$ that he ever e(erted any effort towards the early settle#ent of said estate. 7hile, on the one hand, there are enou$h indications, as already discuss that he had intentions of leavin$ intact her share of the con6u$al properties so that it #ay pass wholly to his co-heirs upon his death, pursuant to her will, on the other hand, by not ter#inatin$ the proceedin$s, his interests in his own half of the con6u$al properties re#ained co##in$led pro-indiviso with those of his co-heirs in the other half. Ebviously, such a situation could not be conducive to ready ascertain#ent of the portion of the inheritance that should appertain to his co-heirs upon his death. ?avin$ these considerations in #ind, it would be $ivin$ a pre#iu# for such procrastination and rather unfair to his co-heirs, if the ad#inistrator of his estate were to be $iven e(clusive ad#inistration of all the properties in %uestion, which would necessarily include the function of pro#ptly li%uidatin$ the con6u$al partnership, thereby identifyin$ and se$re$atin$ without unnecessary loss of ti#e which properties should be considered as constitutin$ the estate of Mrs. ?od$es, the re#ainder of which her brothers and sisters are supposed to inherit e%ually a#on$ the#selves. To be sure, an ad#inistrator is not supposed to represent the interests of any particular party and his acts are dee#ed to be ob6ectively for the protection of the ri$hts of everybody concerned with the estate of the decedent, and fro# this point of view, it #aybe said that even if )3/! were to act alone, there should be no fear of undue disadvanta$e to anyone. En the other hand, however, it is evidently i#plicit in section ' of @ule 18 fi(in$ the priority a#on$ those to who# letters of ad#inistration should be $ranted that the criterion in the selection of the ad#inistrator is not his i#partiality alone but, #ore i#portantly, the e(tent of his interest in the estate, so #uch so that the one assu#ed to have $reater interest is preferred to another who has less. Ta+in$ both of these considerations into account, inas#uch as, accordin$ to ?od$esK own inventory sub#itted by hi# as (ecutor of the estate of his wife, practically all their properties were con6u$al which #eans that the spouses have e%ual shares therein, it is but lo$ical that both estates should be ad#inistered 6ointly by representatives of both, pendin$ their se$re$ation fro# each other. )articularly is such an arran$e#ent warranted because the actuations so far of )3/! evince a deter#ined, albeit $roundless, intent to e(clude the other heirs of Mrs. ?od$es fro# their inheritance. !esides, to allow )3/!, the ad#inistrator of his estate, to perfor# now what ?od$es was duty bound to

do as e(ecutor is to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Aection - of @ule 18 which e(pressly provides that PThe e(ecutor of an e(ecutor shall not, as such, ad#inister the estate of the first testator.Q /t $oes without sayin$ that this provision refers also to the ad#inistrator of an e(ecutor li+e )3/! here. 7e are not un#indful of the fact that under Aection - of @ule 13, P7hen the #arria$e is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife, the co##unity property shall be inventoried, ad#inistered, and li%uidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedin$s of the deceased spouse. /f both spouses have died, the con6u$al partnership shall be li%uidated in the testate or intestate proceedin$s of either.Q /ndeed, it is true that the last sentence of this provision allows or per#its the con6u$al partnership of spouses who are both deceased to be settled or li%uidated in the testate or intestate proceedin$s of either, but precisely because said sentence allows or per#its that the li%uidation be #ade in either proceedin$, it is a #atter of sound 6udicial discretion in which one it should be #ade. 2fter all, the for#er rule referrin$ to the ad#inistrator of the husbandKs estate in respect to such li%uidation was done away with by 2ct 311', the pertinent provisions of which are now e#bodied in the rule 6ust cited. Thus, it can be seen that at the ti#e of the death of ?od$es, there was already the pendin$ 6udicial settle#ent proceedin$ of the estate of Mrs. ?od$es, and, #ore i#portantly, that the for#er was the e(ecutor of the latterKs will who had, as such, failed for #ore than five years to see to it that the sa#e was ter#inated earliest, which was not difficult to do, since fro# ou$ht that appears in the record, there were no serious obstacles on the way, the estate not bein$ indebted and there bein$ no i##ediate heirs other than ?od$es hi#self. Auch dilatory or indifferent attitude could only spell possible pre6udice of his coheirs, whose ri$hts to inheritance depend entirely on the e(istence of any re#ainder of Mrs. ?od$esK share in the co##unity properties, and who are now faced with the pose of )3/! that there is no such re#ainder. ?ad ?od$es secured as early as possible the settle#ent of his wifeKs estate, this proble# would not arisen. 2ll thin$s considered, 7e are fully convinced that the interests of 6ustice will be better served by not per#ittin$ or allowin$ )3/! or any ad#inistrator of the estate of ?od$es e(clusive ad#inistration of all the properties in %uestion. 7e are of the considered opinion and so hold that what would be 6ust and proper is for both ad#inistrators of the two estates to act con6ointly until after said estates have been se$re$ated fro# each other. 2t this 6uncture, it #ay be stated that we are not overloo+in$ the fact that it is )3/!Ks contention that, viewed as a substitution, the testa#entary disposition in favor of Mrs. ?od$esK brothers and sisters #ay not be $iven effect. To a certain e(tent, this contention is correct. /ndeed, le$ally spea+in$, Mrs. ?od$esK will provides neither for a si#ple or vul$ar substitution under 2rticle 809 of the 3ivil 3ode nor for a fideico##issary substitution under 2rticle 8'3 thereof. There is no vul$ar substitution therein because there is no provision for either <1= predecease of the testator by the desi$nated heir or <-= refusal or <3= incapacity of the latter to accept the inheritance, as re%uired by 2rticle 8094 and neither is there a fideico##issary substitution therein because no obli$ation is i#posed thereby upon ?od$es to preserve the estate or any part thereof for anyone else. !ut fro# these pre#ises, it is not correct to 6u#p to the conclusion, as )3/! does, that the testa#entary dispositions in %uestion are therefore inoperative and invalid.

The error in )3/!Ks position lies si#ply in the fact that it views the said disposition e(clusively in the li$ht of substitutions covered by the 3ivil 3ode section on that sub6ect, <Aection 3, 3hapter -, Title /:, !oo+ ///= when it is obvious that substitution occurs only when another heir is appointed in a will Pso that he #ay enter into inheritance in default of the heir ori$inally instituted,Q <2rticle 801, id.= and, in the present case, no such possible default is conte#plated. The brothers and sisters of Mrs. ?od$es are not substitutes for ?od$es because, under her will, they are not to inherit what ?od$es cannot, would not or #ay not inherit, but what he would not dispose of fro# his inheritance4 rather, therefore, they are also heirs instituted si#ultaneously with ?od$es, sub6ect, however, to certain conditions, partially resolutory insofar as ?od$es was concerned and correspondin$ly suspensive with reference to his brothers and sisters-in-law. /t is partially resolutory, since it be%ueaths unto ?od$es the whole of her estate to be owned and en6oyed by hi# as universal and sole heir with absolute do#inion over the# 6only durin$ his lifeti#e, which #eans that while he could co#pletely and absolutely dispose of any portion thereof inter vivos to anyone other than hi#self, he was not free to do so mortis causa, and all his ri$hts to what #i$ht re#ain upon his death would cease entirely upon the occurrence of that contin$ency, inas#uch as the ri$ht of his brothers and sisters-in-law to the inheritance, althou$h vested already upon the death of Mrs. ?od$es, would auto#atically beco#e operative upon the occurrence of the death of ?od$es in the event of actual e(istence of any re#ainder of her estate then. 3ontrary to the view of respondent Ma$no, however, it was not the usufruct alone of her estate, as conte#plated in 2rticle 8'9 of the 3ivil 3ode, that she be%ueathed to ?od$es durin$ his lifeti#e, but the full ownership thereof, althou$h the sa#e was to last also durin$ his lifeti#e only, even as there was no restriction whatsoever a$ainst his disposin$ or conveyin$ the whole or any portion thereof to anybody other than hi#self. The 3ourt sees no le$al i#pedi#ent to this +ind of institution, in this 6urisdiction or under )hilippine law, e(cept that it cannot apply to the le$iti#e of ?od$es as the survivin$ spouse, consistin$ of one-half of the estate, considerin$ that Mrs. ?od$es had no survivin$ ascendants nor descendants. <2rts. 81-, 900, and 90., ;ew 3ivil 3ode.= !ut relative precisely to the %uestion of how #uch of Mrs. ?od$esK share of the con6u$al partnership properties #ay be considered as her estate, the parties are in disa$ree#ent as to how 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode 8should be applied. En the one hand, petitioner clai#s that inas#uch as Mrs. ?od$es was a resident of the )hilippines at the ti#e of her death, under said 2rticle 1', construed in relation to the pertinent laws of Te(as and the principle of renvoi, what should be applied here should be the rules of succession under the 3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines, and, therefore, her estate could consist of no #ore than one-fourth of the said con6u$al properties, the other fourth bein$, as already e(plained, the le$iti#e of her husband <2rt. 900, 3ivil 3ode= which she could not have disposed of nor burdened with any condition <2rt. 81-, 3ivil 3ode=. En the other hand, respondent Ma$no denies that Mrs. ?od$es died a resident of the )hilippines, since alle$edly she never chan$ed nor intended to chan$e her ori$inal residence of birth in Te(as, ,nited Atates of 2#erica, and contends that, anyway, re$ardless of the %uestion of her residence, she bein$ indisputably a citi>en of Te(as, under said 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode, the distribution of her estate is sub6ect to the laws of said Atate which, accordin$ to her, do not provide for any le$iti#e, hence, the brothers and sisters of Mrs. ?od$es are entitled to the re#ainder of the whole of her share of the con6u$al partnership properties consistin$ of one-half thereof. @espondent

#ore specifically. 8and re$ardless also of whether or not it can be proven by co#petent evidence that ?od$es renounced his inheritance in any de$ree.s to render an intelli$ent co#prehensive and 6ust resolution. it would be best. whether of the )hilippines or of Te(as. should only be one-fourth of the con6u$al estate.= that respondent Ma$no re#ains and continues to be the 2d#inistratri( therein. if these conflictin$ clai#s of the parties were deter#ined in these proceedin$s. and it bein$ the position now of )3/! that the estate of Mrs. and ta+in$ for $ranted either of the respective contentions of the parties as to provisions of the latter. the parties are disa$reed as to what the pertinent laws of Te(as provide. and conse%uently. there havin$ been no proper and le$al ad6udication or distribution yet of the estate therein involved4 and <. The 3ourt re$rets. irrespective of what #i$ht be proven later to be actually the provisions of the applicable laws of Te(as4 <3= that Apecial )roceedin$s 1301 for the settle#ent of the testate estate of Mrs. . !esides. these and all other relevant #atters should first be threshed out fully in the trial court in the proceedin$s hereafter to be held therein for the purpose of ascertainin$ and ad6udicatin$ andNor distributin$ the estate of Mrs. ?od$es and ou$ht to be disposed of or distributed a#on$ her heirs pursuant to her will in said Apecial )roceedin$s 13014 <-= that. /n &ustice. considerin$ that the sole difference in the positions of the parties as to the effect of said laws has reference to the supposed le$iti#e of ?od$es J it bein$ the stand of )3/! that ?od$es had such a le$iti#e whereas Ma$no clai#s the ne$ative T it is now beyond controversy for all future purposes of these proceedin$s that whatever be the provisions actually of the laws of Te(as applicable hereto.Ma$no further #aintains that. it would be in estoppel in any further proceedin$s in these cases to clai# that said estate could be less. <1= whether or not ?od$es had in fact and in law waived or renounced his inheritance fro# Mrs. ?od$es. that there are properties which should constitute the estate of Mrs. to all the parties concerned. nothin$ in the fore$oin$ opinion is intended to resolve the issues which. all that 7e can and do decide in connection with the petition for certiorari and prohibition are5 <1= that re$ardless of which correspondin$ laws are applied. that it cannot do so.s. indeed. it is easily and definitely discernible fro# the inventory sub#itted by ?od$es hi#self. ?ence. ?od$es is at least. 2nd there are a nu#ber of still other conceivable related issues which the parties #ay wish to raise but which it is not proper to #ention here. appear to . therefore. na#ely. /n the interest of settlin$ the estates herein involved soonest. of their respective contentions on the pertinent le$al issues. in any event. as already stated. inas#uch as the %uestion of what are the pertinent laws of Te(as applicable to the situation herein is basically one of fact. in their respective briefs and #e#oranda before . To be #ore e(plicit. 8C Then also. onefourth of the con6u$al estate of the spouses4 the e(istence and effects of forei$n laws bein$ %uestions of fact.s to be ade%uate enou$h to enable . as alle$edly proven by the docu#ents touchin$ on the point already #entioned earlier. pursuant to the laws of Te(as. ?od$es had renounced his ri$hts under the will in favor of his co-heirs. however. ?od$es to her heirs in accordance with her duly probated will. ?od$es cannot be closed at this sta$e and should proceed to its lo$ical conclusion. the $enuineness of docu#ents relied upon by respondent Ma$no is disputed. "or one thin$. of $rave i#portance as they are. are not properly before the 3ourt now. and. the $enuineness and le$al si$nificance of which petitioner see#in$ly %uestions. as (ecutor of his wifeKs estate. for the si#ple reason that neither the evidence sub#itted by the parties in the court below nor their discussion. the estate of Mrs. such contention constitutes an ad#ission of fact. there is no clear and reliable proof of what in fact the possibly applicable laws of Te(as are. ?od$es.

2s a #atter of fact. p. 191. and it should accordin$ly yield. since there is no reliable evidence as to what are the applicable laws of Te(as.ove#ber 3. ?od$es. 19-0. as found in 7est :ir$inia 3ode.1. vol. 2fter nature reflection. on . ?od$es could in any event be less than that 7e have fi(ed above.. The laws of a forei$n 6urisdiction do not prove the#selves in our courts. it was held5 /t is the theory of the petitioner that the alle$ed will was e(ecuted in l+ins 7est :ir$inia.2. such as when they are well and $enerally +nown or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties concerned do not clai# otherwise.= /n 5luemer vs. 2fter all. and in the li$ht of what #i$ht be the applicable laws of Te(as on the #atter. '10. the parties should be allowed to present such further evidence in relation to all these issues in a 6oint hearin$ of the two probate proceedin$s herein involved.. at this sta$e and in the state of the records before . as to which e(actly those properties are. it #ay be #entioned here that durin$ the deliberations. Auch laws #ust be proved as facts. )hil.. ?od$es are entitled. the estate of Mrs. 3o##ents on the @ules of 3ourt. /n the interest of 6ustice. the point was raised as to whether or not said holdin$ #i$ht be inconsistent with Eur other rulin$ here also that. even our findin$ above about the e(istence of properties constitutin$ the estate of Mrs. and as certified to by the Director of the . to the #ore concrete and specific evidence which the parties are supposed to present in support of their respective positions in re$ard to the fore$oin$ #ain le$al and factual issues. under 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode. 1910 ed. 7ithal. by ?o$$ 3harles . one of fact. </n re state of . the court a quo has not yet passed s%uarely on these issues.A. c. the feared inconsistency is #ore apparent than real. and that the laws of 7est :ir$inia $overn. and <-= assu#in$ there had been no such waiver.in whole or in part. the %uestion of what are the laws of Te(as $overnin$ the #atters herein issue is. Hi#. The courts of the )hilippine /slands are not authori>ed to ta+e 6udicial notice of the laws of the various Atates of the 2#erican .ational *ibrary. 8. by ?i( who had his residence in that 6urisdiction. To this end. !ut this was far fro# a co#pliance with the law. 7e are of the considered view that. ?od$es is #ore than the one-fourth declared above. @elative to Eur holdin$ above that the estate of Mrs. 0. 19'0. Pwith respect to the order of succession and to the a#ount of successional ri$htsQ that #ay be willed by a testator which. 2nnotated. these cases should be returned to the court a %uo.s to #a+e any specific rulin$ now on either the validity of the testa#entary dispositions herein involved or the a#ount of inheritance to which the brothers and sisters of Mrs. ?od$es rests lar$ely on a $eneral appraisal of the si>e and e(tent of the con6u$al partnership $athered fro# reference #ade thereto by both parties in their briefs as well as in their pleadin$s included in the records on appeal. are controllin$ in the instant cases. there was sub#itted a copy of section 38'8 of 2cts 188-. in the first instance. <0 Moran. not of law. -. by the application of 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode. le#entary is the rule that forei$n laws #ay not be ta+en 6udicial notice of and have to be proven li+e any other fact in dispute between the parties in any proceedin$.s. and it is best for all concerned that it should do so in the first instance. the estate of Mrs. /t should be borne in #ind that as above-indicated. with the rare e(ception in instances when the said laws are already within the actual +nowled$e of the court. in view of the undisputed Te(an nationality of the deceased Mrs. . p. it no lon$er lies in the lips of petitioner )3/! to #a+e any clai# that under the laws of Te(as. ?od$es cannot be less than the re#ainder of onefourth of the con6u$al partnership properties. it is pre#ature for . .nion. so that the parties #ay prove what said law provides. whether or not.

39 )hil.nited Atates4 and we would hesitate to hold that our courts can.pon the other point J as to whether the will was e(ecuted in confor#ity with the statutes of the Atate of /llinois J we note that it does not affir#atively appear fro# the transcription of the testi#ony adduced in the trial court that any witness was e(a#ined with reference to the law of /llinois on the sub6ect of the e(ecution of will. The affidavits by which the petition is acco#panied contain no . The trial 6ud$e no doubt was satisfied that the will was properly e(ecuted by e(a#inin$ section 181. of the acts of the le$islative depart#ent of the . because the assi$n#ent of error and ar$u#ent for the appellant in this court raises no %uestion based on such supposed error. p. first.evertheless. the parties herein have presented opposin$ versions in their respective pleadin$s and #e#oranda re$ardin$ the #atter. as provided in section 300 of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure.s to indul$e in the ha>ardous con6ecture that said provisions have not been a#ended or chan$ed in the #eanti#e. ta+e 6udicial notice of the #ultifarious laws of the various 2#erican Atates. because the petition does not state any fact fro# which it would appear that the law of /llinois is different fro# what the court found. its 6ud$#ent could not be set aside. 39 )hil. Fuite to the contrary. but this is #erely a conclusion of law. The petitioner. That section authori>es the courts here to ta+e 6udicial notice.. under the seal of the Atate of 7est :ir$inia. The proper rule we thin+ is to re%uire proof of the statutes of the Atates of the 2#erican . There was no showin$ that the boo+ fro# which an e(tract was ta+en was printed or published under the authority of the Atate of 7est :ir$inia. . -arcia.o evidence of the nature thus su$$ested by the 3ourt #ay be found in the records of the cases at bar. under this provision. he was in our opinion #ista+en.or do we thin+ that any such authority can be derived fro# the broader lan$ua$e. 2nd even if 7e too+ into account that in A. states in $eneral ter#s that the will in %uestion is invalid and inade%uate to pass real and personal property in the Atate of /llinois. the disparity in the #aterial dates of that case and the present ones would not per#it .Q . even upon application #ade within si( #onths under section 113 of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure. of the @evised Atatutes of /llinois.. unless it should be #ade to appear affir#atively that the con6ecture was wron$. . . used in the sa#e section.o evidence was introduced to show that the e(tract fro# the laws of 7est :ir$inia was in force at the ti#e the alle$ed will was e(ecuted.nited Atates. it is true. 10'.or was the e(tract fro# the law attested by the certificate of the officer havin$ char$e of the ori$inal. and. These words clearly have reference to 2cts of the 3on$ress of the .nion whenever their provisions are deter#inative of the issues in any action liti$ated in the )hilippine courts.&ohnson B1918C. secondly. -nd ed. /f so. in /n re state of &ohnson. as provided in section 301 of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure. where it is said that our courts #ay ta+e 6udicial notice of #atters of public +nowled$e Psi#ilarQ to those therein enu#erated. a#on$ other thin$s.= ?ere the re%uire#ents of the law were not #et.nar vs. as e(hibited in volu#e 3 of Atarr V 3urtisKs 2nnotated /llinois Atatutes. such error is not now available to the petitioner. . En the other hand. . 10'. even supposin$ that the trial court #ay have erred in ta+in$ 6udicial notice of the law of /llinois on the point in %uestion.-'4 and he #ay have assu#ed that he could ta+e 6udicial notice of the laws of /llinois under section -10 of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure. Thou$h the trial court #ay have acted upon pure con6ecture as to the law prevailin$ in the Atate of /llinois. 7e held5 . the 3ourt did #a+e reference to certain provisions re$ardin$ succession in the laws of Te(as.

2s recited above. whatever #ay be the nature of the property and re$ardless of the country wherein said property #ay be foundQ.A. shall be re$ulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. under said laws. the a#ount of the inheritance pertainin$ to the heirs of Mrs. was an 2#erican citi>en. There is also no %uestion that she was a national of the Atate of Te(as. the petitioner-appellant. /n other words.2. as well as to i##ovables situated in the )hilippines.@. while the law of Te(as <the ?od$es spouses bein$ nationals of . and applyin$ therefore the Wrenvoi doctrineK as enunciated and applied by this ?onorable 3ourt in the case of /n re state of 3hristensen <8. while the law of the situs <in this case also )hilippine law with respect to all ?od$es properties located in the )hilippines=. dated &uly 31. and we are cited to no authority in the appellantKs brief which #i$ht tend to raise a doubt as to the correctness of the conclusion of the trial court. &an. with respect to certain aspects of the forei$n laws concerned. that this point cannot be ur$ed as of serious #o#ent.2. Thus. 2$ain. without the need of re%uirin$ the presentation of what otherwise would be the co#petent evidence on the point. both with respect to #ovables. *1'1. as this has already been .. therefore. the 3ourt #ay ta+e it for $ranted for the purposes of the particular case before it that the said laws are as such virtual a$ree#ent indicates. on her part. ?od$es is as 7e have fi(ed above. . actually and in fact. as well as the successional ri$hts to her estate. the absence of evidence to the effect that.A. it could be otherwise is of no lon$er of any conse%uence. )hilippines. 19'3=. /t is very clear. )3/! asserts5 The la) governing successional rights.reference to the sub6ect. To be #ore concrete. provides that the do#iciliary law <in this case )hilippine law= $overns the testa#entary dispositions and successional ri$hts over #ovables or personal properties. and respondentappellee is only clai#in$. in its conflicts of law rules. )3/! states cate$orically5 /nas#uch as 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode provides that Pintestate and testa#entary successions both with respect to the order of succession and to the a#ount of successional ri$hts and to the intrinsic validity of testa#entary provisions. since )3/!. unless the purpose is to show that it could be #ore. concedes that upon application of 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode and the pertinent laws of Te(as. the a#ount of the estate in controversy is 6ust as 7e have deter#ined it to be. /t is i#plicit in the above rulin$ that when. that it could be #ore. 31.o. 19'1. there can be no %uestion that )hilippine law $overns the testa#entary dispositions contained in the *ast 7ill and Testa#ent of the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es. *innie &ane ?od$es. 19'8. in the instant cases wherein it results fro# the respective contentions of both parties that even if the pertinent laws of Te(as were +nown and to be applied. the parties in a $iven case do not have any controversy or are #ore or less in a$ree#ent. $overns with respect to i##ovable properties.. there is no %uestion that the deceased. there is li+ewise no %uestion that she had her do#icile of choice in the 3ity of /loilo. . )3/! #ay not now or later pretend differently. /n its #ain brief dated "ebruary -'. on pa$es -0--1 of its petition herein.9. Atate of Te(as=..

&an. the so-called Prenvoi doctrineQ. . upon the death of the latter. or #ore specifically. 10'=. and the testator #ay freely dispose of the other half.@. and not by virtue of any successional ri$hts.pronounced by the above-cited orders of the lower court. there can be no %uestion that )hilippine law $overns the testa#entary provisions in the *ast 7ill and Testa#ent of the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es. while the law of the situs $overns with respect to i##ovable property. *innie &ane ?od$es. The sub6ect of successional ri$hts. @ule 39. the le$iti#e of the survivin$ spouse as the sole heir shall be one-third of the hereditary estate. which is the law of Te(as. 2pplyin$. 39 )hil. 31. and the testator died within three #onths fro# the ti#e of the #arria$e. whatever #ay be the nature of the property and re$ardless of the country wherein said property #ay be found. the law of Te(as points to the law of the )hilippines. There can be no %uestion about this.o. /f the #arria$e between the survivin$ spouse and the testator was sole#ni>ed in articulo mortis. intestate and testa#entary successions. . as it is under the law of Te(as. ?owever. both with respect to #ovables. 2rticle 900 of the 3ivil 3ode provides5 /f the only survivor is the widow or widower. Aee. one-half pertainin$ to each of the spouses. both with respect to the order of succession and to the a#ount of successional ri$hts and to the intrinsic validity of testa#entary provisions. she or he shall be entitled to one-half of the hereditary estate of the deceased spouse. as enunciated and applied by this ?onorable 3ourt in the case of P/n re 3hristensenQ <8.9. therefore. as well as i##ovable property situated in the )hilippines. 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode provides5 P@eal property as well as personal property is sub6ect to the law of the country where it is situated. as $overnin$ succession Pboth with respect to the order of succession and to the a#ount of successional ri$hts and to the intrinsic validity of testa#entary provisions RQ. pronounce#ents which are by now res adFudicata <par. e(cept when they have been livin$ as husband and . in its conflicts of law rules. !ut the law of Te(as.ewton ?od$es and *innie &ane ?od$es. as well as the successional ri$hts to her estate.ewton ?od$es as his own share. shall be re$ulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. as his or her own property. )hilippine law. 3harles . 2$ain.nder )hilippine law.Q Thus the aforecited provision of the 3ivil 3ode points towards the national law of the deceased. provides that the do#iciliary law $overns the testa#entary dispositions and successional ri$hts over #ovables or personal property. Auch that with respect to both #ovable property. as well as i##ovables situated in the )hilippines. is to be divided into two. . one-half of the con6u$al partnership property i##ediately pertained to 3harles . 19'3=.9. Thus. @ules of 3ourt4 /n re state of &ohnson. upon the death of *innie &ane ?od$es. the con6u$al or co##unity property of the spouses. *-1'1. BaC.

asserted his sole ownership of the ?od$es properties and the probate court sanctioned such assertion <pp. /t is thus un%uestionable that as far as )3/! is concerned. *innie &ane ?od$es <pp. the followin$ appears5 !riefly. under the will of his deceased spouse <pp. auto#atically inherited one-half of the re#ainin$ one-half of the ?od$es properties as his le$iti#e <p. f. c. -3--0.ewton ?od$es. -1. -0--1. 81-. /n the su##ary of its ar$u#ents in its #e#orandu# dated 2pril 30. That the deceased. Te(as law.ewton ?od$es. one-half of the ?od$es properties pertains to the deceased. d. Ene-fourth of the con6u$al property therefore re#ains at issue. That under )hilippine law. *innie &ane ?od$es. it is respondent-appellee Ma$noKs posture that under the laws of Te(as. This le$iti#e of the survivin$ spouse cannot be burdened by a fideico##isary substitution <2rt. therefore. That under )hilippine as well as Te(as law.. Ef si#ilar tenor are the alle$ations of )3/! in so#e of its pleadin$s %uoted in the earlier part of this option. ?od$es should be one-half of all the con6u$al properties. petition=.pon the death of 3harles . That the ?od$es spouses were do#iciled le$ally in the )hilippines <pp. 3harles .wife for #ore than five years. 3harles . condition. 19'8. That the re#ainin$ -0U of the ?od$es properties was inherited by the deceased. -0--9. -9-3. and the renvoi doctrine. b. 3ivil code=. e. )hilippine law $overns the successional ri$hts over the properties left by the deceased. ----3. 3harles . *innie &ane ?od$es. petition=. as his le$iti#e. /n the latter case. the application to these cases of 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode in relation to the correspondin$ laws of Te(as would result in that the )hilippine laws on . This is now a #atter of res ad6udicata <p. that in addition to one-half of the con6u$al partnership property as his own con6u$al share.ewton ?od$es was also i##ediately entitled to one-half of the half con6u$al share of the deceased. there is no syste# of le$iti#e. petition=. That under )hilippine law. 3ivil code=. 3harles . petition=. ?e in fact assu#ed such ownership and such was the status of the properties as of the ti#e of his death <pp. petition=. 3harles . did not operate because the sa#e is void <pp. the le$iti#e of the survivin$ spouse shall be that specified in the precedin$ para$raph. petition=.ewton ?od$es. petition=.. 19--0. or one-fourth of the entire con6u$al property. the deceased. nor by any char$e. /t is clear. -0. or substitution <2rt. This is not %uestioned by the respondents. . petition=.ewton ?od$es <p. the position advanced by the petitioner is5 a. 8'. the substitution Wprovision of the will of the deceased.ewton ?od$es. hence the estate of Mrs. En her part. -1. petition=.

such as.succession should control. A3@2 1018=. by the orders of the trial court of May -1. further. 2nd since )3/!Ks representations in re$ard to the laws of Te(as virtually constitute ad#issions of fact which the other parties and the 3ourt are bein$ #ade to rely and act upon. /n the course of the deliberations. Maliwat. '0. ?od$es not inheritin$ anythin$ under her will. ?od$es. 2ccordin$ly. 31. 2fter a lon$ discussion. the proceeds of such sales or the properties ta+en in by virtue of such e(chan$es. when there is no le$iti#e provided therein. briefs and #e#oranda does )3/! #aintain that the application of the laws of Te(as would result in the other heirs of Mrs. the estate of Mrs. ?od$es is the re#ainder of one-fourth of the con6u$al partnership properties. #ini#i>e further protracted le$al controversies between the respective heirs of the ?od$es spouses.owhere in its pleadin$s. it was brou$ht out by so#e #e#bers of the 3ourt that to avoid or. in any event. 7e have overruled. )3/!Ks position that there is no such estate of Mrs. but rather his ri$ht to dispose of any part of his inheritance pursuant to the will of his wife4 <-= as re$ards sales. 2#paro. --14 Ata. ?od$es is predicated e(clusively on two propositions. id. 2s will be recalled. 1901 that in as+in$ for $eneral authority to #a+e sales or other disposals of properties under the 6urisdiction of the court. it is i#perative to elucidate on the possible conse%uences of dispositions #ade by ?od$es after the death of his wife fro# the #ass of the unpartitioned estates without any e(press indication in the pertinent docu#ents as to whether his intention is to dispose of part of his inheritance fro# his wife or part of his own share of the con6u$al estate as well as of those #ade by )3/! after the death of ?od$es. he was not invo+in$ particularly his ri$ht over his own share. shall be considered as #erely the products of Pphysical chan$esQ of the properties of her estate which the will e(pressly authori>es ?od$es to #a+e. that the contention of )3/! that the sa#e constitutes an inoperative testa#entary substitution is untenable. 80 )hil. the consensus arrived at was as follows5 <1= any such dispositions #ade gratuitousl. as 7e have already e(plained above. 2u$. the only %uestion that re#ains to be settled in the further proceedin$s hereby ordered to be held in the court below is how #uch #ore than as fi(ed above is the estate of Mrs. ?od$es in her will in favor of her brothers and sisters and. shall be considered as intended to be of properties constitutin$ part of ?od$esK inheritance fro# his wife. )3/! is Pnot per#itted to contradict the# or subse%uently ta+e a position contradictory to or inconsistent with the#. the trial court had already finally and irrevocably ad6udicated to her husband the whole free portion of her estate to the e(clusion of her brothers and sisters. na#ely5 <1= that the provision in %uestion in Mrs. . considerin$ that 7e have found that there is no le$al i#pedi#ent to the +ind of disposition ordered by Mrs. whether these be individuals. and <-= whether or not ?od$es has validly waived his whole inheritance fro# Mrs. *--30-3. ?od$es. p.Q <0 Moran. 2na vs. corporations or foundations. e(chan$es or other remunerative transfers. and this would depend on <1= whether or not the applicable laws of Te(as do provide in effect for #ore. provided that whatever of said products should re#ain with the estate at the ti#e of the death of ?od$es should $o to her brothers and sisters4 <3= the dispositions #ade by )3/! after the death of ?od$es #ust naturally be dee#ed as coverin$ only the .. at least. it appearin$ fro# the tenor of his #otions of May -1 and Dece#ber 11. En that basis. ?od$esK testa#ent violates the rules on substitution of heirs under the 3ivil 3ode and <-= that. -. in favor of third parties. which include his own share of the con6u$al estate. 1901. both of which poses. 19'8. and Dece#ber 1. citin$ 3unanan vs.

it is such co##in$lin$ pro$indiviso of the two estates that should deprive appellee of freedo# to act independently fro# )3/!. thus outside of the scope of )3/!Ks ad#inistration. ?od$es should be adhered to by the trial court in its final order of ad6udication and distribution andNor partition of the two estates in %uestion.properties belon$in$ to his estate considerin$ that bein$ only the ad#inistrator of the estate of ?od$es. relatin$ peculiarly to the respective orders in %uestion. "or instance. /ndeed. no lon$er any estate of Mrs. TH4 A//4A%S 2 cursory e(a#ination of the seventy-ei$ht assi$n#ents of error in appellant )3/!Ks brief would readily reveal that all of the# are predicated #ainly on the contention that inas#uch as ?od$es had already ad6udicated unto hi#self all the properties constitutin$ his wifeKs share of the con6u$al partnership. and by the peculiar provision of her will. 2nd with respect to #any of said orders. these construction of the will of Mrs. for the sa#e reason. however. sanctioned thou$h they #i$ht have been by the trial court. due to the failure of ?od$es and the lower court to li%uidate the con6u$al partnership. under discussion. 2nd considerin$ that the lower court failed to adhere consistently to this basic point of view. 2ccordin$ly. ?od$es of which appellee Ma$no could be ad#inistratri(.either could such dispositions be considered as involvin$ con6u$al properties. alle$edly with the sanction of the trial court per its order of Dece#ber 1. if co##only a#on$ so#e of the#. )3/! could not have disposed of properties belon$in$ to the estate of his wife. without any %ualification. ?od$es which is still unse$re$ated fro# that of ?od$es is not to say. the re#ainder of her share descended also auto#atically upon the death of ?od$es to her brothers and sisters. /n other words. since said date. whether or not. the latter should not have authority to act independently fro# her. so#e of the# authori>ed respondent Ma$no to act alone or without concurrence of )3/!. to the end only that $raver in6ury to the substantive ri$hts of the parties concerned and unnecessary and undesirable proliferation of incidents in the sub6ect proceedin$s #ay be forestalled. There are certain #atters. . hence the various assailed orders sanctionin$ her actuations as such are not in accordance with law. 6ust as. 1901. 7e have to deter#ine. 2s a #atter of fact. with the fore$oin$ resolution holdin$ such posture to be untenable in fact and in law and that it is in the best interest of 6ustice that for the ti#e bein$ the two estates should be ad#inistered con6ointly by the respective ad#inistrators of the two estates. Auch bein$ the case. which need further clarification. ?ence. it should follow that said assi$n#ents of error have lost their funda#ental reasons for bein$. ?od$es died. that she was therefore authori>ed to do and perfor# all her acts co#plained of in these appeals. inas#uch as the said two estates have until now re#ained co##in$led pro$indiviso.. by allowin$ the two ad#inistrators to act independently of each other. there has been. in the li$ht of the . the 3ourt has to loo+ into the attendant circu#stances of each of the appealed orders to be able to deter#ine whether any of the# has to be set aside or they #ay all be le$ally #aintained notwithstandin$ the failure of the court a quo to observe the pertinent procedural technicalities. the necessity of dealin$ separately with the #erits of each of the appeals. for the si#ple reason that the con6u$al partnership auto#atically ceased when Mrs. )3/! further clai#s that either the #atters involved were not properly within the probate 6urisdiction of the trial court or that the procedure followed was not in accordance with the rules. as ad#inistrator of the estate of ?od$es. in the various instances already noted in the narration of facts above. to reco$ni>e appellee Ma$no as 2d#inistratri( of the Testate state of Mrs.

191. Assignments %8800. respondent Ma$no has filed in these proceedin$s a #otion to declare )3/! in conte#pt for alle$ed failure to abide therewith. Apecial )roceedin$s 1301 and 1'1. on 2ppeal= <-= the order of Ectober -1. if not irreparable. <b= that whatever cash collections <that= had been deposited in the account of either of the estates should be withdrawn and since then <sic= deposited in the 6oint account of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and the estate of 3. and then proceed to the #ore co#plicated ones in that order.pon #ature deliberation. /n the Aepte#ber 8 resolution. . %88:00 and %88:000. -1'--11. as #ay be $leaned fro# the fact that recently. ?od$es.= <3= the other order also dated Ectober -1. up to this date. it #ay be #entioned. that it was principally on account of the confusion that #i$ht result later fro# )3/!Ks continuin$ to ad#inister all the co##unity properties. 8reen @ec. .Q . ?od$es.. and to enable both estates to function in the #eanti#e with a relative de$ree of re$ularity. at this point. -. ?od$es. and Dece#ber '. 7e ordered that. ?od$es4 R <d= <that= 2d#inistratri( Ma$no J allow the )3/! to inspect whatever records. notwithstandin$ that its repeated #otions for reconsideration thereof have all been denied soon after they were filed. 19'1. Ectober . by virtue of which respondent Ma$no was co#pletely barred fro# any participation in the ad#inistration of the properties herein involved. even if to do so #ay not appear to be strictly in accordance with the letter of the applicable purely ad6ective rules. it is perhaps best to be$in first with what appears to Eur #ind to be the si#plest. docu#ents and papers it #ay of error num&ers . the sa#e has not been $iven due re$ard.the #odification of the in6unction issued pursuant to the resolutions of 2u$ust 8. /ncidentally. notwithstandin$ the certainty of the e(istence of the separate estate of Mrs. da#a$e or in6ury to the other parties concerned. 19'0 en6oinin$ inter alia. <pp.should proceed 6ointly and that the respective ad#inistrators therein Pact con6ointly J none of the# to act sin$ly and independently of each other for any purpose. 9 8oin$ bac+ to the appeals. Ma$no. These assi$n#ents of error relate to <1= the order of the trial court of 2u$ust '. in the sa#e #anner that 2d#inistrator )3/! is also directed to allow 2d#inistratri( Ma$no to inspect whatever records. docu#ents and papers she #ay have in her possession. pendin$ this decision. so as to cause the least disturbance in ri$hts already bein$ e(ercised by nu#erous innocent third parties.8.. 19'0 providin$ that Pthe deeds of sale <therein referred to involvin$ properties in the na#e of ?od$es= should be si$ned 6ointly by the )3/!. there is need to be #ore pra$#atic and to adopt a rather unorthodo( approach. that the 3ourt ordered in the resolution of Aepte#ber 8. as 2d#inistratri( of the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es. 19'0 denyin$ the #otion for reconsideration of the fore$oin$ order. 7e felt that to allow )3/! to continue #ana$in$ or ad#inisterin$ all the said properties to the e(clusion of the ad#inistratri( of Mrs. and 2velina 2. the )3/! should ta+e the necessary steps so that 2d#inistratri( 2velina 2.Q <p. #ore than a year after said resolution. without re$ard to the nu#erical se%uence of the assi$n#ents of error in appellantKs brief or to the order of the discussion thereof by counsel. and to this effect. /t is indeed to be re$retted that apparently. ?od$esK estate #i$ht place the heirs of ?od$es at an unduly advanta$eous position which could result in considerable.unusual circu#stances e(tant in the record. Ma$no could si$n the deeds of sale.. as 2d#inistrator of Testate state of 3. id.. that P<a= all cash collections should be deposited in the 6oint account of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and estate of 3.

19'. 19'1. as they are hereby overruled. as already stated.u#ber *MM/// refers to rei#burse#ent of overti#e pay paid to si( e#ployees of the court and three other persons for services in copyin$ the court records to enable the lawyers of the ad#inistration to be fully infor#ed of all the incidents in the proceedin$s. . Fui#po. 19'. <pp. as )arties of the Aecond )art. Aullivan. the accountant or any authori>ed representative of the estate of 3. in effect. 19'0. id. id.0'. id.= 2s #ay be readily seen. as )arties of the "irst )art. ?od$es. albeit additionally. with what 7e have said the trial court should have always done pendin$ the li%uidation of the con6u$al partnership of the ?od$es spouses. ?od$es shall have access to the records of transactions of the *innie &ane ?od$es estate for the protection of the estate of 3. 19''.JQ <pp. Atated differently.= and directin$ 2d#inistratri( Ma$no Pto issue and si$n whatever chec+ or chec+s #aybe needed to i#ple#ent the approval of the a$ree#ent anne(ed to the #otionQ as well as the Pad#inistrator of the estate of 3. 191. ?od$es J to countersi$n the said chec+ or chec+s as the case #aybe. <pp. #ore specifically in Apecial )roceedin$s 1301 and 1'1. since the %uestioned orders provide for 6oint action by the two ad#inistrators. <p. the #otion for reconsideration of the order of Ectober -1. ?od$esQ. Assignments to %880 and %88000 to %88:0.= 2ssi$n#ent . as 2d#inistratri( of the state of Mrs. -31--3-.. and 2ttorneys @aul Man$lapus and @i>al @. as constitutin$. <pp.Q <pp..00. .= the order of "ebruary 10. attorney-in-fact of the heirs of Mrs. 1-'-1-9. reconsideration of which order of approval was denied in the order of "ebruary 1'.#odifyin$ the in6unction previously issued on 2u$ust 8.ove#ber 3.u#bers *M:/// to *MM/. by this decision.=. -9---90.= En the other hand. denyin$. 19''.= Ectober -1.. a#on$ others.have in its possessionQ and P<e= that the accountant of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es shall have access to all records of the transactions of both estates for the protection of the estate of *innie &ane ?od$es4 and in li+e #anner. /n fact. ?od$es. 19'0 approvin$ the a$ree#ent of &une '. 19'0 last referred to. to be followed. . pre#ature advances to the heirs of Mrs.00-. re$ardin$ attorneys fees for said counsel who had a$reed Pto prosecute and defend their interests <of the )arties of the "irst )art= in certain cases now pendin$ liti$ation in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of /loilo J.0'. id. <pp. 313-3-0. The orders co#plained of under these assi$n#ents of error co##only deal with e(penditures #ade by appellee Ma$no. 2ccordin$ly the fore$oin$ assi$n#ents of error #ust be. that is the arran$e#ent 7e are orderin$. *MM/: and *MM: %uestion the trial courtKs order of .u#bers *M/M to *MM/ put into %uestion the pay#ent of attorneys fees provided for in the contract for the purpose. id. id. 2ssi$n#ents .= and "ebruary 10. -11. assi$n#ents of error .0'. in connection with her ad#inistration thereof. ?od$es. and.u#ber *MM:/ i#putes error to the lower of error 7um&ers %8:000 . --1----.= and <. id. More specifically. the said orders #ust be affir#ed. .. <p. assi$n#ent . The rei#burse#ent was approved as proper le$al e(penses of ad#inistration per the order of Dece#ber 19. <pp. the thrust of all these four i#pu$ned orders is in line with the 3ourtKs above#entioned resolution of Aepte#ber 8. id. 19''. 19'0. . between 2d#inistratri( Ma$no and &a#es *. . #ore i#portantly. and that is precisely what 7e are holdin$ out to have been done and should be done until the two estates are separated fro# each other.= and repeated #otions for reconsideration thereof were denied by the orders of &anuary 9. id.

therefore. ?od$es. 19'. . as ad#inistrator of the estate of ?od$es. 2$ain. ?od$es of which Ma$no is the current ad#inistratri(. suffice it to say that they appear to have been duly represented in the a$ree#ent itself by their attorney-in-fact. the a#ount of attorneyKs fees stipulated in the a$ree#ent in %uestion will pre6udice any portion that would correspond to ?od$esK estate. &a#es *. in whichever way the re#ainin$ issues between the parties in these cases are ulti#ately resolved. and such bein$ the case. 10the final result will surely be that there are properties constitutin$ the estate of Mrs. this posture is incorrect. ?od$es. Ef course. hence what were authori>ed were in effect e(penditures fro# the estate of ?od$es.= Main contention a$ain of appellant )3/! in re$ard to these ei$ht assi$ned errors is that there is no such estate as the estate of Mrs. is a co#plete stran$er and it is without personality to %uestion the actuations of the ad#inistratri( thereof re$ardin$ #atters not affectin$ the estate of ?od$es.Q <p. ?od$es who ou$ht to be the ones who should have a say on the attorneyKs fees and other e(penses of ad#inistration assailed by )3/!. insofar as it orders that P)3/! should counter si$n the chec+ in the a#ount of )-00 in favor of 2d#inistratri( 2velina 2. or. /nsofar as the #atters related e(clusively to the estate of Mrs. )3/! insists. is not for le$al services to the estate but to the heirs of Mrs. 7e hold that such posture cannot prevail. )3/!. that said a$ree#ent of &une '. ?od$es. 7e cannot say that the fees a$reed upon re%uire the e(ercise by the 3ourt of its inherent power to reduce it. 2nd as re$ards to the reasonableness of the a#ount therein stipulated. That she has not yet collected and is not collectin$ a#ounts as substantial as that paid to or due appellant )3/! is to her credit. 7e see no possible cause for apprehension that when the two estates are se$re$ated fro# each other. 7e have $one over the a$ree#ent. 2nd as re$ards the other heirs of Mrs. /t follows. however.. Ma$no as her co#pensation as ad#inistratri( of *innie &ane ?od$es estate char$eable to the Testate &ane ?od$es only. as such ad#inistratri(. Aullivan and state of *innie . at #ost. /ndeed.pon the pre#ise 7e have found plausible that there is an e(istin$ estate of Mrs. any pay#ent under it. would be in the nature of advances to such heirs and a pre#ature distribution of the estate. 19'0. it results that 6uridically and factually the interests involved in her estate are distinct and different fro# those involved in her estate of ?od$es and vice versa. already referred to above. to hire the persons who# she paid overti#e pay and to be paid for her own services as ad#inistratri(. ?od$es for which the %uestioned e(penditures were #ade. -9. 7e see no reason to disturb the discretion e(ercised by the probate court in deter#inin$ the sa#e. considerin$ the obviously considerable si>e of the estate of Mrs.courtKs order of Ectober -1. to both of the#. that said appellee had the ri$ht.. id. 2ctually. insofar as counselsK services would redound to the benefit of the heirs. 19'. ?od$es. 2s 7e have already de#onstrated in Eur resolution above of the petition for certiorari and prohibition. she is also entitled to the services of counsel and to that end had the authority to enter into contracts for attorneyKs fees in the #anner she had done in the a$ree#ent of &une '. and considerin$ the obvious si>e of the estate in %uestion and the nature of the issues between the parties as well as the professional standin$ of counsel.

in any event. as 2d#inistratri( of the state of Mrs. Thus. !esides. at this sta$e. ?od$es. it #ay be added that. /yulores .have not otherwise interposed any ob6ection to any of the e(penses incurred by Ma$no %uestioned by )3/! in these appeals. the interest of respondent Ma$no. such an arran$e#ent should be #ore convenient and econo#ical to both. /n fact. /n this respect. ?od$es. . as far as the records show. purportedly in i#ple#entation of correspondin$ supposed written P3ontracts to AellQ previously e(ecuted by ?od$es durin$ the interi# between May -3. 19'-. the vital issue refers to the e(istence or non-e(istence of the estate of Mrs. the estate has no creditors and the correspondin$ estate and inheritance ta(es. as ordered by the trial court. 1901. 2nd in this connection. in the final analysis. ?od$es. 7ithal. since. is to #aintain that it e(ists. at this sta$e. ?od$es. ?od$es. the estate and the heirs of Mrs. )epito 8. when. includin$ the attorneyKs fees. the attorneyKs fees of the counsel of an ad#inistrator is in the first instance his personal responsibility. 2s stated on pp. 1301 after the correspondin$ se$re$ation of the two sub6ect estates. as the appointed ad#inistratri( of the said estate. These assi$n#ents of error deal with the approval by the trial court of various deeds of sale of real properties re$istered in the na#e of ?od$es but e(ecuted by appellee Ma$no. 3harles . it should not be wondered why both Ma$no and these heirs have see#in$ly a$reed to retain but one counsel. 11no pre6udice can caused to anyone by the co#paratively s#all a#ount of attorneyKs fees in %uestion. ?od$es would be.ow. e(cept those of the brothers and sisters of Mrs. which is naturally co##on and identical with and inseparable fro# the interest of the brothers and sisters of Mrs. rather insubstantial. #ay be paid without awaitin$ the deter#ination and se$re$ation of the estate of Mrs. have already been paid. PThese are5 the. error 8800 to 0 to 88:. it would be idle effort to in%uire whether or not the sanction $iven to said fees by the probate court is proper.ewton ?od$es. "or the fore$oin$ reasons. 8%0 to 8%000 and %. the sa#e would be a #atter that the probate court can very well ta+e care of in the course of the independent proceedin$s in 3ase . and the appellee. 2ssi$n#ents of are hereby overruled. ?od$es cannot be represented by a co##on counsel. should any substantial conflict of interest between the# arise in the future.o. /n any event. 118-1-0 of appellantKs #ain brief. 2s a #atter of fact. ?od$es is also a #atter in which neither )3/! nor the heirs of ?od$es have any interest. 888: rror *M:/// to *MM/ and *MM/// to *MM:/ should be as they to 888 :0. contract to sell between the deceased. and Dece#ber -0. all the e(penses in %uestion. the wei$htiest consideration in connection with the point under discussion is that at this sta$e of the controversy a#on$ the parties herein. %uite re#ote and. 0:. when his wife died. althou$h strictly spea+in$. as to whether or not the portion of the fees in %uestion that should correspond to the heirs constitutes pre#ature partial distribution of the estate of Mrs. the day he died. rei#bursable later on by the estate. as in the situation on hand. The possibility of conflict of interest between Ma$no and the heirs of Mrs. 7e cannot perceive any co$ent reason why. the attorney-in-fact of the heirs has $iven his confor#ity thereto. Assignments 8000 to of 8:.

3harles . e(ecuted on 2u$ust -0. whether in cash or property have been subse%uently conveyed or assi$ned subse%uently by ?od$es to any third party by acts inter vivos with the result that they could not thereby belon$ to hi# any#ore at the ti#e of his death. e(ecuted on 2pril -0. e(ecuted on &une 11. 19'14 the contract to sell between the deceased.ewton ?od$es. e(ecuted on "ebruary 10. her husband was to have do#inion over all her estate durin$ his lifeti#e. those enu#erated in the %uotation in the i##ediately precedin$ para$raph. 2riteo Tho#as &a#ir. 19'14 the contract to sell between the deceased. in which the respective Pcontracts to sellQ in favor of these appellees were e(ecuted by ?od$es before the death of his wife. &ose )ablico. and the appellee.Q @elative to these sales.ewton ?od$es. "lorenia !arrido. 19'14 the contract to sell between the deceased. sub6ect to the ter#s of her will in favor of her brothers and sisters. 19'04 the contract to sell between the deceased. )urificacion 3oronado. . therefore. e(ecuted on May -'. and the appellee. 7estern /nstitute of Technolo$y and 2delfa )re#aylon. upon his death. and the appellee. and the appellee. Aalvador A.ove#ber -1. 3harles . *oren>o 3arles. 13810. 2s already e(plained earlier. the i#ple#entation of said contracts #ay be underta+en only by the ad#inistrator of his estate and not by the ad#inistratri( of the estate of Mrs. e(ecuted on "ebruary -1. and the appellee. na#ely. 3harles .o. spada. e(ecuted on Aepte#ber 13. 3harles .ewton ?od$es. 19084 the contract to sell between the deceased. 1 1C all proceeds of re#unerative transfers or dispositions #ade by ?od$es after the death of his wife should be dee#ed as continuin$ to be parts of her estate and. 3harles . 3harles . it was as absolute owner of the properties respectively covered by said sales that he e(ecuted the afore#entioned contracts to sell. re Title . the pay#ents #ade by the appellees should be considered as pay#ents to the estate of Mrs.ewton ?od$es. those in favor of appellee Aantia$o )acaonsis.. Mel%uiades !atisanan. @osario 2lin$asa. ?od$es. 19'04 the contract to sell between the deceased. and the appellee. e(ecuted on Ectober 31. and the appellee. it is the position of appellant )3/! that. ?od$es. 2nent those deeds of sale based on pro#ises or contracts to sell e(ecuted by ?od$es after the death of his wife. 1909 and the contract to sell between the deceased. !elce>ar 3ausin$. 1909. 2lfredo 3atedral.ewton ?od$es. The deeds here in %uestion involve transactions which are e(actly of this nature. and the appellee. 3harles . 3harles . and the appellee.ewton ?od$es. e(ecuted on &une 9.ewton ?od$es. 8raciano *ucero. 19094 the contract to sell between the deceased. e(ecuted on 2pril 18. and the appellee. 3harles . 3harles .e(ecuted on "ebruary 0. it is %uite obvious that )3/!Ks contention cannot be sustained. 19'14 the contract to sell between the deceased.ewton ?od$es. and the appellee. 3onse%uently. 2delfa )re#aylon.ewton ?od$es. inas#uch as pursuant to the will of Mrs. in the sense that should there be no showin$ that such proceeds. 19'04 the contract to sell between the deceased. 19084 the contract to sell between the deceased. and the appellant speridion )artisala. 19084 the contract to sell between the deceased. e(ecuted on 2u$ust 1.ewton ?od$es. the sa#e theory is invo+ed with particular reference to five other sales. 3harles .ewton ?od$es. !asically. ?od$es which is to be distributed and partitioned a#on$ her heirs specified in the will. e(ecuted on . 3harles . 8u>#an. and conse%uently. 7inifredo 3. they auto#atically beca#e part of the inheritance of said brothers and sisters.ewton ?od$es.

#uch relied upon by appellant for other purposes.. ?od$es was Pallowed or authori>edQ by the trial court Pto continue the business in which he was en$a$ed and to perfor# acts which he had been doin$ while . /t is of no #o#ent in what capacity ?od$es #ade the Pcontracts to sellK after the death of his wife. detract #aterially fro# what should substantially correspond to each and all of the parties concerned. present a different situation. /t is %uite apparent fro# the record that the properties covered by said sales are e%uivalent only to a fraction of what should constitute the estate of Mrs. <Aections -. since appellee Ma$no had. ven if he had acted as e(ecutor of the will of his wife. 2t first blush. #otions and #anifestations has )3/! clai#ed any possibility otherwise.The five deeds of sale predicated on contracts to sell e(ecuted ?od$es durin$ the lifeti#e of his wife. as 2d#inistrator of the state of ?od$es. 1901 and Dece#ber 1. the transactions they rely on were sub#itted by the# to the probate court for approval. 8 and 9 of @ule 89 %uoted by appellant on pp. 1901. these contracts can hardly be i$nored. ?od$es. Auch bein$ the case. 1-0 to 1-1 of its brief= for the si#ple reason that by the very orders. the five purchasers aforena#ed. '. the said properties covered by the %uestioned deeds of sale e(ecuted by appellee Ma$no #ay be treated as a#on$ those correspondin$ to the estate of Mrs. the 3ourt is inclined to ta+e a pra$#atic and practical view of the le$al situation involvin$ the# by overloo+in$ the possible technicalities in the way. they had reason to believe that it had authority to act on their #otions. they should not be #ade to suffer any pre6udice on account of 6udicial controversies not of their own #a+in$. even if it is assu#ed that the sa#e would finally be held to be only one-fourth of the con6u$al properties of the spouses as of the ti#e of her death or. 0. he did not have to sub#it those contracts to the court nor follow the provisions of the rules.. and fro# already +nown and recorded actuations of said court then. to avoid any conflict with the heirs of ?od$es. the only ones who could stand to be pre6udiced by the appealed orders referred to in the assi$n#ent of errors under discussion and who could. therefore. :iewin$ the situation in that #anner. 1ona fide third parties are involved4 as #uch as possible. 3onsiderin$. one-half of her estate as per the inventory sub#itted by ?od$es as e(ecutor. . 2ll the sales in %uestion were e(ecuted by Ma$no in 19'' already. 7hat is #ore. of May -1. fro# ti#e to ti#e prior to their transactions with her. unless the i#pu$ned orders approvin$ those sales indubitably suffer fro# so#e clearly fatal infir#ity the 3ourt would rather affir# the#. been allowed to act in her capacity as ad#inistratri( of one of the sub6ect estates either alone or con6ointly with )3/!. which would have been actually under her control and ad#inistration had ?od$es co#plied with his duty to li%uidate the con6u$al partnership. the non-observance of which would not. have the re%uisite interest to %uestion the# would be only the heirs of Mrs. 2ccordin$ly. ?od$es. it #ay be said that said buyers-appellees #erely followed precedents in previous orders of the court. )3/!Ks position has so#e de$ree of plausibility. on May 1-. but before that. /n none of its nu#erous. however. to be #ore e(act. 1908. ?od$es. definitely not )3/!. varied and volu#inous pleadin$s. Thus. the court had previously authori>ed or otherwise sanctioned e(pressly #any of her act as ad#inistratri( involvin$ e(penditures fro# the estate #ade by her either con6ointly with or independently fro# )3/!. it would appear that as to the#. that the adoption of )3/!Ks theory would necessarily have tre#endous repercussions and would brin$ about considerable disturbance of property ri$hts that have so#ehow accrued already in favor of innocent third parties. To start with. after all.

and Pto e(ecute subse%uent sales. Assignments 8:0 to of 8:000. therefore. leases and #ort$a$es of the properties left by the said deceased *innie &ane ?od$es in consonance with the wishes conveyed in the last will and testa#ent of the latter. thereby revivin$ the ri$hts of the respective buyers-appellees. 2ll these assi$n#ents of error co##only deal with alle$ed non-fulfill#ent by the respective vendees. En the other hand. for the reasons already stated. 8u>#an. #ay not be raised by )3/! but only by the heirs of Mrs. /n view of these considerations. and the defects pointed out not bein$ strictly 6urisdictional in nature. conveyances.the deceased was livin$Q. whether or not it was proper for appellee Ma$no to have disre$arded the cancellations #ade by )3/!. 7e do not find sufficient #erit in the assi$n#ents of error under discussion. not by )3/!. 7e hold. 2lfredo 3atedral and Aalvador A. 2s can be seen. 888:00 to 888:000. it is apparent a$ain that the %uestions. ?od$es as the persons desi$nated to inherit the sa#e. it bein$ evident that a considerable portion of the con6u$al properties. it is relyin$ on the ter#s of the order itself for its #ain contention in these cases. &ose )ablico. if ?od$es acted then as e(ecutor. /t is clai#ed that so#e of the# never #ade full pay#ents in accordance with the respective contracts to sell. that the properties covered by the deeds bein$ assailed pertain or should be dee#ed as pertainin$ to the estate of Mrs. error 88:0 : to to 8808. <Erder of May -1= which accordin$ to the #otion on which the court acted was Pof buyin$ and sellin$ personal and real propertiesQ.Q <Erder of Dece#ber 1. it is best that the i#pu$ned orders are not disturbed. "ro# this point of view. ?od$es. #uch #ore than the properties covered by said deeds. ?od$es4 hence. the authority $iven to hi# by the afore#entioned orders would still suffice. appellees herein. particularly the unnecessary disturbance of ri$hts already created in favor of innocent third parties. any supposed irre$ularity attendin$ the actuations of the trial court #ay be invo+ed only by her heirs. ?od$es. the contracts with the# had already been unilaterally cancelled by )3/! pursuant to auto#atic rescission clauses contained in the#.= /n other words. and. while in the cases of the others. :000. it is of no #o#ent whether the Pcontracts to sellQ upon which the deeds in %uestion were based were e(ecuted by ?od$es before or after the death of his wife. it can be said that he had authority to do so by virtue of these blan+et orders. and )3/! does not %uestion the le$ality of such $rant of authority4 on the contrary. if. and since the said heirs are not ob6ectin$. /n a word. to avoid unnecessary le$al co#plications. or perhaps the $overn#ent because of the still . he acted as heir-ad6udicatee. li+e *oren>o 3arles. all thin$s considered. as )3/! contends. 8%0: to 8%:0 and %0. whether or not the rules $overnin$ new dispositions of properties of the estate were strictly followed. would inevitably constitute the estate of Mrs. 7e have already held above that. of the ter#s and conditions e#bodied in the deeds of sale referred to in the assi$n#ents of error 6ust discussed. !ut )3/!Ks posture is a$ain pre#ised on its assu#ption that the properties covered by the deeds in %uestion could not pertain to the estate of Mrs. in view of the failure of said buyers to pay arreara$es lon$ overdue. it can be assu#ed that said properties for# part of such estate.

the contentions of )3/! under the instant assi$n#ents of error hardly #erit any consideration.unpaid inheritance ta(es.Q since it has in effect deter#ined whether or not all the ter#s and conditions of the respective contracts to sell e(ecuted by ?od$es in favor of the buyers-appellees concerned were co#plied with by the latter. 2ctually. the assi$n#ents of error under discussion have no basis and #ust accordin$ly be as they are hereby overruled. 3onsiderin$. that the estate of Mrs. to 808 8%. it was in arrears in the total a#ount of )9-. said institute is one of the buyers of real property covered by a contract to sell e(ecuted by ?od$es prior to the death of his wife. 7hat is worse. )3/! raises under these assi$n#ents of error two issues which accordin$ to it are funda#ental. in the view of )3/!. contrary to the stand of )3/!. it is )3/! that is a co#plete stran$er in these incidents. and that they are the ones who are precisely ur$in$ that said sales be sanctioned. Pa total stran$er to his estate as deter#inative of the issueQ. a$ain. ?od$es and not that of ?od$es. Assignments to 880. 2s of Ectober. hence it . of the correspondin$ re$istration of the transfers duly and le$ally approved by the court. assailin$ the orders of the trial court re%uirin$ )3/! to surrender the respective ownerKs duplicate certificates of title over the properties covered by the sales in %uestion and otherwise directin$ the @e$ister of Deeds of /loilo to cancel said certificates and to issue new transfer certificates of title in favor of the buyers-appellees. the power to deter#ine the contendin$ clai#s of third parties a$ainst the estate of ?od$es over real property. is that the court has ta+en the word of the appellee Ma$no. 19'0. the trial court was within its ri$hts to so re%uire and direct. na#ely5 <1= that in approvin$ the deeds e(ecuted by Ma$no pursuant to contracts to sell already cancelled by it in the perfor#ance of its functions as ad#inistrator of the estate of ?od$es.'91. 2s will be recalled. of 888 error to 08 880:. Assignments of error %800 to %8:00 2ll these assi$n#ents of error co##only deal with the appeal a$ainst orders favorin$ appellee 7estern /nstitute of Technolo$y. suffice it to say that in the li$ht of the above discussion. %00 and %000 to %80. the trial court deprived the said estate of the ri$ht to invo+e such cancellations it <)3/!= had #ade and <-= that in so actin$. 7ith particular reference to assi$n#ents */// to *M/. ?od$es and her heirs who are the real parties in interest havin$ the ri$ht to oppose the consu##ation of the i#pu$ned sales are not ob6ectin$. 8%:00 to 8%08. Aince 7e have already held that the properties covered by the contracts in %uestion should be dee#ed to be portions of the estate of Mrs.00 in the pay#ent of its install#ents on account of its purchase. by withholdin$ said ownersK duplicate certificates. )3/! havin$ refused to $ive way. !ut. to 88808 800. therefore. it is this last point re$ardin$ appellee Ma$noKs havin$ a$reed to i$nore the cancellations #ade by )3/! and allowed the buyers-appellees to consu##ate the sales in their favor that is decisive. while actin$ as a probate court. since there is no pretense that any ob6ections were raised by said parties or that they would necessarily be pre6udiced. the court Parro$ated unto itself.

received under date of Ectober ., 19'0 and Ectober -0, 19'0, letters of collection, separately and respectively, fro# )3/! and appellee Ma$no, in their respective capacities as ad#inistrators of the distinct estates of the ?od$es spouses, albeit, while in the case of )3/! it #ade +nown that Pno other arran$e#ent can be accepted e(cept by payin$ all your past due accountQ, on the other hand, Ma$no #erely said she would Pappreciate very #uch if you can #a+e so#e re#ittance to brin$ this account upto-date and to reduce the a#ount of the obli$ation.Q <Aee pp. -90-311, 8reen @. on 2.= En ;ove#ber 3, 19'0, the /nstitute filed a #otion which, after alle$in$ that it was ready and willin$ to pay )-0,000 on account of its overdue install#ents but uncertain whether it should pay )3/! or Ma$no, it prayed that it be Pallowed to deposit the aforesaid a#ount with the court pendin$ resolution of the conflictin$ clai#s of the ad#inistrators.Q 2ctin$ on this #otion, on ;ove#ber -3, 19'0, the trial court issued an order, already %uoted in the narration of facts in this opinion, holdin$ that pay#ent to both or either of the two ad#inistrators is Pproper and le$alQ, and so P#ovant J can pay to both estates or either of the#Q, considerin$ that Pin both cases <Apecial )roceedin$s 1301 and 1'1-= there is as yet no 6udicial declaration of heirs nor distribution of properties to who#soever are entitled thereto.Q The ar$u#ents under the instant assi$n#ents of error revolve around said order. "ro# the procedural standpoint, it is clai#ed that )3/! was not served with a copy of the /nstituteKs #otion, that said #otion was heard, considered and resolved on ;ove#ber -3, 19'0, whereas the date set for its hearin$ was ;ove#ber -0, 19'0, and that what the order $rants is different fro# what is prayed for in the #otion. 2s to the substantive aspect, it is contended that the #atter treated in the #otion is beyond the 6urisdiction of the probate court and that the order authori>ed pay#ent to a person other than the ad#inistrator of the estate of ?od$es with who# the /nstitute had contracted. The procedural points ur$ed by appellant deserve scant consideration. 7e #ust assu#e, absent any clear proof to the contrary, that the lower court had acted re$ularly by seein$ to it that appellant was duly notified. En the other hand, there is nothin$ irre$ular in the courtKs havin$ resolved the #otion three days after the date set for hearin$ the sa#e. Moreover, the record reveals that appellantsK #otion for reconsideration wherein it raised the sa#e points was denied by the trial court on March 1, 19'' <p. .'-, 8reen @. on 2.= 7ithal, 7e are not convinced that the relief $ranted is not within the $eneral intent of the /nstituteKs #otion. /nsofar as the substantive issues are concerned, all that need be said at this point is that they are #ere reiterations of contentions 7e have already resolved above adversely to appellantsK position. /ncidentally, 7e #ay add, perhaps, to erase all doubts as to the propriety of not disturbin$ the lower courtKs orders sanctionin$ the sales %uestioned in all these appeal s by )3/!, that it is only when one of the parties to a contract to convey property e(ecuted by a deceased person raises substantial ob6ections to its bein$ i#ple#ented by the e(ecutor or ad#inistrator of the decedentKs estate that Aection 8 of @ule 89 #ay not apply and, conse%uently, the #atter has, to be ta+en up in a separate action outside of the probate court4 but where, as in the cases of the sales herein involved, the interested parties are in a$ree#ent that the conveyance be #ade, it is properly within the 6urisdiction of the probate court to $ive its sanction thereto pursuant to the provisions of the rule 6ust #entioned. 2nd with respect to the supposed auto#atic

rescission clauses contained in the contracts to sell e(ecuted by ?od$es in favor of herein appellees, the effect of said clauses depend on the true nature of the said contracts, despite the no#enclature appearin$ therein, which is not controllin$, for if they a#ount to actual contracts of sale instead of bein$ #ere unilateral accepted Ppro#ises to sellQ, <2rt. 1.19, 3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines, -nd para$raph= the pactum commissorium or the auto#atic rescission provision would not operate, as a #atter of public policy, unless there has been a previous notarial or 6udicial de#and by the seller <10 Manresa -'3, -nd ed.= neither of which have been shown to have been #ade in connection with the transactions herein involved. 3onse%uently, 7e find no #erit in the assi$n#ents of error ;u#ber *M// to *M://. S6!!A"< 3onsiderin$ the fact that this decision is unusually e(tensive and that the issues herein ta+en up and resolved are rather nu#erous and varied, what with appellant #a+in$ seventy-ei$ht assi$n#ents of error affectin$ no less than thirty separate orders of the court a %uo, if only to facilitate proper understandin$ of the i#port and e(tent of our rulin$s herein contained, it is perhaps desirable that a brief restate#ent of the whole situation be #ade to$ether with our conclusions in re$ard to its various factual and le$al aspects. . The instant cases refer to the estate left by the late 3harles ;ewton ?od$es as well as that of his wife, *innie &ane ?od$es, who predeceased hi# by about five years and a half. /n their respective wills which were e(ecuted on different occasions, each one of the# provided #utually as follows5 P/ $ive, devise and be%ueath all of the rest, residue and re#ainder <after funeral and ad#inistration e(penses, ta(es and debts= of #y estate, both real and personal, wherever situated or located, to #y beloved <spouse= to have and to hold unto <hi#Nher= J durin$ <hisNher= natural lifeti#eQ, sub6ect to the condition that upon the death of whoever of the# survived the other, the re#ainder of what he or she would inherit fro# the other is P$ive<n=, devise<d= and be%ueath<ed=Q to the brothers and sisters of the latter. Mrs. ?od$es died first, on May -3, 1901. "our days later, on May -1, ?od$es was appointed special ad#inistrator of her estate, and in a separate order of the sa#e date, he was Pallowed or authori>ed to continue the business in which he was en$a$ed, <buyin$ and sellin$ personal and real properties= and to perfor# acts which he had been doin$ while the deceased was livin$.Q Aubse%uently, on Dece#ber 1., 1901, after Mrs. ?od$esK will had been probated and ?od$es had been appointed and had %ualified as (ecutor thereof, upon his #otion in which he asserted that he was Pnot only part owner of the properties left as con6u$al, but also, the successor to all the properties left by the deceased *innie &ane ?od$esQ, the trial court ordered that Pfor the reasons stated in his #otion dated Dece#ber 11, 1901, which the 3ourt considers well ta+en, R all the sales, conveyances, leases and #ort$a$es of all properties left by the deceased *innie &ane ?od$es e(ecuted by the 2))@E: D. The said (ecutor, 3harles ;ewton ?od$es are hereby (ecutor is further authori>ed to e(ecute subse%uent sales, conveyances, leases

and #ort$a$es of the properties left by the said deceased *innie &ane ?od$es in consonance with the wishes contained in the last will and testa#ent of the latter.Q

2nnually thereafter, ?od$es sub#itted to the court the correspondin$ state#ents of account of his ad#inistration, with the particularity that in all his #otions, he always #ade it point to ur$e the that Pno person interested in the )hilippines of the ti#e and place of e(a#inin$ the herein accounts be $iven notice as herein e(ecutor is the only devisee or le$atee of the deceased in accordance with the last will and testa#ent already probated by the ?onorable 3ourt.Q 2ll said accounts approved as prayed for. ;othin$ else appears to have been done either by the court a quo or ?od$es until Dece#ber -0, 19'-. /#portantly to be the provision in the will of Mrs. ?od$es that her share of the con6u$al partnership was to be inherited by her husband Pto have and to hold unto hi#, #y said husband, durin$ his natural lifeti#eQ and that Pat the death of #y said husband, / $ive, devise and be%ueath all the rest, residue and re#ainder of #y estate, both real and personal, wherever situated or located, to be e%ually divided a#on$ #y brothers and sisters, share and share ali+eQ, which provision naturally #ade it i#perative that the con6u$al partnership be pro#ptly li%uidated, in order that the Prest, residue and re#ainderQ of his wifeKs share thereof, as of the ti#e of ?od$esK own death, #ay be readily +nown and identified, no such li%uidation was ever underta+en. The record $ives no indication of the reason for such o#ission, althou$h relatedly, it appears therein5 1. That in his annual state#ent sub#itted to the court of the net worth of 3. ;. ?od$es and the state of *innie &ane ?od$es, ?od$es repeatedly and consistently reported the co#bined inco#e of the con6u$al partnership and then #erely divided the sa#e e%ually between hi#self and the estate of the deceased wife, and, #ore i#portantly, he also, as consistently, filed correspondin$ separate inco#e ta( returns for each calendar year for each resultin$ half of such co#bined inco#e, thus reportin$ that the estate of Mrs. ?od$es had its own inco#e distinct fro# his own. -. That when the court a quo happened to inadvertently o#it in its order probatin$ the will of Mrs. ?od$es, the na#e of one of her brothers, @oy ?i$don then already deceased, ?od$es lost no ti#e in as+in$ for the proper correction Pin order that the heirs of deceased @oy ?i$don #ay not thin+ or believe they were o#itted, and that they were really interested in the estate of the deceased *innie &ane ?od$esQ. 3. That in his afore#entioned #otion of Dece#ber 11, 1901, he e(pressly stated that Pdeceased *innie &ane ?od$es died leavin$ no descendants or ascendants e(cept brothers and sisters and herein petitioner as the survivin$ spouse, to inherit the properties of the decedentQ, thereby indicatin$ that he was not e(cludin$ his wifeKs brothers and sisters fro# the inheritance. .. That ?od$es alle$edly #ade state#ents and #anifestations to the ,nited Atates inheritance ta( authorities indicatin$ that he had renounced his inheritance fro# his wife in favor of her other heirs, which attitude he is supposed to have reiterated or ratified in an alle$ed affidavit subscribed and sworn to here in the )hilippines and in which he even purportedly stated that his reason for so disclai#in$ and renouncin$ his ri$hts under his wifeKs will was to Pabsolve <hi#= or <his= estate fro# any liability for the pay#ent of inco#e ta(es on inco#e which has accrued to the estate of *innie &ane ?od$esQ, his wife, since her death.

En said date, Dece#ber -0, 19'-, ?od$es died. The very ne(t day, upon #otion of herein respondent and appellee, 2velina 2. Ma$no, she was appointed by the trial court as 2d#inistratri( of the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es, in Apecial )roceedin$s ;o. 1301 and as Apecial 2d#inistratri( of the estate of 3harles ;ewton ?od$es, Pin the latter case, because the last will of said 3harles ;ewton ?od$es is still +ept in his vault or iron safe and that the real and personal properties of both spouses #ay be lost, da#a$ed or $o to waste, unless Apecial 2d#inistratri( is appointed,Q <Erder of Dece#ber -', 19'-, p. -1, Gellow @. on 2.= althou$h, soon enou$h, on Dece#ber -9, 19'-, a certain ?arold I. Davies was appointed as her 3o-Apecial 2d#inistrator, and when Apecial )roceedin$s ;o. 1'1-, Testate state of 3harles ;ewton ?od$es, was opened, &oe ?od$es, as ne(t of +in of the deceased, was in due ti#e appointed as 3o-2d#inistrator of said estate to$ether with 2tty. "ernando ). Mirasol, to replace Ma$no and Davies, only to be in turn replaced eventually by petitioner )3/! alone. 2t the outset, the two probate proceedin$s appear to have been proceedin$ 6ointly, with each ad#inistrator actin$ to$ether with the other, under a sort of #odus operandi. )3/! used to secure at the be$innin$ the confor#ity to and si$nature of Ma$no in transactions it wanted to enter into and sub#itted the sa#e to the court for approval as their 6oint acts. Ao did Ma$no do li+ewise. Ao#ehow, however, differences see# to have arisen, for which reason, each of the# be$an actin$ later on separately and independently of each other, with apparent sanction of the trial court. Thus, )3/! had its own lawyers who# it contracted and paid handso#ely, conducted the business of the estate independently of Ma$no and otherwise acted as if all the properties appearin$ in the na#e of 3harles ;ewton ?od$es belon$ed solely and only to his estate, to the e(clusion of the brothers and sisters of Mrs. ?od$es, without considerin$ whether or not in fact any of said properties corresponded to the portion of the con6u$al partnership pertainin$ to the estate of Mrs. ?od$es. En the other hand, Ma$no #ade her own e(penditures, hired her own lawyers, on the pre#ise that there is such an estate of Mrs. ?od$es, and dealth with so#e of the properties, appearin$ in the na#e of ?od$es, on the assu#ption that they actually correspond to the estate of Mrs. ?od$es. 2ll of these independent and separate actuations of the two ad#inistrators were invariably approved by the trial court upon sub#ission. ventually, the differences reached a point wherein Ma$no, who was #ore co$ni>ant than anyone else about the ins and outs of the businesses and properties of the deceased spouses because of her lon$ and inti#ate association with the#, #ade it difficult for )3/! to perfor# nor#ally its functions as ad#inistrator separately fro# her. Thus, le$al co#plications arose and the present 6udicial controversies ca#e about. )redicatin$ its position on the tenor of the orders of May -1 and Dece#ber 1., 1901 as well as the approval by the court a quo of the annual state#ents of account of ?od$es, )3/! holds to the view that the estate of Mrs. ?od$es has already been in effect closed with the virtual ad6udication in the #entioned orders of her whole estate to ?od$es, and that, therefore, Ma$no had already ceased since then to have any estate to ad#inister and the brothers and sisters of Mrs. ?od$es have no interests whatsoever in the estate left by ?od$es. Mainly upon such theory, )3/! has co#e to this 3ourt with a petition for certiorari and prohibition prayin$ that the lower courtKs orders allowin$ respondent Ma$no to continue actin$ as ad#inistratri( of the estate of Mrs. ?od$es in Apecial )roceedin$s 1301 in the #anner she has been doin$, as detailed earlier above, be set aside. 2dditionally, )3/! #aintains that the provision in Mrs.

?od$esK will institutin$ her brothers and sisters in the #anner therein specified is in the nature of a testa#entary substitution, but inas#uch as the purported substitution is not, in its view, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the 3ivil 3ode, it is ineffective and #ay not be enforced. /t is further contended that, in any event, inas#uch as the ?od$es spouses were both residents of the )hilippines, followin$ the decision of this 3ourt in 2>nar vs. 8arcia, or the case of 3hristensen, 1 A3@2 90, the estate left by Mrs. ?od$es could not be #ore than one-half of her share of the con6u$al partnership, notwithstandin$ the fact that she was citi>en of Te(as, ,.A.2., in accordance with 2rticle 1' in relation to 2rticles 900 and 81- of the 3ivil 3ode. /nitially, 7e issued a preli#inary in6unction a$ainst Ma$no and allowed )3/! to act alone. 2t the sa#e ti#e )3/! has appealed several separate orders of the trial court approvin$ individual acts of appellee Ma$no in her capacity as ad#inistratri( of the estate of Mrs. ?od$es, such as, hirin$ of lawyers for specified fees and incurrin$ e(penses of ad#inistration for different purposes and e(ecutin$ deeds of sale in favor of her co-appellees coverin$ properties which are still re$istered in the na#e of ?od$es, purportedly pursuant to correspondin$ Pcontracts to sellQ e(ecuted by ?od$es. The said orders are bein$ %uestioned on 6urisdictional and procedural $rounds directly or indirectly predicated on the principal theory of appellant that all the properties of the two estates belon$ already to the estate of ?od$es e(clusively. En the other hand, respondent-appellee Ma$no denies that the trial courtKs orders of May -1 and Dece#ber 1., 1901 were #eant to be finally ad6udicatory of the hereditary ri$hts of ?od$es and contends that they were no #ore than the courtKs $eneral sanction of past and future acts of ?od$es as e(ecutor of the will of his wife in due course of ad#inistration. 2s to the point re$ardin$ substitution, her position is that what was $iven by Mrs. ?od$es to her husband under the provision in %uestion was a lifeti#e usufruct of her share of the con6u$al partnership, with the na+ed ownership passin$ directly to her brothers and sisters. 2nent the application of 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode, she clai#s that the applicable law to the will of Mrs. ?od$es is that of Te(as under which, she alle$es, there is no syste# of le$iti#e, hence, the estate of Mrs. ?od$es cannot be less than her share or one-half of the con6u$al partnership properties. Ahe further #aintains that, in any event, ?od$es had as a #atter of fact and of law renounced his inheritance fro# his wife and, therefore, her whole estate passed directly to her brothers and sisters effective at the latest upon the death of ?od$es. /n this decision, for the reasons discussed above, and upon the issues 6ust su##ari>ed, 7e overrule )3/!Ks contention that the orders of May -1, 1901 and Dece#ber 1., 1901 a#ount to an ad6udication to ?od$es of the estate of his wife, and 7e reco$ni>e the present e(istence of the estate of Mrs. ?od$es, as consistin$ of properties, which, while re$istered in that na#e of ?od$es, do actually correspond to the re#ainder of the share of Mrs. ?od$es in the con6u$al partnership, it appearin$ that pursuant to the pertinent provisions of her will, any portion of said share still e(istin$ and undisposed of by her husband at the ti#e of his death should $o to her brothers and sisters share and share ali+e. "actually, 7e find that the proven circu#stances relevant to the said orders do not warrant the conclusion that the court intended to #a+e thereby such alle$ed final ad6udication. *e$ally, 7e hold that the tenor of said orders furnish no basis for such a conclusion, and what is #ore, at the ti#e said orders were issued, the proceedin$s had not yet reached the point when a final distribution and ad6udication could be #ade. Moreover, the

unless it can be shown that he had subse%uently disposed of the# gratuitousl. it can already be dee#ed as settled for the purposes of these cases that. whatever #i$ht ulti#ately appear. should be dee#ed as continuin$ to be part of his wifeKs estate.of @ule 109. with the condition. 7e hold that by said provision. 7e hold that. the estate of Mrs. however. indeed. )3/! bein$ of the view that under the laws of Te(as. create estoppel. therefore. it appearin$ that the difference in the stands of the parties has reference solely to the le$iti#e of ?od$es. whether in cash or property. hereafter.. that the latter would have co#plete ri$hts of do#inion over the whole estate durin$ his lifeti#e and what would $o to the for#er would be only the re#ainder thereof at the ti#e of ?od$esK death. to Dece#ber -0. on the other hand. ?od$es had no creditors and all pertinent ta(es have been paid. on the other hand. Ma$noKs pose that it $ave ?od$es only a lifeti#e usufruct. Mrs. #inus whatever ?od$es had $ratuitously disposed of therefro# durin$ the period fro#. and considerin$ the respective positions of the parties in re$ard to said factual issue. there is such a le$iti#e of one-fourth of said con6u$al estate and Ma$no contendin$. since )3/! would anyway be in estoppel already to clai# that the estate of Mrs. the proceeds thereof. that with re$ard to re#unerative dispositions #ade by hi# durin$ the sa#e period. the essential ele#ents of testa#entary substitution are absent4 the provision in %uestion is a si#ple case of conditional si#ultaneous institution of heirs. it #ay be reiterated that the %uestion of what are the pertinent laws of Te(as and what would be the estate of Mrs. said orders #erely allowed ?od$es to dispose of portions of his inheritance in advance of final ad6udication. on the basis of circu#stances presently e(tant in the record. whereas they are not to inherit only in case of default of ?od$es. there bein$ no possible pre6udice to third parties. inas#uch as Mrs.interested parties were not duly notified that such disposition of the estate would be done. ?od$es under the# is basically one of fact. ?od$es inherited by her brothers and sisters consists of one-fourth of the co##unity estate of the spouses at the ti#e of her death. More specifically. May -3. 1901. ?od$es si#ultaneously instituted her brothers and sisters as co-heirs with her husband. whereby the institution of ?od$es is sub6ect to a partial resolutory condition the operative contin$ency of which is coincidental with that of the suspensive condition of the institution of his brothers and sisters-in-law. when she died. 3learly then. !ut neither are 7e sustainin$. ?od$esK will in favor of her brothers and sisters constitutes ineffective hereditary substitutions. that there is none. /n other words. 19'-. at the subse%uent proceedin$s. and on the assu#ption that ?od$esK purported renunciation should not be upheld. 2t best. on the other hand. which is i#plicitly per#itted under Aection . /n the process. . 7e overrule )3/!Ks contention that the provision in Mrs. ?od$es should be less than as contended by it now. which #anner of institution is not prohibited by law. 2t this 6uncture. ?od$es was not obli$ed to preserve anythin$ for the#. to be actually the laws of Te(as on the #atter would no lon$er be of any conse%uence. the free portion of said estate that could possibly descend to her brothers and sisters by virtue of her will #ay not be less than one-fourth of the con6u$al estate. /n other words. when he died provided. for ad#issions by a party related to the effects of forei$n laws. which have to be proven in our courts li+e any other controverted fact.

nder the circu#stances presently obtainin$ and in the state of the record of these cases. and see#in$ly a$reed to by appellant )3/!. under the ter#s of the will of Mrs. albeit une(pressed therein. #inus what. of which Ma$no is the uncontested ad#inistratri(. and 7e. The 3ourt feels however. Eur considered opinion is that it is beyond cavil that since. 7e reiterate. the 3ourt is not in a position to #a+e a final rulin$. it is obvious that. This 7e do on the assu#ption 7e find 6ustified by the evidence of record. The fore$oin$ considerations leave the 3ourt with no alternative than to conclude that in predicatin$ its orders on the assu#ption.and as further clarified in the dispositive portion of its decision. ?od$es to be distributed a#on$ her brothers and sisters and that respondent Ma$no is the le$al ad#inistratri( thereof. it will appear that ?od$es had no le$iti#e as contended by Ma$no. her husband could not have anyway le$ally ad6udicated or caused to be ad6udicated to hi#self her whole share of their con6u$al partnership. the said orders should be affir#ed. disposed of therefro#. under 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode and applyin$ renvoi the laws of the )hilippines are the ones ulti#ately applicable. as ad#inistratri(. the trial court acted correctly and within its 6urisdiction. as #ay be . with Eur holdin$ that there is such an estate of Mrs. by ?od$es in favor of third persons since then. the two ad#inistrators should act con6ointly as ordered in the 3ourtKs resolution of Aepte#ber 8. as hereinabove indicated. and <-= whether or not it can be held that ?od$es had le$ally and effectively renounced his inheritance fro# his wife. whether of fact or of law. ?od$es. on any of these two issues. as of now. that there is an estate of Mrs. reserve said issues for further proceedin$s and resolution in the first instance by the court a %uo. cannot be less than one-fourth of the con6u$al partnership properties. the petition for certiorari and prohibition has to be denied. 7ith respect to the appeals fro# the orders approvin$ transactions #ade by appellee Ma$no. and those pre#ised on contracts to sell entered into by hi# after her death. therefore. 2nent the appeals fro# the orders of the lower court sanctionin$ pay#ent by appellee Ma$no. for even if it were assu#ed that. however. as contended by )3/!. ?od$es. . albeit he could have disposed any part thereof durin$ his lifeti#e. 2s re$ards the latter. have been gratuitousl. the resultin$ estate of Mrs. ?od$es far e(ceed the total of the attorneyKs fees and ad#inistration e(penses in %uestion. coverin$ properties re$istered in the na#e of ?od$es. 2ccordin$ly. 191. on the one hand. that pendin$ such further proceedin$s. such one-fourth share would be her free disposable portion. ?od$es.7e also hold. 7e hold that inas#uch as the pay#ents #ade by appellees constitute proceeds of sales of properties belon$in$ to the estate of Mrs. as of the ti#e of her death. that the estate of Mrs. as #atters stand at this sta$e. ?od$es inherited by her brothers and sisters could be #ore than 6ust stated. a distinction #ust be #ade between those predicated on contracts to sell e(ecuted by ?od$es before the death of his wife. that pendin$ the li%uidation of the con6u$al partnership and the deter#ination of the specific properties constitutin$ her estate. ?od$es. of e(penses of ad#inistration and attorneyKs fees. that the si>e and value of the properties that should correspond to the estate of Mrs. and for the reasons stated in the body of this opinion. however. as ad#inistratri(. ta+in$ into account already the le$iti#e of her husband under 2rticle 900 of the 3ivil 3ode. as e(plained earlier. but this would depend on <1= whether upon the proper application of the principle of renvoi in relation to 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode and the pertinent laws of Te(as. the details of which are related earlier above.

even as to these parties. 191-. Ma$no. :/ 7 E" 2** T? "E@ 8E/. Ma$no. #inus whatever the husband had already $ratuitously disposed of in favor of third persons fro# said date until his death. no deductions whatsoever are to be #ade fro# said estate4 in conse%uence. should act thenceforth always con6ointly. and 2""/@M/. and the sa#e is #ade part of this 6ud$#ent and shall continue in force. and second. in 8.8 the petition in 8. *--18'0 and *--189'.. 1901. first. unless subse%uently disposed of $ratuitously to third parties by the husband. 19'1.os. that should the purported renunciation be declared le$ally effective. the trial court should i##ediately proceed to the partition of the presently co#bined estates of the spouses. 2nd inas#uch as it does not appear that any of the other heirs of Mrs. ?od$es would e(ceed the total value of all the properties covered by the i#pu$ned deeds of sale. that upon the finality of this 6ud$#ent. there e(ists no reason for said orders to be set aside. ?od$es. and it is declared that. never independently fro# each other. in Apecial )roceedin$s 1301. as a#ended on Ectober . said pay#ents continue to pertain to said estate. the said estate consists of one-fourth of the co##unity properties of the said spouses. as such ad#inistrators.of this decision4 the e(istence of the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es. while the other one-fourth shall re#ain under the 6oint . and the resolution of Aepte#ber 8. ?od$es or the $overn#ent has ob6ected to any of the orders under appeal.8. as 2d#inistratri( of the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es. )3/! has no personality to raise the procedural and 6urisdictional issues raised by it. all the orders of the trial court under appeal enu#erated in detail on pa$es 30 to 31 and 80 to 8. the 3ourt also holds that. for which reason. is lifted. *--193'-31 and the other thirty-one nu#bers hereunder ordered to be added after pay#ent of the correspondin$ doc+et fees. !ein$ a stran$er to the estate of Mrs. the trial court should forthwith se$re$ate the re#ainder of the one-fourth herein ad6ud$ed to be her estate and cause the sa#e to be turned over or delivered to respondent for her e(clusive ad#inistration in Apecial )roceedin$s 1301. in Apecial )roceedin$s 1'1-. 2nd there bein$ no showin$ that thus viewin$ the situation.ewton ?od$es had effectively and le$ally renounced his inheritance under the will of *innie &ane ?od$es. @. and respondent-appellee 2velina 2. includin$ the $overn#ent. directin$ that petitioner-appellant )3/!.8 )@ M/A A. to the end that the one-half share thereof of Mrs. and Dece#ber '. the preli#inary in6unction of 2u$ust 8. D0S/2S0T0:4 /A"T /. 6ud$#ent is hereby rendered D/AM/AA/. until final 6ud$#ent is ulti#ately rendered re$ardin$ <1= the #anner of applyin$ 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines to the situation obtainin$ in these cases and <-= the factual and le$al issue of whether or not 3harles .i#plied fro# the tenor of the #otions of May -1 and Dece#ber 1. pendin$ the li%uidation of the con6u$al partnership of the deceased spouses and the deter#ination and se$re$ation fro# each other of their respective estates. provided. as ad#inistratri( thereof is reco$ni>ed.ewton ?od$es. 19'1.os. provided. is reiterated. said properties #ay be dee#ed as pertainin$ to the estate of Mrs. as of the ti#e of the death of the wife on May -3. the assailed orders should be affir#ed. as 2d#inistrator of the Testate state of 3harles . ?od$es #ay be properly and clearly identified4 thereafter. 1901. there would be pre6udice to anyone. the proceeds thereof shall continue to be part of the wifeKs estate. @. disre$ardin$ procedural technicalities in favor of a pra$#atic and practical approach as discussed above. that with respect to re#unerative dispositions. . . ?od$es. on the assu#ption that the si>e and value of the properties to correspond to the estate of Mrs. with respondent-appellee 2velina 2. pursuant to her intent obviously reflected in the relevant provisions of her will.

. &ustice !arredo decreein$ the lifting of the 3ourtKs writ of preli#inary in6unction of 2u$ust 8. 1'1. '?C= J durin$ which ti#e both estates have been pending settle#ent and distribution to the decedentsK respective ri$htful heirs all this ti#e up to now= J that the probate court per its order of Dece#ber 1. 1301= should act always conFointl. never independently fro# each other..and respondent-appellee 2velina 2. in all their actuations in Apecial )roceedin$s 1301 and 1'1-. JJ. JJ. . concurrin$5 / concur on the basis of the procedural pronounce#ents in the opinion. as such ad#inistrators. . !akasiar. <3harles .. )roc.ad#inistration of said respondent and petitioner under a 6oint proceedin$s in Apecial )roceedin$s 1301 and 1'1-. /alma and Aquino. concurrin$5 / concur in the result of dis#issal of the petition for certiorari and prohibition in 3ases *--18'0 and *-189' and with the affir#ance of the appealed orders of the probate court in 3ases *--193'-31. 9aldivar.. . whereas the half un%uestionably pertainin$ to ?od$es shall be ad#inistered by petitioner e(clusively in Apecial )roceedin$s 1'1-. J. Antonio. Castro. S)0ara') O0$%$o%& FERNAN5O.ewton= ?od$esK estate <Ap.. 8enerally and in all other respects. /t is #anifest fro# the record that petitioner-appellant )3/!Ks pri#al contention in the cases at bar belatedly filed by it with this 3ourt on August '. 191.o. but this decision shall nevertheless beco#e final as to each of the parties herein after fifteen <10= days fro# the respective notices to the# hereof in accordance with the rules. '?@A and <over five <0= years after her husband 3. ?od$esK death on Decem&er =@.. is reiterated and shall continue in force and #ade part of the 6ud$#ent. 3osts a$ainst petitioner-appellant )3/!.o. J. and the correspondin$ co#plete se$re$ation and partition of the two estates in the proportions that #ay result fro# the said resolution.. concur.. and Dece#ber '. / also concur with the portion of the dispositive part of the 6ud$#ent penned by Mr. 4sguerra and 5ernande. 19'1 as a#ended on Ectober . 19'1 1and orderin$ in lieu thereof that the 3ourtKs resolution of Aepte#ber 8.. thirty-one additional appeal doc+et fees.. =>. concur in the result. within five <0= days fro# notice hereof. Ma$no as ad#inistratri( of *innie &ane ?od$esK estate <Ap. without pre6udice to the resolution by the trial court of the pendin$ #otions for its re#oval as ad#inistrator 124 and this arran$e#ent shall be #aintained until the final resolution of the two issues of renvoi and renunciation hereby reserved for further hearin$ and deter#ination. !EE1AN@EE. '?CA <over ten <10= years after *innie &ane ?od$esK death on !a. )roc. the parties and the court a quo are directed to adhere henceforth. R !D C!S DI" ST H R .2which directed that petitioner$appellant )3/! as ad#inistrator of 3. 2ppellant )3/! is ordered to pay.. to the views passed and ruled upon by the 3ourt in the fore$oin$ opinion. !u o.

.Dand a$ainst the identical acts and 6udicial admissions of )3/! as ad#inistrator of 3. 6ud$#ent is hereby rendered D/AM/AA/.1901 <supple#entin$ an earlier order of May -0. The dispositive portion of the main opinion The #ain opinion disposes that5 /. ?od$esK estate until )3/! sou$ht in 19'' to ta+e over &oth estates as pertainin$ to its sole ad#inistration. 1901= 3in $rantin$ 3..o.. . of his wifeKs estate apart fro# his own separate estate and fro# his own share of their con6u$al partnership and estate and Pnever considered the whole estate as a sin$le one belon$in$ e(clusively to hi#selfQ durin$ the entire period that he survived her for over five <0= years up to the ti#e of his own death on Dece#ber -0.of this decision5 . leases and #ort$a$esQ #ade and to be #ade by hi# as such e(ecutor under his obli$ation to sub#it his ... )3/!Ks appeal 8fro# the probate courtKs various orders reco$ni>in$ respondent Ma$no as ad#inistratri( of *innieKs estate <Ap... . ?od$es of which respondent 2velina Ma$no is the duly appointed and actin$ ad#inistratri(. *--193'-31 and the other thirty-one nu#bers hereunder ordered to be added after pay#ent of the correspondin$ doc+et fees. )roc .. .. @. this contention of )3/! that there no lon$er e(ists any separate estate of *innie &ane ?od$es after the probate courtKs order of Dece#ber 1. *--18'0 and *--189'. in 8. )roc. ?od$esK #otion as (ecutor of his wife *innieKs estate to continue their P&usiness of buyin$ and sellin$ personal and real propertiesQ and approvin$ Pall sales.os. 2side fro# havin$ been put forth as an obvious afterthou$ht #uch too late in the day.os. 19'. @.8 )@ M/A A. which involve basically the sa#e pri#al issue raised in the petition as to whether there still e(ists a separate estate of *innie of which respondent-appellee Ma$no #ay continue to be the ad#inistratri(.o.earl. and 2""/@M/. accounts in effect declared hi# as sole heir of his wifeKs estate and nothin$ re#ains to be done e(cept to for#ally close her estate <Ap. )3/! is now barred and estopped fro# contradictin$ or ta+in$ a belated position contradictory to or inconsistent with its previous ad#issions ' <as well as those of 3. 1901 $oes a$ainst the very acts and 6udicial admissions of 3.. ?od$es hi#self in his lifeti#e and of whose estate )3/! is #erely an ad#inistrator= reco$ni>in$ the e(istence and identity of *innie &ane ?od$esK separate estate and the le$al ri$hts and interests therein of her brothers and sisters as her desi$nated heirs in her will.8 the petition in 8. :/ 7 E" 2** T? "E@ 8E/. 9J is wholly untenable and deserves scant consideration. 1901 as Pnull and void for havin$ been issued without 6urisdictionQ #ust therefore be dis#issed with the re6ection of its belated and untenable contention that there is no lon$er any estate of Mrs. )3/!Ks petition for certiorari and prohibition to declare all acts of the probate court in *innie &ane ?od$esK estate subse%uent to its order of Dece#ber 1. by their respective ad#inistrators <)3/! and Ma$no=. 1301= and sanctionin$ her acts of ad#inistration of said estate and approvin$ the sales contracts e(ecuted by her with the various individual appellees. ?od$es as her e(ecutor whereby he consistently reco$ni>ed the separate e#istence and identit. 1301= as her estate was thereby #er$ed with his own so that nothing re#ains of it that #ay be ad6udicated to her brothers and sisters as her desi$nated heirs after hi#. #ust necessarily fail J a result of the 3ourtKs #ain opinion at bar that there does e(ist such an estate and that the t)o estates <husbandKs and wifeKs= #ust be ad#inistered coFointl. all the orders of the trial court under appeal enu#erated in detail on pa$es 30 to 31 and 80 to 8. conveyances.8.

as 2d#inistrator of the Testate state of 3harles . the trial court should i##ediately proceed to the partition of the presently co#bined estates of the spouses. and the sa#e is made part of this Fudgment and shall continue in force. to the views passed and ruled upon by the 3ourt in the fore$oin$ opinion. pending the liquidation of the con6u$al partnership of the deceased spouses and the determination and segregation fro# each other of their respective estates4 provided. in all their actuations in Apecial )roceedin$s 1301 and 1'1-. 8 !inimum estimate of !rs. minus whatever the husband had already gratuitousl. the said estate consists of one$fourth of the co##unity properties of the said spouses. 191-. Ma$no. directin$ that petitioner-appellant )3/!.. whereas the half un%uestionably pertainin$ to Hodges shall be administered by petitioner e#clusivel. provided. reserved deter#ination. unless subse%uently disposed of gratuitousl. in Apecial )roceedin$s 1'1-. the preliminar. as of the ti#e of the death of the wife on May -3.ewton ?od$es has effectively and le$ally renounced his inheritance under the will of *innie &ane ?od$es. is reiterated. without pre6udice to the resolution by the trial court of the pending #otions for its removal as ad#inistrator4 2nd this arran$e#ent shall be #aintained until the final for further hearin$ resolution of and the two issues the of renvoi and renunciation hereby fro# the said resolution. until final 6ud$#ent is ulti#ately rendered re$ardin$ <1= the #anner of applyin$ 2rticle 1' of the 3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines to the situation obtainin$ in these cases and <-= the factual and le$al issues of whether or not 3harles . to the end that the one$half share thereof of Mrs. is lifted and the resolution of Aepte#ber 8. Ma$no. HodgesI estateK 2ne$fourth of conFugal properties.ed. disposed of in favor of third persons fro# said date until his death. that with respect to remunerative dispositions. no deduction whatsoever are to be #ade fro# said estate4 /n conse%uence. 19'1. should act thenceforth always conFointl. with respondent-appellee 2velina 2. the parties and the court a quo are directed to adhere henceforth. never independently fro# each other. while the other one$fourth shall re#ain under the 6oint ad#inistrative of said respondent and petitioner under a Foint proceedings in Apecial )roceedin$s 1301 and 1'1-. ?od$es #ay be properly and clearly identified4 Thereafter. that upon the finality of this 6ud$#ent. and second.ewton ?od$es in Apecial )roceedin$s 1'1-. as such ad#inistrators. the proceeds thereof shall continue to be part of the )ifeIs estate. first. 1901. inFunction of 2u$ust 8. and correspondin$ complete se$re$ation and partition of the two estates in the proportions that #ay result .The e#istence of the Testate state of *innie &ane ?od$es. and /t is declared that. that should the purported renunciation be declared le$ally effective. 8enerally and in all other respects. as ad#inistratri( thereof is recogni. and state of *innie &ane ?od$es in respondent-appellee 2velina 2. and Dece#ber '. as 2d#inistratri( of the Testate Apecial )roceedin$s 1301. 19'1. the trial court should forthwith se$re$ate the re#ainder of the one$fourth herein ad6ud$ed to be her estate and cause the sa#e to be turned over or delivered to respondent for her e#clusive administration in Apecial )roceedin$s 1301. to third parties by the husband. as a#ended on Ectober .

ter# whereunder his ri$ht to the succession ceased in diem upon arrival of the resolutor. ?od$es after his wife *innieKs death shall continue to be part of her estate unless subse%uently disposed of by hi# gratuitousl. which #eans that while he could co#pletely and absolutely dispose of any portion thereof inter vivos to anyone other than hi#self.e. ?od$es after his wifeKs death re#ain an inte$ral part of his wifeKs estate which she willed to her brothers and sisters. ?od$es could not validly #a+e gratuitous dispositions of any part or all of his wifeKs estate J Pco#pletely and absolutely dispose of any portion thereof inter vivos to anyone other than hi#selfQ in the lan$ua$e of the #ain opinion.and her brothers and sisters as instituted heirs with a suspensive ter# whereunder their ri$ht to the succession commenced e# die upon arrival of the suspensive ter# of the death of 3. . ?od$es and her brothers and sisters as instituted heirs )ith a term under 2rticle 880 of our 3ivil 3ode.. to third parties sub6ect to the condition. no deductions of any dispositions #ade by ?od$es even if gratuitousl. minus whatever the husband had already gratuitousl. / do not subscribe to such a view that *innie &ane ?od$es willed Pfull and absolute ownershipQ and Pabsolute do#inionQ over her estate to her husband.. .Q /f accordin$ to the #ain opinion. however.Q with the proviso that proceeds of remunerative dispositions or sales for valuable consideration #ade by 3. 19'..Q 10 2s will be a#plified hereinafter.The #ain opinion in declarin$ the e(istence of a separate estate of *innie &ane ?od$es which shall pass to her brothers and sisters with ri$ht of representation <by their heirs= as her duly desi$nated heirs declares that her estate consists as a minimum <i. as of the ti#e of the death of the wife on May -3.. althou$h vested already upon the death of Mrs.. while a$reein$ with the #ain opinion that the proceeds of all re#unerative dispositions #ade by 3. he was not free to do so mortis causa. supra J and thereby render ineffectual and nu$atory her institution of her brothers and sisters as her desi$nated heirs to succeed to her )hole estate Pat the death of <her= husband. assuming <1= that under 2rticle 1' of the )hilippine 3ivil 3ode 3. ?od$es as survivin$ husband was entitled to one-half of her estate as legitime and <-= that he had not effectively and le$ally renounced his inheritance under her will= of P one$fourth of the co##unity properties of the said spouses. . inas#uch as the ri$ht of his brothers and sisters-in-law to the inheritance. to wit. ?od$es could not #a+e . but rather that she na#ed her husband 3. 1901. disposed of in favor of third persons fro# said date until his death. ?od$es. that if he is held to have validly and effectively renounced his inheritance under his wifeKs will.. . ?od$es. ter# of his death on Dece#ber -0. would auto#atically beco#e operative upon the occurrence of the death of ?od$es in the event of actual e(istence of any re#ainder of her estate then. 19'-. / sub#it that 3. ?od$es on Dece#ber -0. ?ence. . ?od$es as instituted heir with a resolutor.. . and all his ri$hts to what #i$ht re#ain upon his death would cease entirely upon the occurrence of that contin$ency. are to be #ade fro# his wife *innieKs estate which shall pass intact to her brothers and sisters as her desi$nated heirs called in her will to succeed to her estate upon the death of her husband 3. Differences )ith the main opinion / do not share the #ain opinionKs view that *innie &ane ?od$es instituted her husband as her heir under her will Pto have do#inion over all her estate durin$ his lifeti#e R as a&solute o)ner of the properties RQ 9and that she be%ueathed Pthe whole of her estate to be owned and en6oyed by hi# as universal and sole heir with a&solute dominion over the# only durin$ his lifeti#e. .

My differences with the #ain opinion involve further the le$al concepts. ?od$es has re#ained unliquidated up to now #i$ht ta+e a si#ilar nu#ber of years to unravel with the nu#erous ite#s. . 2s no consensus appears to have been reached thereon by a #a6ority of the 3ourt. in this case.. who avers that the law of the Atate of Te(as $overns her succession and does not provide .. since if the two pre6udicial %uestions of renvoi and renunciation were resolved favorably to *innieKs estate #eanin$ to say that if it should be held that 3. ?od$esK ad#inistratri(. na#ely <1= that the probate court #ust accept the renvoi or Preference bac+Q 11alle$edly provided by the laws of the Atate of Te(as <of which state the ?od$es spouses were citi>ens= whereby the civil laws of the )hilippines as the domicile of the ?od$es spouses would $overn their succession not)ithstanding the provisions of 2rticle 1' of our 3ivil 3ode <which provides that the national law of the decedents. . effects and conse%uences of the testa#entary dispositions of *innie &ane ?od$es in her will and the %uestion of the best to reach a solution of the pressin$ %uestion of e(peditin$ the closin$ of the estates which after all do not appear to involve any outstandin$ debts nor any dispute between the heirs and should therefore be pro#ptly settled now after all these years without any further undue co#plications and delays and distributed to the heirs for their full en6oy#ent and benefit.. .such $ratuitous Pco#plete and absolute dispositionsQ of his wife *innieKs estate P mortis causa. by the probate court ahead of the partition and se$re$ation of the minimum one-fourth ?od$esK separate estate. These two assu#ptions are of course flatly disputed by respondent-appellee Ma$no as Mrs. / believe that of the the two con6u$al %uestions or co##unity of renvoi and renunciation should properties constitutin$ *innie be &ane resolved preferentiall. ?od$es is not entitled to any le$iti#e of her estate and at any rate he had totally renounced his inheritance under the will=. which would re%uire a$ain the partition and se$re$ation of still another one-fourth of said. ?od$es had not effectively and le$ally renounced his inheritance under his wifeKs will. ?od$esK estate and his heirs. transactions and details of the si>able estates involved. the declaration of the minimum of Mrs. of Te(as. under 2rticle 900 of our 3ivil 3ode= could not then be disposed of nor burdened with any condition by her and <-= that 3. then *innieKs estate would consist not only of the #ini#u# onefourth but one$half of the con6u$al or co##unity properties of the ?od$es spouses. which tas+ considerin$ that it is now seventeen <11= years since *innie &ane ?od$esK death and her con6u$al estate with 3. properties to complete *innieKs separate estate.Q it would see# that by the sa#e to+en and rationale he was li+ewise proscribed by the will fro# #a+in$ such dispositions of *innieKs estate inter vivos. / propose to state views as concisely as possible with the sole end in view that they #ay be of so#e assistance to the probate court and the parties in reachin$ an e(peditious closin$ and settle#ent of the estates of the ?od$es spouses. ?od$esK estate as one-fourth of the con6u$al properties is based on two assu#ptions #ost favorable to 3. and e#peditiousl.. T)o Assumptions 2s indicated above. Auch partition of the #ini#u# one-fourth would not be final.. shall $overn their succession= with the result that her estate would consist of no more than one-fourth of the con6u$al properties since the legitime of her husband <the other one-fourth of said con6u$al properties or one-half of her estate.

and this would depend on <1= whether or not the applicable laws of Te(as do provide in effect for #ore. indeed.. ?od$es.for and le$iti#e. dependin$ on whether the evidence directed to be for#ally received by the probate court would bear out that under renvoi 3.Q 12 ?ence. the $enuineness of the docu#ents relied upon by respondent Ma$no Bre ?od$es9 renunciationC is disputed.Q /t observes however that this cannot be done due to the inade%uacy of the evidence sub#itted by the parties in the probate court and of the partiesK discussion.. ?od$es to her heirs in accordance with her duly probated will. when there is no legitime provided therein. and <-= whether or not ?od$es has validly )aived his whole inheritance fro# Mrs. it would be best. Pthere is no clear and reliable proof of what the possibly applicable laws of Te(as are. re#ainin$ issue once #ore to this 3ourt and dra$$in$ out indefinitely the proceedin$s. such as. 2fter all.. re#ainin$ %uestion of ho) much more than the minimum one-fourth of the co##unity properties of the ?od$es spouses herein finall. the 3ourt without reachin$ a consensus which would finally resolve the conflictin$ clai#s here and now in this case opted that Pthese and other relevant #atters should first be threshed out fully in the trial court in the proceedin$s hereinafter to be held for the purpose of ascertainin$ andNor distributin$ the estate of Mrs. !ut as already indicated above. Then also. %uestion that re#ains to be settled in the further proceedin$s hereby ordered to be held in the court below is ho) much more than as fi(ed above is the estate of Mrs. ?od$es was or was not entitled to clai# a le$iti#e of one-half of his wife *innieKs estate andNor that he had or had not effectively and validly renounced his inheritance should help clear the dec+s. the #ain opinion e(pressly reserves resolution and deter#ination on these two conflictin$ clai#s and issues which it dee#s Pare not properly before the 3ourt now. . and assist the probate court in resolvin$ the onl. ?od$es and Pthin+in$ outQ the end results. her brothers and sisters are entitled to succeed to the whole of her share of the con6u$al properties which is one$half thereof and that in any event. the onl. effects and conse%uences of *innie &ane ?od$esK testa#entary dispositions in relation to her con6u$al partnership and co-ownership of properties with her husband 3. ?od$es can clai# a legitime and )hether he had renounced the inheritance. i. hence. The #ain opinion concedes that P</=n the interest of settlin$ the estates herein involved soonest. ?od$es had totally renounced all his ri$hts under the will.Q 1D 19 The writer thus feels that layin$ down the pre#ises and principles $overnin$ the nature. unresolved issue has thus been narrowed down and in consonance with the rulin$ spirit of our probate law callin$ for the pro#pt settle#ent of the estates of deceased persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to the residue by way of inheritance J considerin$ that the estates have been lon$ pendin$ settle#ent since '?@A and '?C=. as to whether 3. .Q Suggested guidelines 3onsiderin$ that the onl. vi.Q 13and specifically holds that P<2=ccordin$ly. the onl..e. . respectively J it was felt that the 3ourt should lay down specific $uidelines for the $uidance of the probate court towards the end that it #ay e(pedite the closin$ of the protracted estates proceedin$s below to the #utual satisfaction of the heirs and without need of a dissatisfied party elevatin$ its resolution of this onl. if these conflictin$ clai#s of the parties were deter#ined in these proceedin$s. ?od$es. . %uestion that re#ains depends for its deter#ination on the resolution of the two %uestions of renvoi and renunciation. as it were.

. En the contrary. he sou$ht and obtained authori>ation fro# the probate court to continue the conFugal partnershipKs &usiness of buyin$ and sellin$ real and personal properties. all transactions #ade by ?od$es after his wifeKs death were dee#ed for and on behalf of their unliquidated conFugal partnership and communit. '?@A. En the contrary. 7ith this pre#ise established that all transactions of ?od$es after his wifeKs death were for and on behalf of their unliquidated con6u$al partnership and co##unity estate. ad#inisterin$ and li%uidatin$ the con6u$al or co##unity property. #ade by 3. practically all their properties were conFugal which #eans that the spouses have equal shares therein. purchases and sales. and the dissolution thereby of the #arria$e.Q 16 -. reported the considerable com&ined inco#e <in si( fi$ures= of the conFugal partnership or coo)nership and then divided the sa#e equall.pon the death of Mrs. any such $ratuitous dispositions should be char$ed to his own share of the con6u$al estate since he had no authority or ri$ht to #a+e any gratuitous dispositions of *innieKs properties to the preFudice of her brothers and sisters who# she called to her succession upon his death. Paccordin$ to ?od$esK own inventory sub#itted by hi# as e(ecutor of the estate of his wife. /n his annual accounts sub#itted to the probate court as e#ecutor of !rs. '?C= of ?od$es hi#self appear perforce and necessarily to have been conducted. . not to #ention that the very authority obtained by hi# fro# the probate court per its orders of May -0. ?ence. 18 <)arenthetically. .determined should be awarded as the separate estate of *innie. HodgesI estate. ?od$es thus consistentl. it should be clear that no gratuitous dispositions. as both estates continued to have an e%ual sta+e and share in the con6u$al partnership which was not only left unliquidated &ut continued as a co-ownership or 6oint . if any.. . share and share ali+e and not to #a+e any free dispositions of *innieKs estate. ?od$es fro# his wife *innieKs estate should be deducted fro# her separate estate as held in the #ain opinion. share and share ali+e. particularly since the views e(pressed in the #ain opinion have not $ained a consensus of the 3ourt. share and share alike J since the con6u$al partnership re#ained unli%uidated J which is another way of sayin$ that such transactions. for and on behalf of their unliquidated conFugal partnership andNor co-ownership. #ust be dee#ed in effect to have been #ade for the respective estates of 3. estate and were so reported and treated by hi#. ?od$esK estate. #ostly the latter. which needless to state.. ?od$esK estate and as consistently filed separate income ta# returns and paid the inco#e ta(es for each resultin$ half of such com&ined inco#e correspondin$ to his own and to Mrs. thus supportin$ the view advanced even in the #ain opinion that P?od$es )aived not only his ri$hts to the fruits but to the properties the#selves.. 3.. 18?od$es failed to dischar$e this duty of liquidating the con6u$al partnership and estate. 1901 was to continue the con6u$al partnershipKs business of buyin$ and sellin$ real properties for the account of their unli%uidated con6u$al estate and co-ownership.Q 19 !y operation of the law of trust 20as well as by his own ac+nowled$#ent and acts. =>. and Dece#ber 1. had he ad6udicated *innieKs entire estate to hi#self. To be$in with. the followin$ su$$ested $uidelines. the law i#posed upon ?od$es as survivin$ husband the duty of inventoryin$. ?od$es on !a. he could not in law do this. therefore. represent the personal opinion and views of the writer5 1. as pointed out in the #ain opinion. between hi#self and Mrs. 2ll transactions as well after the death on Decem&er =@. ?od$es and of his wife *innie &ane ?od$es. on the sa#e pre#ise.

pendin$ their se$re$ation fro# each other. This e(plains the probate courtKs action of re%uirin$ that deeds of sale e(ecuted by )3/! as ?od$esK estateKs ad#inistrator be P signed Fointl. 2s stressed in the #ain opinion. '?@L.Q 28 <b= En the %uestion of renvoi. the declaration #ade in schedule M of said return and hereby for#ally disclaim and renounce an. ?od$es as citi>ens of said Atate at the ti#e of their respective deaths on !a. state Ta( @eturn filed on 2u$ust 8. as well as its order authori>in$ pay#ent by lot purchasers fro# the ?od$es to either estate.. the deter#ination of the onl. 0. albeit $roundless.business with the probate courtKs approval by ?od$es durin$ the five-year period that he survived his wife.by 3. 26na#ely5 3opy of the . all that re#ains for the probate court to do is to for#ally receive in evidence duly authenticated copies of the laws of the Atate of Te(as $overnin$ the succession of *innie &ane ?od$es and her husband 3. . . ta(es and e(penses of ad#inistration are finally deter#ined and paid4Q 28and The affidavit of ratification of such renunciation <which places hi# in estoppel= alle$edly e(ecuted on 2u$ust 9. right on m. *innie &ane ?od$es. This affidavit is #ade to a&solve me or m. 29 . part to receive an. intent to e(clude the other heirs of Mrs. /t directed conse%uently that Pa 6oint hearin$ of the two probate proceedin$s herein involvedQ be held by the probate court for the reception of Pfurther evidenceQ in order to finally resolved these twin %uestions. ?od$es fro# their inheritance. and confirm... . ?od$esK estateKs ad#inistratri(. ?od$es in /loilo 3ity wherein he reaffir#ed that PR on August L. '?C=. 1901. '?@A and Decem&er =@. pendin$ their se$re$ation fro# each other.Q -. and / do hereby ratify and confir#.Q by respondent Ma$no as Mrs. estate fro# any liability for the pay#ent of income ta(es on inco#e which has accrued to the estate of %innie Jane Hodges since the death of the said *innie &ane ?od$es on May -3. Bpending the liquidation of the conFugal partnership. 2D <a= En the %uestion of renunciation. emoluments and income fro# the estate of #y deceased wife. intent to e(clude the other heirs of Mrs.G 23since Pit is but lo$ical that both estates should be ad#inistered 6ointly by the representatives of both. since Pthere is as yet no 6udicial declaration of heirs nor distribution of properties to who#soever are entitled thereto.A. / renounced and disclai#ed any and all ri$ht to receive the rents. ?od$es fro# their inheritance. 19'. of the said rents. 2ntly by the representatives of both.Q 22 2nd this e%ually furnishes the rationale of the #ain opinion for continued con6oint ad#inistration by the ad#inistrators of the two estates of the deceased spouses. =>. 1908 by 3. ?od$esK estate depends on the twin %uestions of renunciation and renvoi. albeit $roundless. )articularly R because the actuations so far of )3/! evince a deter#ined. )articularly R because the actuations so far of )3/! evince a deter#ined.. unresolved issue of how #uch #ore than the #ini#u# of one$fourth of the co##unity or con6u$al properties of the ?od$es spouses pertains to Mrs. e#olu#ents and inco#e fro# said estateQ and further declared that P<T=he purpose of this affidavit is to ratif. ?od$es for his wife *innieKs estate wherein he purportedly declared that he was renouncing his inheritance under his wifeKs will in favor of her brothers and sisters as co-heirs desi$nated with hi# and that it was his Pintention <as= survivin$ husband of the deceased to distribute the re#ainin$ property and interests of the deceased in their co##unity estate to the devisee and legatees named in the )ill when the debts. it is believed that all that the probate court has to do is to receive for#ally in evidence the various docu#ents anne(ed to respondent Ma$noKs answer at bar. liabilities.Q 29 0.

but the full o)nership thereof. The te(t and tenor of the declarations by 3... 3onse%uently. .. attorneysK fees and other li+e e(penses and the net re#ainder to be ad6udicated directly to the decedentsK respective brothers and sisters <and their heirs= as the heirs duly desi$nated in their respective wills. then petitionersK view that Mrs. ?od$es #ust be $iven due effect with the result that 3. /f there were no renunciation <or the sa#e #ay so#ehow be declared to have not been valid and effective= by 3. ?od$es as the survivin$ spouse. The co##unity and con6u$al properties would then pertain share and share alike to their respective estates. 2s to the nature of the institution of heirs #ade by Mrs.. ?od$esK estate as the le$iti#e $ranted hi# as surviving spouse by /hilippine la) <2rticle 900 of the 3ivil 3ode= which could not be disposed of nor burdened with any condition by Mrs. provides for no legitime for 3. however. . with each estate. . . what would be the conse%uenceL <a= /f the laws on succession of the Atate of Te(as do provide for renvoi or Preference bac+Q to )hilippine law as the do#iciliary law of the ?od$esK spouses $overnin$ their succession. they are also heirs instituted simultaneousl. ?od$es= does not beco#e an heirQ 31by force of his renunciation. 1901S would have to be sustained and 3. co#prisin$ his own one-half <or two-fourths= share and the other fourth of Mrs. with ?od$es. the said co##unity and con6u$al properties would then pertain pro indiviso share and share ali+e to their respective estates. Mrs. ?od$esK brothers and sisters who# she desi$nated as her heirs upon her husbandKs death are called i##ediately to her succession. estate and inheritance ta(es. The %uestion of renvoi beco#es i##aterial since #ost laws and our laws permit such renunciation of inheritance. as of the ti#e of <her= death on May -3. . 1. even as there was no restriction a$ainst his disposin$ or . ?od$es are not su&stitutes for ?od$es4 rather.. the #ain opinion holds that P<T=he brothers and sisters of Mrs. shoulderin$ its own e(penses of ad#inistration. ?od$es of his inheritance fro# his wife. in his affidavit of renunciation e(ecuted four years later for the avowed purpose of not bein$ held liable for pay#ent of inco#e ta(es on inco#e which has accrued to his wifeKs estate since her death indicate a valid and effective renunciation. then respondent Ma$noKs assertion that Mrs. 8..'. ?od$es= would have to be sustained. Ence the evidence has been for#ally ad#itted and its $enuineness and le$al effectivity established by the probate court. ?od$es in her will. ?od$es therefore ac%uired no part of his wifeKs one$half share of the co##unity properties since he re#oved hi#self as an heir by virtue of his renunciation. <b= /f the laws on succession of the Atate of Te(as do not provide for such renvoi and respondent Ma$noKs assertion is correct that the Te(as law which would then prevail. although the same )as to last also during his lifetime onl. ?od$esK estate would consist only of the #ini#u# of P one$fourth of the co##unity properties of the said spouses.. ?od$esK estate would consist of three$fourths of the co##unity properties. . ?od$esK estate would consist of one-half of the co##unity properties <with the other half pertainin$ to 3.Q but $oes further and holds that Pit was not the usufruct alone of her estate R that she be%ueathed to ?od$es during his lifetime. . . since Pthe heir ori$inally instituted 3. with each estate shoulderin$ its own e(penses of ad#inistration in the sa#e #anner stated in the last para$raph of para$raph ' hereof. . the renunciation by 3. !y si#ple substitution then under 2rticles 801 and 809 of our 3ivil 3ode 30and by virtue of the willKs institution of heirs.. however.. ?od$es as testatri(. ?od$es of renunciation of his inheritance fro# his wife in favor of her other na#ed heirs in her will <her brothers and sisters and their respective heirs= as ratified and reiterated e#pressl. if any re#ain unpaid.

devise and be%ueath all of the rest. 3harles . said estate during his lifetime. 3onse%uently. devise and be%ueath all of the rest.sical properties of said estateQ<i. the writer sub#its that the provisions of Mrs. use and enFo. R to be equall. / $ive. and #ay sell unimproved to)n lots4Q 38that PDAEt the death of m.ewton.. both personal and real.. supra. which at the ti#e of his death would pass in full dominion to her brothers and sisters as the ultimate sole and universal heirs of her estate. there would be a substitution of heirs in fact and in law since *innieKs brothers and sisters as the heirs Psi#ultaneously institutedQ with a suspensive ter# would be called immediatel. by sale R and the purchase of any other or additional property as he #ay thin+ best R . control. 33 3ontrary to this view of the #ain opinion.e.Q 39 ?ence. ?od$es would Pdurin$ his natural lifeti#e R manage. Ahe and further that willed only that Pall rents. both personal and real R to #y beloved hus&and. to her succession instead of waitin$ for the arrival of suspensive ter# of ?od$esK death. said hus&and . ?od$esK will did not $rant to 3. new properties ac%uired or e(chan$ed= would still pertain to her estate.&od. while *innie &ane ?od$es did not e(pressly na#e her brothers and sisters as substitutes for ?od$es because she willed that they would enter into the succession upon his death. emoluments and income fro# said estate shall &elong to him and he is further authori>ed to use any part of the principal of said estate as he #ay need or desire. control. R he shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any of the i#proved property now owned by us. disposin$ to third persons her )hole estate durin$ his lifeti#e nullif. sub6ect however to certain conditions. Te(as R . insofar as ?od$es was concerned and correspondin$ly suspensive with reference to his brothers and sisters-in-law. other than himselfQ and describes ?od$es Pas universal and sole heir with a&solute dominion over Mrs.ewton ?od$es. Thus. residue and re#ainder of #y estate. ?od$esK brothers and sisters as instituted co-heirs=. residue and re#ainder of #y estate. use and enFo. partially resolutor. 3Dthus acceleratin$ their succession to her estate as a conse%uence of ?od$esK renunciation. ?od$es Pfull ownershipQ nor Pabsolute do#inionQ over her estate. Te(as property =. ?e shall have the ri$ht to su&divide any farm land and sell lots therein. her institution of her brothers and sisters as his co-heirs to succeed to her )hole estate Pat the death of DherE hus&and .Q such principal notwithstandin$ Pany changes in the ph. located at R 3ity of *ubboc+. 36 The testatri( *innie &ane ?od$es in her will thus principally provided that P/ $ive. *innie &ane ?od$es willed that her husband 3. with ?od$es.conveyin$ the whole or any portion thereof an.Q deprive the# of any inheritance and #a+e his own brothers and sisters in effect sole heirs not only of his own estate but of his )ifeIs estate as well. while he emoluments and incomeP alone shall could sell and purchase properties of her estate.. if ?od$es is found to have validly renounced his inheritance. since as the heir ori$inally instituted he does not beco#e an heir by force of his renunciation and therefore they would Penter into the inheritance in default of the heir ori$inally institutedQ <?od$es= under the provisions of 2rticle 801 and 809 of our 3ivil 3ode. as the #ain opinion concedes. still it cannot be $ainsaid. All rents. . 32addin$ that P?od$es was not obli$ed to preserve anythin$ for the#Q <referrin$ to Mrs.. R to #a+e any changes in the ph. such that he could as Puniversal and sole heirQ by the #ere e(pedient of gratuitousl. ?od$esK estate <e(cept over their *ubboc+. 3harles . said belon$ to estateQ hi#. Pthat they are also heirs instituted simultaneousl.sical properties of said estate. to have and to hold with hi# R during his natural lifetime 4Q 38that P<he= shall have the ri$ht to manage. and Puse any part of the principal estate.

or a ter# with a suspensive effect. upon the e(piration of the suspensive ter# <as far as they were concerned= of the death of 3. 92 2s stated in )adillaKs treatise on the 3ivil 3ode. @oy ?i$don. it is suspensive.ation of the probate court per its orders of May -0.Q 91 Thus. until a certain day. the instituted heir is entitled to the succession. ra @o#an and .. 3hapter -. and all that is left to be done is to resolve the onl. ?od$es on Dece#ber -0. The desi$nation of the day or ti#e when the effects of the institution of an heir shall commence or cease shall be valid. her husbandKs ri$ht to the succession as the instituted heir ceased in diem. ?od$esK will. share and share ali+e. . with the e(press authori. 9. the le$al heir shall be considered as called to the succession until the arrival of the period or its e(piration. from a certain day. of #y brothers andNor sisters R prior to the death of #y husband R the heirs of such deceased &rother or sister shall ta+e Fointl. his ri$ht ter#inates.e. 2rticle 880 of our 3ivil 3ode e(pressly provides that5 2@T 880. The si>able estates herein involved have now been pendin$ settle#ent for a considerably protracted period <of seventeen years counted fro# *innieKs death in 1901=.Q ?e adds that P2 le$acy based upon a certain a$e or upon the death of a person is not a condition but a term. The desi$nation of the day when the le$acy Pshall co##enceQ is e# die. 39 ##a ?owell. upon the arrival of the resolutor. re#ainin$ issue <involvin$ the two %uestions of renunciation and renvoi= hereinabove . na#ely5 sta ?i$don.i#roy ?i$don4Q and that PD0En case of the death of an.. /f the arrival of the ter# would ter#inate his ri$ht. Aadie @ascoe. *eonard ?i$don. The desi$nation of the day when the le$acy Pshall ceaseQ is in diem or a ter# with a resolutory effect. and in case of a resolutory ter#. !ut in the first case he shall not enter into possession of the property until after havin$ $iven sufficient security. /n both cases. of our 3ivil 3ode dealin$ with Pconditional testa#entary dispositions and testa#entary dispositions )ith a term. in case of a suspensive ter#..Q 93 10. i. share and share alike. 19'. i. !y the sa#e to+en. of any portion of her estate to whose succession she had called her brothers and sisters upon his death. P2 ter# is a period whose arrival is certain althou$h the e(act date thereof #ay be uncertain. 2 ter# #ay have either a suspensive or a resolutory effect.Q 90 Auch provisions are wholly consistent with the view already fully e(pounded above that all transactions and sales #ade by ?od$es after his wife *innieKs death were by operation of the law of trust as well as by his own ackno)ledgment and acts dee#ed for and on behalf of their unliquidated con6u$al partnership and co##unity estate. with the intervention of the instituted heir. section . 19'-. under the ter#s of Mrs. ?od$es could not conceivably be dee#ed to have had any authority or ri$ht to dispose gratuitousl. it is resolutoryQ and that Pupon the arrival of the period. /f the arrival of the ter# would co##ence the ri$ht of the heir. 2ccordin$ly. ter# of his death on Dece#ber -0.divided a#on$ #y brothers and sisters. and Dece#ber 1.e. while her brothersK and sistersK ri$ht to the succession also as instituted heirs co##enced e# die. Auch institutions of heirs )ith a term are e(pressly reco$ni>ed and per#itted under !oo+ ///. 1901 $rantin$ ?od$esK #otion to continue the con6u$al partnership business of buyin$ and sellin$ real estate even after her death. the share which would have $one to such brother or sister had she or he survived.

by their respective ad#inistrators <)3/! and Ma$no=. . Auch a settle#ent or modus vivendi between the heirs of the unli%uidated two estates for the #utual benefit of all of the# should not prove difficult. these appeals involve basically the sa#e pri#al issue raised in the petition for certiorari as to whether there still e(ists a separate estate of *innie &ane ?od$es which has to continue to be ad#inistered by respondent Ma$no.3.Q 96 Timeliness of appeals and imposition of thirt.. bearin$ in #ind the 3ourtKs ad#onition in previous cases that Pcourts of first instance should e(ert the#selves to close up estate within twelve #onths fro# the ti#e they are presented. ?od$es have already been ac%uired by the heirs of *innie &ane ?od$es fro# certain heirs of her husband. the writer has ta+en the pain of su$$estin$ these $uidelines which #ay serve to $uide the probate court as well as the parties towards e(peditin$ the windin$ up and closin$ of the estates and the distribution of the net estates to the instituted heirs and their successors duly entitled thereto. compensation to e(ecutors and ad#inistrators )ho do not activel. ma.310U of ?od$esK estate were 6oinin$ cause with *innieKs heirs in their pendin$ and unresolved #otion for the re#oval of petitioner )3/! as ad#inistrator of ?od$esK estate. it is advisable for said instituted heirs and their heirs in turn 99to co#e to ter#s for the ad6udication and distribution to the# pro-indiviso of the up to now unli%uidated co##unity properties of the estates of the ?od$es spouses <derived fro# their unliquidated con6u$al partnership= rather than to $et bo$$ed down with the for#idable tas+ of ph.discussed in order to close up the estates and finally effect distribution to the deceased spousesK respective brothers and sisters and their heirs as the heirs duly instituted in their wills lon$ ad#itted to probate.sicall. The estates proceedin$s would thus be closed and they could then na#e their respective attorneys-in-fact to wor+ out the details of se$re$atin$. and the. la&or to that end. segregating and partitioning the two estates with the nu#erous transactions. ite#s and details and physical chan$es of properties involved. dividin$ or partitionin$ the unliquidated co##unity properties or li%uidatin$ the# J which can be done then on their own without further need of intervention on the part of the probate court as well as allow the# #eanwhile to en6oy and #a+e use of the inco#e and cash and li%uid assets of the estates in such #anner as #ay be a$reed upon between the#. 2s stated at the outset. while certain other heirs representin$ 11. the said appeals <involvin$ thirty-three different orders of the probate court approvin$ sales contracts and other acts of ad#inistration e(ecuted and perfor#ed by respondent Ma$no on behalf of *innieKs estate= have been necessarily overruled by the 3ourtKs decision at bar. . and they #ay even adopt harsher measures. 11. ?ence.9'81. 3onsiderin$ the #ain opinionKs rulin$ in the affir#ative and that her estate and that of her husband <since they 6ointly co#prise unliquidated co##unity properties= #ust be ad#inistered conFointl.$one D>'E additional docket fees Two appeals were doc+eted with this 3ourt. The probate court should e(ert all effort towards this desired ob6ective pursuant to the #andate of our probate law. considerin$ that it appears as stated in the #ain opinion that --. 2s earlier stated. as per the two records on appeal sub#itted <one with a $reen cover and the other with a yellow cover=. refuse to allo) an.9U of the share or undivided estate of 3. 9Dapparently i#patient with the situation which has apparently de$enerated into a runnin$ battle between the ad#inistrators of the two estates to the co##on pre6udice of all the heirs.

<a= The Ppriority %uestionQ raised by respondent Ma$no as to the patent failure of the two records on appeal to show on their face and state the #aterial data that the appeals were ti#ely ta+en within the 30day re$la#entary period as re%uired by @ule . Auch disposition of the %uestion of ti#eliness dee#ed as P#andatory and 6urisdictionalQ in a nu#ber of cases #erits the writerKs concurrence in that the %uestion raised has been subordinated to the para#ount considerations of substantial 6ustice and a Pliberal interpretation of the rulesQ applied so as not to dero$ate and detract fro# the pri#ary intent and purpose of the rules. section ' of the @ules of 3ourt. has been brushed aside by the #ain opinion with the state#ent that it is Pnot necessary to pass upon the ti#eliness of any of said appealsQ since they Prevolve around practically the sa#e #ain issues and R it is ad#itted that so#e of the# have been ti#ely ta+en. .1. P D0 <b= Aince the basic issues have been in effect resolved in the special civil action at bar <as above stated= with the dis#issal of the petition by virtue of the 3ourtKs 6ud$#ent as to the continued e(istence of a separate estate of *innie &ane ?od$es and the affirmance as a necessary conse%uence of the appealed orders approvin$ and sanctionin$ respondent Ma$noKs sales contracts and acts of ad#inistration. . .Q 98The #ain opinion thus proceeded with the deter#ination of the thirtythree appealed orders despite the $rave defect of the appellant )3/!Ks records on appeal and their failure to state the re%uired #aterial data showin$ the ti#eliness of the appeals. the #ain opinion in consonance with the sa#e para#ount considerations of substantial 6ustice has li+ewise overruled respondentsK ob6ection to petitionerKs ta+in$ the recourse of Pthe present re#edy of certiorari and prohibitionQ J Pdespite the conceded availability of appealQ J on the $round that Pthere is a co##on thread a#on$ the basic issues involved in all these thirty-three appeals J <which= deal with practically the sa#e basic issues that can be #ore e(peditiously resolved or deter#ined in a sin$le special civil action . Qthe proper and 6ust deter#ination of a liti$ationQ 98 J which calls for Padherence to a liberal construction of the procedural rules in order to attain their ob6ective of substantial 6ustice and of avoidin$ denials of substantial 6ustice due to procedural technicalities. D13onsiderin$ the i#portance of the basic issues and the #a$nitude of the estates involved. vi. so#e doubt would arise as to the propriety of the #ain opinion re%uirin$ the pay#ent by )3/! of thirty-one <31= additional appeal doc+et fees. the writer has pro hac vice $iven his concurrence to the assess#ent of the said thirty-one <31= additional appeal doc+et fees. the e(istence of a separate estate of *innie &ane ?od$es= and can be #ore e(peditiously resolved or deter#ined in a single special civil actionQ <for which a single doc+et fee is re%uired= as stated in the #ain opinion. however. This doubt is further enhanced by the %uestion of whether it would #a+e the cost of appeal unduly e(pensive or prohibitive by re%uirin$ the pay#ent of a separate appeal doc+et fee for each incidental order %uestioned when the resolution of all such incidental %uestioned orders involve basically one and the sa#e #ain issue <in this case.Q 99 Thus.

R. is a %uestion of fact to be resolved by the evidence that would be presented in the probate court.h *houl+ preva'l bet.r'm'nal .een the ration decidendi an+ the fallo of a +e.Case digest @C scra =CC 7ationalit. 7*abel Co0uan. 132524.o Sunta/. #m'l'o A-u'nal+o Sunta/ (*on of pet't'oner =e+er'. the marr'a-e *oure+ *o that 'n 1962.ere born namel/> !ar-ar'ta Gua+alupe. 1EL5/ The Aupre#e 3ourt held that for what the Te(as law is on the #atter.8. DECISION *ARTINE4. f'le+ b/ pet't'oner =e+er'. Re.ho oppo*e* re*pon+ent 7*abel@* pet't'on for appo'ntment a* a+m'n'*tratr'2 of her -ran+mother@* e*tate b/ v'rtue of her r'-ht of repre*entat'on. ISS>E/ 7hether or not Te(as *aw should apply. respondents. was a do#iciliary of the )hilippines at the #o#ent of her death. /rinciple *innie &ane ?od$es.e (C=7 D2E a . !r&'c0 18. 7n retal'at'on.o:Sunta/ f'le+ a . 1998] FEDERICO C. No.ET 5 Dyna#ics of law.'n-> An %ul/ 9. *&2o2o. petitioner. Sunta/ . . #/(. the other $roup contended that no renvoi was possible=. [G.-(-'. 7ith respect to the validity of certain testa#entary provisions she had #ade in favor of her husband. three .o:Sunta/ . a #arried wo#an and a citi>en of Te(as.a*eD1E a-a'n*t her hu*ban+ #m'l'o A-u'nal+o Sunta/. Aut of th'* marr'a-e. GREGORIO S. J.A2. #m'l'o A-u'nal+o f'le+ before the then Court of ='r*t 7n*tan.-o'&2 Tr-&2 Co/r3. vs. a %uestion arose as to what e(actly were the laws of Te(as on the #atter at the precise #o#ent of her death <for while one $roup contended that the Te(an law should result to renvoi.o Sunta/ an+ 7*abel Co0uan-. +re. SUNTA . December 29.ere marr'e+ 'n the Bortu-ue*e Colon/ of !a.e. !/2&c&'. &he *u't *temme+ from the follo. Te(as law at the ti#e of her death <and not said law at any other ti#e=.5 (h'. 19. ISA!E" CO#UANGCO$ % SUNTA &'( )ON. .'*'on '* the pr'mar/ '**ue 'n th'* pet't'on for certiorari un+er Rule 6.o C..h'l+ren . After C /ear*. 7*abel A-u'nal+o an+ #m'l'o A-u'nal+o all *urname+ Co0uan-.ompla'nt for . SA*+AGA.ao.

00 a* her . D3E &he *u't .h of th'* Court 'n Spe.000.for the .ee+'n. G7t '* the op'n'on of )r. .een the part'e*.a+m'tte+ b/ the part'e* an+ *ho.har-'n.'th the'r mother.'*'on the +'*po*'t've port'on .ounter.00. 1967.a*e (September 8.e+ un+er e2pert neuro:p*/.t ..or+* that the 9ue*t'on of the .le-al *eparat'on a-a'n*t h'* . A marr'a-e ma/ be annulle+ for na/ of the follo.a* . 19. .een the *ame part'e* 'n another bran.a*e number F:7180. pla'nt'ff . 1967 the pat'ent .000.h'. GSA AR)#R#). 7t be'n.h prov'+e*> GArt.000. An A.la'm an+ to pa/ attorne/@* fee* 'n the amount of B.'al Bro.annot be l't'-ate+ 'n th'* .h'.ont'nue+ to be un+er ob*ervat'on an+ treatment.n b/ the re.ron-.t a* bet.n mar3e+ pro-re**.elebrate+ bet. the *ame . amon. thru )e.at the t'me of the marr'a-e> G222 222 222 .u*to+/ of the three .h'l+ren have been the *ub0e. G('th re-ar+ to .'th 'nf'+el't/ an+ pra/'n. e2'*t'n. 9. &h'* fa.ounter.'n.3ete+ a* .au*e* after (*'.'+e . G&here '* no .t ha* *ho.la**'f'e+ a* *..oun*el that the th'r+ part/ +efen+ant* are ..tuall/ pla.larat'on of null't/ of the marr'a-e un+er Art'.ho .a*e bet.h rea+*> G(H#R#=AR#.lare+ null an+ vo'+ an+ of no effe.een the part'e* . unt'l 196.other*.o:Sunta/ on %ul/ 9.8 '* hereb/ +e.6 that the +'*ea*e . 'n v'e.of r'-ht an+ .or*ene+ .. of the C'v'l Co+e . of the man'fe*tat'on of .h'l+ren . 6C28.tober 3.her.$o. Aram'l that the */mptom* of the pla'nt'ff@* mental aberrat'on . 19.to pa/ B.000. treatment6 that even 'f the *ub0e.onf'ne+ 'n the Ieteran* !emor'al Ho*p'tal.ar+e+ the *um of B. the C=7 *a'+> G=rom =ebruar/ 196.een #m'l'o A-u'nal+o Sunta/ an+ 7*abel Co0uan-. the rema'n* bereft of a+e9uate un+er*tan+'n.h'1ophern'a (*'.ept the offer 'n*tea+ of her or'-'nal +eman+ for B130.to a.a* effe.ere l'v'n. the +efen+ant '* a.te+ on %ul/ 9.are of the'r .h'atr'*t (*'.a* +o.a* alrea+/ out of the ho*p'tal he .la'm. .ontrover*/ that the marr'a-e bet.ourt ren+ere+ a +e. /ear* after pla'nt'ff@* mental 'llne** ha+ *et 'n.'fe.'ll'n.. ha+ ma+e them*elve* man'fe*t even a* earl/ a* 19.00. the tr'al .hen he .a*e. Althou-h at the t'me of the tr'al of parr'.u*to+/ an+ . (*'.a* a.0.'ll'n.'v'l .0.ember 196.a*e an+ .t of another .8. the marr'a-e ..le 8.DCE (#mpha*'* *uppl'e+ A* ba*'* thereof.oul+ 0u*t'f/ a +e.'th t'me.00 for +ama-e* an+ that +efen+ant '* .

onten+* that a* a . 117:!:9.ell a* h'* mot'on for re.om'n..e of the +e.'*'on +e...an oppo*'t'on. that *he '* one of the le-'t'mate -ran+. freel/ .'thout *oun+ rea*on. pet't'oner move+ to +'*m'** the *pe.E (empha*'* *uppl'e+ An %une 1.a* of un*oun+ m'n+.a*e alle-'n.D9E An September 22. D12E pet't'oner.ourt '**ue+ the a**a'le+ or+er +en/'n.D6E ='ve /ear* later or on A.on*e9uen.'n+'.h'l+. unle** *u.ee+'n.D11E (hen h'* mot'on for re. pet't'oner ar-ue* that un+er Art'.larat'on b/ the then C=7 of R'1al that the marr'a-e of the re*pon+ent 7*abel@* parent* '* Gnull an+ vo'+.that he '* the *urv'v'n*pou*e of the +e.lar'n. that pet't'oner an+ her fam'l/ have been al'enate+ from the +e.ember 1. Bet't'oner 'mpute* -rave abu*e of +'*.la'm'n.ont'nue* to be .to rea*on.ea*e+ h'* mother.'ll. the +'*po*'t've port'on of the +e. an+ ha* no r'-ht nor 'ntere*t 'n the e*tate of her paternal -ran+mother K the +e.e+ent.le 992 of the C'v'l Co+e an 'lle-'t'mate . Bet't'oner .'al Bro.h'1ophern'a (*'.'al pro. .ute+. #m'l'o A-u'nal+o Sunta/ pre+e. about the mental .ompla'nt a++ empha*'* to the f'n+'n-* of the neuro:p*/.on*'+erat'on on the -roun+* that> (a a mot'on to +'*m'** '* appropr'ate 'n a *pe.3ete+ a* Spe.be.'al pro.e+ent.e+ent Cr'*t'na A-u'nal+o:Sunta/.ea*e+ h'* mother.at'on of *.tober 16.h part/.pet't'oner@* !ot'on to )'*m'**. 7n *upport thereof. 1990 .h'* mot'on to +'*m'** a* .on*'+erat'on . 1979.e+ent@* e*tate. the late Cr'*t'na A-u'nal+o Sunta/ an+ thu*.e+ent ha* been al've an+ '* better *'tuate+ to prote..for the *ettlement of e*tate of a +e.ee+'n. &he latter '* re*pon+ent 7*abel@* paternal -ran+mother.'thout leav'n.har-e* 'n th'* ver/ .h'le the +e. 7n her pet't'on.ourt 'n +en/'n..ret'on to re*pon+ent .e**'on b/ repre*entat'on.ee+'n.h'l+ ha* no r'-ht to *u. &he +e. re*pon+ent 7*abel A-u'nal+o Co0uan-.o /ear* after f'l'n.tober 26 199.h'l+ren of the +e.h'. *he alle-e+ amonother*.on+'t'on of the pla'nt'ff6 an+ there '* proof that pla'nt'ff .J the latter '* an 'lle-'t'mate .'fe.e 'n her favor of "etter* of A+m'n'*trat'on of the 7nte*tate #*tate of her late -ran+mother Cr'*t'na A-u'nal+o Sunta/ . re*pon+ent 7*abel@* father pre+e.on0u-al propert'e* even .the marr'a-e of re*pon+ent 7*abel@* parent* Gnull an+ vo'+J mu*t be uphel+6 an+ (+ *a'+ +e. . &he ./ that 'n real't/.G(3 &hat e'ther part/ ..'*'on ha+ lon.ohab'te+ .t. 199. 1997 or almo*t t.'th the other a* hu*ban+ or . pra/e+ that "etter* of A+m'n'*trat'on be '**ue+ 'n*tea+ to h'm.D10E An A. a* ment'one+ above f'le+ th'* pet't'on. pet't'oner f'le+ an Appo*'t'on .'n the ma'n that re*pon+ent 7*abel *houl+ not be appo'nte+ a* a+m'n'*tratr'2 of the +e..e+ent an+ the Appo*'tor for more than th'rt/ (30 /ear* an+ thu*.a* +en'e+ b/ the tr'al .t the 'nte-r't/ of the e*tate than the pet't'oner.D.e+ent an+ pra/e+ that *he be appo'nte+ a* a+m'n'*tratr'2 of the e*tate. that he ha* been mana-'n.h'atr'*t han+l'n.e+ent +'e+ on %une C. #m'l'o A-u'nal+o Sunta/. after .o Sunta/ f'le+ before the Re-'onal &r'al Court (R&C D7E a pet't'on for '**uan. the tr'al . the +e.a*e .Ca*e $o. 1997. that pla'nt'ff reall/ l've* more 'n fan.a* +o.the pat'ent.ea*e+ per*on6 (b the mot'on to +'*m'** .the .ourt 'n an or+er +ate+ %anuar/ 9.a . a *tron.ome f'nal an+ ha+.D8E An )e.ee+ b/ r'-ht of repre*entat'on the le-'t'mate relat've* of her father or mother. 1998.a* t'mel/ f'le+6 (. 'n fa. G&here '* a +earth of proof at the t'me of the marr'a-e +efen+ant 3ne. been e2e. opene+ *u.h .

h'.ourt.'v'l a.t'on .au*e of the ta2e* +ue 't.'v'l a.3 or 'n e2.e** or 0ur'*+'. *pee+/ an+ a+e9uate reme+/ 'n the or+'nar/ .omprehen*'on of the 0u+-ment 'n C'v'l Ca*e $o.ee+* from a m'*.'ll fa'l to +e. At the out*et. not onl/ be.e+ent@* *on.. the +e.a marr'a-e Gvo'+ableJ other.larat'on of null't/.urren. *ho. not +e.'*'on an+ 't* +'*po*'t've port'on be. the bo+/ of the +e. D13E &here mu*t be a .h '* for annulment.'th> G&he ar-ument* of both part'e* 0u+'.a* late hav'n. nor an/ pla'n. G&he oppo*'tor@* .e of the pro. for the purpo*e of annull'n.'*'on +eterm'ne* the nature of the a. after hear'n.on*'+er'n.been f'le+ after the oppo*'t'on . G222 222 222 G&he .'al pro. pert'nent port'on* of . the .'+e an+ la*tl/.ever.a* not .'*'on (Anne2 GAJ K !ot'on preva'l* over the bo+/ thereof '* not of a f'nal +e.lear an+ une9u'vo.au*e 'f no he'r* 9ual'f/.onfl'.al an+ . &o .au*e 'n an a. the .t .9u're the e*tate b/ e*. the State *hall a.er 'n an or+'nar/ .ourt rule*.the per*onal't/ of the pet't'oner to f'le a+ ma'nta'n th'* *pe.een the bo+/ of the +e.an be ava'le+ of onl/ 'f there '* .a* not a+ver*ar'al 'n nature an+ the pet't'oner . Certiorari a* a *pe.to la.t'on.h'l+ of #m'l'o A-u'nal+o Sunta/.ourt +'+ not abu*e 't* +'*.'al pro.h'.t'on* ha* a.ee+'n-*.t'vel/ a**e**e+ an+ the pert'nent la.t'on.er e2er. the .'t> (a the tr'bunal.ee+'n-*.our*e of la. .'ou*. re*pon+ent 7*abel a**ert* that pet't'oner@* mot'on to +'*m'** .on.t'on for annulment of a marr'a-e.e of the e**ent'al re9u'*'te*.ee+'n.An the other han+.'*'on '* +ef'n'te.holl/ -'ven effe.'th -rave abu*e of +'*.h'm*'.t'on a-a'n*t a part'.'thout nee+ of 'nterpretat'on or .0u+'.t bet.a* +'*t'n-u'*he+ from an or+'nar/ .'*e.onten+* that pet't'oner pro. but al*o be.a*e at ben.heat.of the a**a'le+ or+er.J &he pet't'on mu*t fa'l. arb'trar/ an+ . =urthermore. to .ture '* 'nappropr'ate . .an be .on*tru.'*e fa'le+ to *pe. that the *tatu* of marr'a-e* un+er Art'.ret'on amount'n. the State ha* a v'tal 'ntere*t 'n the ma'ntenan. th'* pro. F:7180 an+ the erroneou* prem'*e that there '* a .ourt .al e2er.'*'n.* appl'e+.'*e of po. the Court f'n+* that a mot'on to +'*m'** at th'* 0un.ular +efen+ant.'al . an+ (b there '* no appeal. that 'n the . of the C'v'l Co+e before the/ are annulle+ '* Gvo'+able.ourt e'ther *u*ta'n* the val'+'t/ of marr'a-e or null'f'e* 't.t'on.the pe.au*e of a.'v'l a. boar+ or off'. 7t +oe* not.alle+ upon to a**ert a .'f'.h are 9uote+ hereun+er.ounterpart of an an*.h.'al fun.all/ +en/ re*pon+ent 7*abel@* alle-at'on that *he '* a le-'t'mate .a* alrea+/ f'le+ 'n . She further .t'on or .'thout or 'n e2.ee+'n-.pet't'oner@* mot'on to +'*m'**.t'on .'ou*l/ an+ ob0e.ret'on 'n +en/'n. for the purpo*e of e*tabl'*h'n.t'on an+ that pet't'oner 'n h'* oppo*'t'on l'3e.apr'.ontent'on that the fallo of the 9ue*t'one+ +e.ee+'n.D1CE A rea+'n.te+ .or mo+'f/'n.e** of 0ur'*+'.* that the re*pon+ent . ho.ul'ar nature of th'* *pe.le 8.er for 't to pro*per.the pro.

annot be *u*ta'ne+.J &he 1997 Rule* of C'v'l Bro.e an+ pet't'oner ha+ pre*ente+ t. ha+ 'n fa. the la.ept'on '* vo'+ an+ the .'v'l or .h +e.'*'on ma/ be referre+ to for purpo*e* of .e 4ran.een the bo+/ of the +e. &he effe. &he re*pon+ent .one of the a.onfl'. Su.reate+ the amb'-u't/ or un.h'. an+ other .on.'t'n. 82 an+ 83D18E of the $e.on.6ec-&2 6rocee(-'. Art'.'tne**e*.off .ompla'nt. enumerate* the .h'. C'v'l Co+e.t'on have the *ame *tatu*.. .t'on 1.t of *u. 8. of the $e. .o /ear* after re*pon+ent 7*abel .le 1CC of the C'v'l Co+e.h '* the .a* alrea+/ throu-h . .on*'+ere+ vo'+able.e at all.J Clearl/.h ar-ument .'*'on ha* . GBer +e.'*'on of the C=7 of R'1al '* re.JD16E &he Rule* +o not o'27 appl/ to ele.ture '* 'nappropr'ate.C1 .'th re*pe. *tron-l/ 'n*'*t* that the +'*po*'t've port'on of the C=7 +e.orre. par. natural'1at'on an+ 'n*olven.t'on bet. par.o:Sunta/ .e+ure -overn* the pro.h'. far from +ev'at'n.h are . &he rea*on '* that the +'*po*'t've port'on mu*t f'n+ *upport from the +e.the an*.'*'on of the Court of ='r*t 7n*tan.. $ot onl/ ./ pro.on*tru'n. the alle-e+ .our*e from e*tabl'*he+ 0ur'*pru+en. Bet't'oner be'n.t fa'thfull/ ob*erve+ the la. an+ le-al pre.e+ure.er to the .of the mot'on to +'*m'** '* not onl/ 'mproper but al*o +'lator/. Bet't'oner. &he f'l'n.ourt.h 7L of Fue1on C't/.overa-e of the Rule* on C'v'l Bro.tl/ rule+ that Ga mot'on to +'*m'** at th'* 0un.G(here there '* amb'-u't/ or un.ate-or'. *he '* . 't .h marr'a-e* .t* of vo'+ marr'a-e*.e pr'or to the ena. Ch'l+ren born of *u.a*'+e the marr'a-e of re*pon+ent 7*abel@* parent* '* . Spe.JD1. C'v'l Co+e .r'm'nal an+ . 81. mar3e+ a* Anne2 GAJ of oppo*'tor@* mot'on.e+ent* 'n th'* .on*'+ere+ le-'t'mate (Art.t'on*.a* annulle+ on the ba*'* of Art. Go Ch'n "'n-6 an+ He'r* of %uan Bre*to v. C'v'l Co+e of the Bh'l*.t'on .all/ +e. the op'n'on or bo+/ of the +e.e've+ an+ born of a vo'+able marr'a-e before the +e.!orelo* v.la**'f/ .'v'l a.. a mot'on to +'*m'** f'le+ thereun+er .ever. a* pet't'oner a**ert*. 2. Rule 16 thereof.'tne**e* an+ ev'+en.h'l+ren b/ le-al f'. 3 of the C'v'l Co+e .lare+ that the marr'a-e of re*pon+ent 7*abel@* parent* '* Gnull an+ vo'+J an+ that the le-al effe. .le 8.erta'nt/.'al pro.a*e*. Art'.h'le Art'.een vo'+ an+ vo'+able marr'a-e* '* that vo'+ marr'a-e '* +eeme+ never to have ta3en pla.t.e+ure to be ob*erve+ 'n a.erta'nt/ 'n the +e.le 8. D17E . the mot'on *houl+ have been f'le+ on or before the f'l'n.ree of annulment.t'on* un+er the .'th the pre*entat'on of her . the marr'a-e of #m'l'o A-u'nal+o Sunta/ an+ 7*abel Co0uan-.alle+ natural .a*e* not there'n prov'+e+ for.o .au*e* for .the 0u+-ementJ (78 SCRA .ho are .h .ourt .a*e.le* 80.. ho.larat'on '* that the marr'a-e from 't* 'n.a* pet't'oner@* mot'on to +'*m'** f'le+ out of t'me.lear un+er para-raph 3.h'l+ren born out of *a'+ marr'a-e '* 'lle-'t'mate.'*'on an+ the +'*po*'t've port'on thereof .a+a*tral.t bet.h a marr'a-e ma/ be annulle+. r'-ht* an+ .ounterpart of an an*.'lable. &he le-al ba*'* for *ett'n.t to propert/ relat'on* of the *pou*e* are prov'+e+ for un+er Art'. Sa'+ rule prov'+e* that the mot'on to +'*m'** ma/ be f'le+ G8-30-' 30e 3-me 9or b/3 be9ore f'l'n.e on th'* matter.ee+'n-*.of pet't'oner@* oppo*'t'on. 89.h'.or *tra/'n.E &he tr'al . 7n fa. Galan.D19E &he fun+amental +'*t'n.tment of the =am'l/ Co+e.a* f'le+ almo*t t.hat marr'a-e* are vo'+ . lan+ re-'*trat'on.er 'n or+'nar/ .h refer* to marr'a-e* .ee+'n-* be'n.t'on*.'*'on@* ratio decidendi.oul+ fall un+er Se. 'n for.h'.

ontroll'n.a marr'a-e. A marr'a-e that '* annulled pre*uppo*e* that 't *ub*'*t* but later . not. Art'. delos AngelesD26E the Court *a'+> GA++'t'onall/. D2CE the *ame '* not .'*'on or or+er '* +ef'n'te.erta'nt/ e2'*t* bet.on*e9uen.that +oe* not e2'*t from the be-'nn'n-.t .*.JD22E 7n+ee+.'t* .a*e of +oubt 'n the 'nterpretat'on or appl'.h'.alle+ natural .all/.e* all 't* .h'.t've of .ma3'n. the term* GannulJ an+ “null and voidJ have +'fferent le-al .'thout nee+ of 'nterpretat'on or .h'l+ren born 'n vo'+able marr'a-e* '* -overne+ b/ the *e.on+ para-raph of Art'. effort mu*t be ma+e to harmon'1e the .on.'*e.h'. .hether or not the marr'a-e of re*pon+ent 7*abel@* parent* . 7n Republic v.t'on K .omprehen*'on of the 0u+-ment of the C'v'l Ca*e $o.3no.h the 0u+-ment '* ba*e+. 't '* pre*ume+ that the la.rule hol+* true onl/ . on .'v'l effe.ourt not of re. the annulment of Gthe marr'a-e b/ the .le 10 of the C'v'l Co+e *tate* that MD'En .h'l+ren.h'.*tatement 'n the bo+/ of the +e.on*'+ere+ val'+ an+ pro+u. a vo'+able marr'a-e.ompetent . An the other han+.onfl'.'thD23E .e+ure that the re*olut'on of the .t to the 'ntent'on.h u*uall/ '* Gthe .at'on*.on.a* vo'+ or vo'+able.e to noth'n-6 ann'h'late6 obl'terate6 to ma3e vo'+ or of no effe.ourt abol'*he* the le-al .t a* 'f 't ha+ never been entere+ 'nto but the la. r'-ht* an+ obl'-at'on* a* a.tor a* to *ettlement of r'-ht* of the part'e* an+ the 9ue*t'on* pre*ente+.E A**um'n.t6 to null'f/6 to abol'*h6 to +o a.h mu*t .e+ +ur'n.ourt a.a*e .'al . purpo*e an+ 0u+-ment of the .t'on. &he fore-o'n.JD21E (#mpha*'* *uppl'e+ State+ other.hen the +'*po*'t've part of a f'nal +e.h'l+ren un+er Art'.ourt 'n an a.een the bo+/ of the +e.holl/ -'ven effe.h'l+ren b/ le-al f'.t bet.'*'on or or+er '* the .totall/ .'th*tan+'n.fa.at'on.t .here the or+er or +e.e've+ of vo'+able marr'a-e* before the +e. &here '* l'3e.t* of the marr'a-e from be'n.le+-e+ natural .hara.e've+ thereafter *hall have the *ame *tatu*.'*'on or or+er .'*'on 'n or+er to -'ve effe.h ma/ be *ome.an be .lare* a *tatu* .'*'on.or+ .ree of annulment *hall be . an+ are al*o .at'on of la.al .'*e no mer't 'n pet't'oner@* ar-ument that 't '* the +'*po*'t've port'on of the +e.that a +oubt or un.hen 't '* term'nate+ throu-h a .obl'-at'on* a* a.ter of the *o.h'l+ren .'*'on 'n 9ue*t'on '* that of a .annot +e*tro/ the 0ur'+'.onnotat'on* an+ 'mpl'.ontrol a* to .a/ .h ar-ument *pr'n-* from a m'*.le 89 . unt'l 't '* *et a*'+e b/ f'nal 0u+-ment of a . 't '* an elementar/ pr'n. Annul mean* to re+u. but 't .h'.hole bo+/ of the +e.hat .t* an+ the la.le 89 D20E 'rre*pe.JD2.h '* not . 4ut 'n null'f/'n.'thout 9ual'f'.h alrea+/ e2'*t* from the ver/ be-'nn'n-.ourt 'n a -'ven '**ue a* embo+'e+ 'n the +'*po*'t've part of a +e.h'.ourt. Barenthet'.on*t'tut'onall/ re9u're+ to *tate the fa.le+-e+ natural . the annulment of a marr'a-e +'**olve* the *pe.hether or not the part'e* to the vo'+ marr'a-e are 'n -oo+ fa'th or 'n ba+ fa'th.ourt *'mpl/ +e.'pe+ out.ontra.bo+/ 'nten+e+ .t'on for annulment.e* . Su.herea* null an+ vo'+ '* *ometh'n.lear an+ une9u'vo.h the mar'tal un'on pro+u.h'.onfu*'n-.t*.3no. '* .'*'on .'*'on an+ 't* +'*po*'t've port'on. ma3e* e2pre** prov'*'on* to prevent the effe.t'on.'ple of pro. &he *tatu* of .e. F:7180 an+ the erroneou* prem'*e that there '* a .on*tru.al an+ .h prov'+e* that> GCh'l+ren .on*'+ere+ le-'t'mate6 an+ .ont'nuan.h'.all/. %ur'+'.ea*e* to have le-al effe.on+'t'on . the .een the +'*po*'t've port'on an+ the bo+/ of the +e.'et/ forme+ b/ the putat've *pou*e*.

6 that the +'*ea*e .on+'t'on of pla'nt'ff6 an+ there '* proof that pla'nt'ff .lare+ null an+ vo'+ the marr'a-e of re*pon+ent 7*abel@* parent* ba*e+ on para-raph 3. G&here '* no . 9..e to preva'l.8.h'l+ren of #m'l'o A-u'nal+o Sunta/ an+ 7*abel .of the pert'nent port'on* of the +e.hen he . a rea+'n.* that the marr'a-e '* vo'+able> G7t '* the op'n'on of )r. Aram'l that the */mptom* of the pla'nt'ff@* mental aberrat'on .of r'-ht an+ .ontrover*/ that the marr'a-e bet. unle** *u.'thout *oun+ rea*on.ontrar/ 'nterpretat'on .at'on of *.h'1ophern'a (*'.'*'on of the C=7 of R'1al +e. unt'l 196.'th the other a* hu*ban+ an+ . 4a*e+ on *a'+ prov'*'on the .'n+'. G2 2 2 &he 0u+-ment mu*t be rea+ 'n 't* ent'ret/. &he le-al . la. he rema'n* bereft of a+e9uate un+er*tan+'n.all of 't* part* 'nto harmon/ a* far a* th'* . an+ to effe.ohab'te+ .'n./ than 'n real't/.or*ene+ . the +e.'th t'me.on*e9uen.an be +one b/ fa'r an+ rea*onable 'nterpretat'on an+ *o a* to -'ve effe. a *tron. . .the pat'ent.lau*e of the *e.t to ever/ .le 89. that pla'nt'ff reall/ l've* more 'n fan.larat'on of null't/ of the marr'a-e un+er Art'. &he . 19. of the $e.h'1ophern'a (*'.la**'f'e+ a* *.h prov'+e*> GArt. .oul+ be anathema to the rule 0u*t above:ment'one+. /ear* after pla'nt'ff@* mental 'llne** ha+ *et 'n.een the part'e* .h'atr'*t han+l'n..to rea*on. (*'.om'n.e+ un+er e2pert neuro:p*/.of the neuro:p*/. of the C'v'l Co+e . about the mental . an+ mu*t be .JD27E 7nev'tabl/. (C9 C.annot be an/ le** b'n+'n.'th the prov'*'on* of the or-an'.le 8.te+ on %ul/ 9. &h'* fa..'*'on of the C=7 of R'1al 9uote+ earl'er *ho.a* of un*oun+ m'n+.ourt* 'n relat'on to 't* 0u+-ment*. e2'*t'n.tuate the 'ntent'on an+ purpo*e of the Court.t .h'.ont'nue* to be .oul+ 0u*t'f/ a +e.har-e* 'n th'* ver/ .h part/.a* a.on*'*tent .on+ para-raph of Art'.t (*'.tuall/ pla. A marr'a-e ma/ be annulle+ for an/ of the follo. obv'ou*l/ .a* effe.h'l+ren are therefore -overne+ b/ the f'r*t . pp.le 8. freel/ .t ha* *ho.or+ an+ part 'f po**'ble. 863:86CJ D#mpha*'* *uppl'e+E &hu*.e* a* to the r'-ht* of the .h'atr'. ha+ ma+e them*elve* man'fe*t even a* earl/ a* 19. treatment6 that even 'f the *ub0e.on*true+ a* a .au*e*. Art'. C'v'l Co+e.. A .@ &h'* man+ate of la.at the t'me of the marr'a-e> 222 222 222 G(3 &hat e'ther part/ .n mar3e+ pro-re**.r'-ht an+ 0u*t'. after .S.upon the ..hole *o a* to br'n.'fe6 222 222 222 G&here '* a +earth of proof at the t'me of the marr'a-e +efen+ant 3ne.ompla'nt a++ empha*'* to the f'n+'n.ron-.%.

ho.lu+'n.of our %ivil %ode 6 b# the laws of %hina) not b# those of the Philippines. ha+ pre+e.h'l+ren.on.onform't/ .ute+ on. +'*t'n.ell a* the +'re.ourt *ett'na*'+e the'r marr'a-e on A.Co0uan-.ere . be.ho .ree of the tr'al .hat the Court. ma/ 'nvo3e the'r *u.ea*e+ the'r -ran+mother.'thout pre0u+'.ourt* of .ever.au*e 't '* th'* port'on that '* to be e2e.'th the bo+/ of the +e. $e'ther +o the Court a+0u+-e+ here'n the *u.and filed its record on appeal among the grounds that the oath was taken prior to .all/ leav'n...e to a +eterm'nat'on b/ the .e've+ an+ born pr'or to the +e.e+ent@* e*tate. However) the question of how a %hinese citizen ma# strip himself of that status is necessaril# governed 6pursuant to Articles .tl/ an+ une9u'vo. f'n+'n. !" and pra#ing that he be allowed to take his oath of allegiance as such citizen and issued the corresponding certificate of naturalization. OH HEK HOW vs REPUBLIC 29 SCRA 94 Facts: Petitioner Oh Hek How having been granted naturalization through his petition filed a motion alleging that he had complied with the requirements of Republic Act No. $he *overnment seasonabl# gave notice of its intention to appeal from said order of &ebruar#+) . the 'n*tant pet't'on '* )7S!7SS#).e**'onal r'-ht* of the per*onal't'e* 'nvolve+ over the +e. 7t .4oath0taking5 had not 6 and up to the present has not become final and e/ecutor#in view of the appeal dul# taken b# the *overnment.h/ that e2treme +e-ree of . $he %ourt of &irst 'nstance of (amboanga del Norte issued forthwith an order authorizing the taking of said oath.oul+ not therefore be am'** to re'terate at th'* po'nt . and .at'on of the r'-ht* an+ obl'-at'on* of thoe part'e*. the le-'t'mate -ran+. 1967 are .throu-h Ch'ef %u*t'. #m'l'o A-u'nal+o Sunta/.ab*olutel/ no room for +'*pute.learl/. *pea3'n.'*'on.ourt 'n the prem'*e* 'n . SO ORDERED.re*pon+ent 7*abel. &h'* '*.'*'on be.e Ru'1 Ca*tro. &he a+0u+'.udgment having been final and e/ecutor#.ret'on. 'n.+-.'*e+ 'n the formulat'on of the +'*po*'t've port'on of a +e. 7nd 'ssue3 't is argued that the permission is not required b# our laws and that the naturalization of an alien) as a citizen of the Philippines) is governed e/clusivel# b# such laws and cannot be controlled b# an# foreign law.no -rave abu*e of +'*..'*'on.'al h'erar. +ebate or 'nterpretat'on. Held: &irst issue3 $he order of &ebruar# +) . On that same date) petitioner took it and the certificate of naturalization was issued to him. .e the +e. =or purpo*e* of *ee3'nappo'ntment a* e*tate a+m'n'*tratr'2.o:Sunta/ .t'on* an+ 'n*tru.on*'+ere+ le-'t'mate.are *houl+ be e2er. mu*t all be *pelle+ out . empha*'1e+ to Gall ma-'*trate* of all level* of the 0u+'.+-.tober 3.ome* f'nal. As a consequence) a .e**'onal r'-ht of repre*entat'on 'n the e*tate of the'r -ran+mother C'r*t'na A-u'nal+o Sunta/ after the'r father. Issue: 0 's the oath valid 0 1hether or not a permission to renounce citizenship is necessar# from the 2inister of the 'nterior of Nationalist %hina.t'on* -'ven b/ the . an+ the +'*po*'t'on* ma+e a* .D28E :)EREFORE.hether "etter* of A+m'n'*trat'on ma/ be -rante+ to her.

coupled &ith her intention to stay there 'y registering as a %oter there and e(pressly declaring that she is a resident of that place.epresentati%e and a candidate for the same position. she is deemed to ha%e a'andoned *aclo'an City. stating that she is :"months resident in the said district) Pri%ate respondent #onte-o.a sub. &here she spent her childhood and school days.the acquisition of citizenship b# a natural0born &ilipino citizen from one of the 'berian and an# friendl# democratic 'bero0American countries shall not produce loss or forfeiture of his Philippine citizenship) if the law of that countr# grants the same privilege to its citizens and such had been agreed upon b# treat# between the Philippines and the foreign countr# from which citizenship is acquired. 7-!+) . incum'ent . filed a Petition for Cancellation and Dis. C5#E?EC in di%ision found that &hen petitioner chose to stay in !locos and later on in #anila. he is .9:! provides) however) that before the naturalization certificate is issued) the petitioner shall .) 0o) 1199:A. thus.solemnl# swear). of the ?eyte for a period of one year at the time of the #ay 9. 1995 FA TS: Petitioner !melda .of which. as her place of domicile) *he C5#E?EC en 'anc affirmed this ruling) During the pendency of the dis. alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional one"year residency re. and particularl# to the state . 8ection .ect or citizen.uirement) Petitioner thus amended her C5C.7 of %ommonwealth Act No. $he obvious purpose of this requirement is to divest him of his former nationalit#) before acquiring Philippine citizenship) because) otherwise) he would have two nationalities and owe allegiance to two 475 distinct sovereignties) which our laws do not permit) e/cept that) pursuant to Republic Act No.epresentati%e of the irst District of ?eyte. O$ELE N). 1995elections) irstDistrict of ..absolutel# and forever all allegiance and fidelit# to an# foreign prince) potentate.omualde6"#arcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy 8C5C< for the position of .ualification case. for election purposes. /eptem'er 18. changing 2se%en3 months to 2since childhood)3 *he pro%incial election super%isorrefused to admit the amended C5C for the reason that it &as filed out of time) Petitioner.%hinese national cannot be naturalized as a citizen of the Philippines) unless he has complied with the laws of Nationalist %hina requiring previous permission of its 2inister of the 'nterior for the renunciation of nationalit#. petitioner &on in the election) $ut the C5#E?EC suspended her proclamation) ISS!ES: 1) 4hether or not petitioner &as a resident. filed her amended C5C &ith C5#E?EC in di%ision) *he C5#E?EC /econd Di%ision found the petition for dis. interalia) that he renounces . RO$!ALDE9-$AR OS vs..ualification.ualification meritorious and struck off the amended as &ell as original C5Cs) !n ruling thus.

ualifying petitioner outside the period mandated 'y the 5mni'us Election Code for dis. and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent)P $ased on the foregoing. &hether permanent or temporary= PdomicileP denotes a fi(ed permanent residence to &hich.e vs. for %arious reasons.esidence.esidence is not domicile. one has the intention of returning) > man may ha%e a residence in one place and a domicile in another) . domicile includes the t&in elements of Pthe fact of residing or physical presence in a fi(ed placeP and animus manendi.B) 4hether or not the C5#E?EC properly e(ercised its -urisdiction in dis. unless. a person can only ha%e asingle domicile.esidenceP is used to indicate a place of a'ode.is place of residence is generally his place of domicile. Pa place to &hich.o&e%er. &hen a'sent. or the intention of returning there permanently) . 'ut he may ha%e numerous places of residence) .uestion of petitionerOs .uite clearly: *here is a difference 'et&een domicile and residence) P.epresentati%es Electoral *ri'unal assumed e(clusi%e -urisdiction o%er the .ouse of . community or country) *he essential distinction 'et&een residence and domicile in la& is that residence in%ol%es the intent to lea%e &hen the purpose for &hich the resident has taken up his a'ode ends) 5ne may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure. it 'ecomes his domicile= if his intent is to lea%e as soon as his purpose is esta'lished it is residence) !t is thus.ualification cases under >rticle :8 of the said Code) 3< 4hether or not the . or health) !f a personOs intent 'e to remain.uite perfectly normal for an indi%idual to ha%e different residences in %arious places) .epu'lic. 'usiness. &hene%er a'sent for 'usiness or for pleasure. 1995 elections) HELD: D*8010.ualifications after the #ay 8. he successfully a'andons his domicile in fa%or of another domicile of choice) !n Cytengsu %s) . in its ordinary conception. . Res0&en1e !n 5ng %s) . &e laid this distinction . 'ut domicile is residence coupled &ith the intention to remain for an unlimited time) > man can ha%e 'ut one domicile for the same purpose at any time. this court took the concept of domicile to mean anindi%idualOs Ppermanent homeP. implies the factual relationship of anindi%idual to a certain place) !t is the physical presence of a person in a gi%en area. 'ut it is not 'y any means necessarily so since no length of residence &ithout intention of remaining &ill constitute domicile) . one intends to return.epu'lic.

for a change of residence re.uirements can the presumption of continuity or residence 'e re'utted. is that &hen petitioner married the former President in 1959.ualifications to run in ?eyte as a candidate for a seat in the . one must demonstrate: 1) >n actual remo%al or an actual change of domicile= B) > 'ona fide intention of a'andoning the former place of residence and esta'lishing a ne& one= and 3) >cts &hich correspond &ith the purpose) !n the a'sence of clear and positi%e proof 'ased on these criteria. and one cannot ha%e t&o legal residences at the same time) Petitioner held %arious residences for different purposes during the last four decades) 0one of these purposes une. and therefore possessed the necessary residence .uite another thing in political la&) 4hat stands clear is that insofar as the Ci%il Code is concerned"affecting the rights and o'ligations of hus'and and &ife Q the term residence should only 'e interpreted to mean Pactual residence)P *he inescapa'le conclusion deri%ed from this unam'iguous ci%il la& delineation therefore. *aclo'an.omualde6"#arcos &as a resident of the irst District of ?eyte for election purposes. once ac. the residence of origin should 'e deemed to continue) 5nly &ith e%idence sho&ing concurrence of all three re. she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a ne& home.uired is retained until a ne& one is gained. it follo&s that in spite of the fact of petitionerOs 'eing 'orn in #anila.ui%ocally point to an intention to a'andon her domicile of origin in *aclo'an.epresentati%es for the follo&ing reasons: a) #inor follo&s the domicile of his parents) >s domicile. ?eyte &as her domicile of origin 'y operation of la&) *his domicile &as esta'lished &hen her father 'rought his family 'ack to ?eyte) ') Domicile of origin is not easily lost) *o successfully effect a change of domicile.ouse of . not a domicilium necessarium) .uires an actual and deli'erate a'andonment. ?eyte) c) !t cannot 'e correctly argued that petitioner lost her domicile of origin 'y operation of la& as a result of her marriage to the late President erdinand E) #arcos in 195B) K> &ife does not automatically gain the hus'and+s domicile)L 4hat petitioner gained upon marriage &as actual residence) /he did not lose her domicile of origin) *he term residence may mean one thing in ci%il la& 8or under the Ci%il Code< and .1) 1E/) !melda .

returns and . and the %otes cast for him shall not 'e counted) !f for any reason a candidate is not declared 'y final -udgment 'efore an election to 'e dis.E*Os -urisdiction as the sole -udge of all contests relating to the elections. E++e1' *+ D0s<u%. &hile li%ing in her 'rotherOs house.0+01%'0*n %se B) !t is a settled doctrine that a statute re.)>) AA9A in relation to /ection :8 of $)P) 881. &ith the enactment of /ections A and : of . Pso that non"compliance &ith them does not in%alidate the -udgment on the theory that if the statute had intended such result it &ould ha%e clearly indicated it)P *he difference 'et&een a mandatory and a directory pro%ision is often made on grounds of necessity) !n any e%ent.d) E%en assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner gained a ne& PdomicileP after her marriage and only ac. upon motion of the complainant or any inter%enor..0+01%'0*n %se ) " >ny candidate &ho has 'een declared 'y final -udgment to 'e dis. it is e%ident that the respondent Commission does not lose -urisdiction to hear and decide a pending dis..ualified and he is %oted for and recei%es the &inning num'er of %otes in such election. ?eyte) ) ) to make them li%a'le for the #arcos family to ha%e a home in our homeland)P urthermore.ui%ocally e(pressed in her letters to the Chairman of the PCNN &hen petitioner sought the PCNNOs permission to Preha'ilitate 8our< ancestral house in *aclo'an and arm in 5lot.uiry. petitioner o'tained her residence certificate in 199B in*aclo'an.ualifications of mem'ers of Congress 'egins only after a candidate has 'ecome a mem'er .ualification case under /ection :8 of $)P) 881 e%en after the elections) Se1'0*n .uired a right to choose a ne& one after her hus'and died.ualified shall not 'e %oted for. an act &hich supports the domiciliary intention clearly manifested in her letters to the PCNN Chairman) E++e1' *+ D0s<u%. may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate &hene%er the e%idence of his guilt is strong) HRET Ju)0s&01'0*n 3) . in. ?eyte. petitionerOs acts follo&ing her return to the country clearly indicate that she not only impliedly 'ut e(pressly chose her domicile of origin 8assuming this &as lost 'y operation of la&< as her domicile) *his PchoiceP &as une. or protest and.uiring rendition of -udgment &ithin a specified time is generally construed to 'e merely directory. theCourt or Commission shall continue &ith the trial and hearing of the action.

Office of the Solicitor General for opponent-appellant. %s) REP!"LI OF THE PHILIPPINES . 19AB !0 *. J): !n a %erified petition filed on BA /eptem'er 1958 in the Court of irst !nstance of Pampanga.icardo .>$>??5. 19AB N). ackno&ledged natural children.E #>**E. J.D5 .) 0o) ?"15787 En'sp En'sp En'sp En'sp En'sp En'sp >pril B5. legitimated.!C>.D5 . alleges that he and his &ife ha%e no legitimate.!?!PP!0E/.epresentati%es) Petitioner not 'eing a mem'er of the .>$>??5 %s) . petitioner"appellee.) .E P.%.ouse of . Clemente N.*#anila E0 $>0C N).epresentati%es. RI ARDO R. . Dayrit for petitioner-appellee.E#E C5C.epu'lic of the Philippines/CP. an >merican citi6en enlisted in the Cnited /tates >ir orce as staff sergeant detailed in Clark ield.E #!05. it is o'%ious that the . &here he and his &ife Nraciela N) Cara'allo li%e. Pampanga.E P.uestion) >pril B5.) C>. >ngeles.of the .. %s) . 05. P%&0.ouse of . 5 *.!C>. . a fi%e"day old natural daughter of #ercedes J) Ca'er 'egotten 'y an unkno&n father.!?!PP!0E/ .) C>.#> ?EE C>$E. natural children 'y legal fiction or any other descendant= that &ith his &ife+s &ritten consent 8E(hi'it C< he desires to adopt as his child 0orma ?ee Ca'er.EPC$?!C 5 *.E* at this point has no -urisdiction o%er the .EPC$?!C 5 *. petitioner"appellee.) 0o) ?"15787 IN THE $ATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE $INOR NOR$A LEE ARA"ALLO. opponent"appellant) A"ER. opponent"appellant) Clemente 0) Dayrit for petitioner"appellee) 5ffice of the /olicitor Neneral for opponent"appellant) P>D!??>. &ho ga%e her consent to the adoption in a s&orn statement 8E(hi'it $<= that since the day follo&ing her 'irth 0orma ?ee Ca'er has 'een reared and cared for 'y him and his &ife &ho ha%e de%eloped lo%e and affection for her= that he ne%er has 'een con%icted of any crime in%ol%ing ...: 05.#> ?EE C>$E.) Cara'allo.E >D5P*!50 5 *.

) Cara'allo to 'e pu'lished and &as pu'lished in the Daily #irror once a &eek for three consecuti%e &eeks setting the petition for hearing on 18 5cto'er 1958 8E(hi'it ><) >s at the hearing no'ody appeared to o'-ect to the petition for adoption.e has an allotment check made out to a 'ank for F89)77 a month) .e has had the child.moral turpitude= that financially and morally he is a'le to support. &ith &hom he has 'een married for 1B years. he intends to settle do&n permanently in the Philippines &here he &ill engage in the tourist 'usiness 'y putting up a hotel) .e is a staff sergeant in the Cnited /tates >ir orce and recei%es appro(imately F9A5)77 a month. and the fiscal the same num'er of days to reply) 5n 3 0o%em'er 1958 the petitioner filed an ans&er or o'-ection to the motion to dismiss.777)77 and has a sa%ings of FA. 0orma ?ee Ca'er. is not . 'ring up and educate the child= and prays that after notice. e(cept the /olicitor Neneral or Pro%incial iscal &ho.777)77 &hich he has 'een accumulating for the last 15 to B7 years) >fter retirement. 1958 8E(hi'it E<) *he petitioner has 'een residing at Clark >ir $ase for the last B5 months) . 'eing a non"resident alien. according to the Court must appear in adoption cases) 5n B: 5cto'er 1958 the Pro%incial and >ssistant Pro%incial iscal of Pampanga mo%ed for the dismissal of the petition for adoption on the ground that it states no cause of action and that the petitioner. ha%ing 'een 'orn on /eptem'er B7. petitioner+s counsel prayed for an order of default.e e(pects to retire as a master sergeant after A years and 3 months. either &ith his &ife. in his household as a daughter since the day follo&ing that of her 'irth and has de%eloped a fondness for her and intends to 'ring her up and educate her as his o&n to the 'est of his a'ility) . Nraciela N) Cara'allo. including allo&ances) .icardo . or &ith any other &oman) .e has ne%er had any children.ualified to adopt) 5n B8 5cto'er 1958 the Court granted the petitioner ten days &ithin &hich to file an ans&er to the motion to dismiss and su'mit a memorandum of authorities. the Court found the follo&ing: R Petitioner is 3B years old &hile the child sought to 'e adopted is three months old.777)77 to F:. to &hich on 19 0o%em'er the Pro%incial iscal replied) 5n 1: 0o%em'er 1958 the Court denied the motion to dismiss) 5n 1B Decem'er 1958 the petitioner mo%ed that the case 'e set for hearing) 5n 15 Decem'er 1958 the Court set the petition for hearing on BB Decem'er 1958 at 9:77 o+clock in the morning) >fter hearing. pu'lication and hearing 0orma ?ee Ca'er 'e declared his child for all intents and purposes. &hich &as entered against all interested parties. and as such.e has t&o insurance policies &ith an aggregate %alue of P15. he &ould recei%e a monthly pension of a'out F1:5)77 to F197)77 for the rest of his life) . free from any o'ligation of o'edience and maintenance &ith respect to her natural mother #ercedes J) Ca'er 8/p) Proc) 0o) 1391<) 5n BA /eptem'er 1958 the Court ordered the %erified petition filed 'y .

is his domicile) > so-ourn such as a tourist though actually present at a place of his free choice cannot 'e deemed a resident of that place) > foreigner &ho has a 'usiness or interest therein or property located in a country or state and goes and stays in that country or state to look after his 'usiness or property or to check up the manner or &ay his 'usiness or property is 'eing conducted or run 'y his manager 'ut does not intend to remain in the country indefinitely cannot 'e deemed a resident of such country) >ctual or physical presence or stay of a person in a place. ad-udges that henceforth 0orma ?ee Ca'er shall 'e. the Court 'elie%es that it &ould 'e to the 'est interest of the child to 'e placed under the care and custody of petitioner &ho is materially and morally a'le to educate and 'ring her up properly and ade. although he may later on change his mind and li%e else&here) > place in a country or state &here he li%es and stays permanently and to &hich he intends to return after a temporary a'sence. and pursuant to >rticle 39A of the Ci%il Code of the Philippines. &hen the penalty imposed &as si( months+ imprisonment or more) > person is deemed a resident of a place in a country or state &here he has his a'ode and li%es there permanently) !t is a place chosen 'y him freely and %oluntarily. in%oking the pro%isions of article 335 of the Ci%il Code) *he article pro%ides: ) *he follo&ing cannot adopt " 81< *hose &ho ha%e legitimate.esident aliens &ith &hose go%ernment the . therefore. for all legitimate intents and purposes. not of his free and %oluntary choice and &ithout intent to . &ith respect to the &ard.ualified to adopt) *he No%ernment contends that he is not. Pampanga.ED.!t also appears that petitioner has ne%er 'een con%icted of any crime &hatsoe%er and rendered a decree as follo&s: ) P. ackno&ledged natural children.icardo . #ercedes Ca'er.uately. or natural children 'y legal fiction= 8B< *he guardian. legitimated.) Cara'allo and shall 'e freed from all legal o'ligations of o'edience and maintenance &ith respect to her natural mother. &ithout the consent of the other spouse= 89< 0on"resident aliens= 85< . and the name and surname of the said minor shall thereafter 'e 0orma ?ee Cara'allo) ((((((((( *he point to determine is &hether under the la& the petitioner is a person . the child of .E#!/E/ C50/!DE. and. this decision shall 'e recorded in the local ci%il registry of >ngeles. and that her surname shall 'e changed to that of petitioner. 'efore the final appro%al of his accounts= 83< > married person. no matter ho& long.epu'lic of the Philippines has 'roken diplomatic relations= 8A< >ny person &ho has 'een con%icted of a crime in%ol%ing moral turpitude.

L-19681 No7)#E)r 29.L. e(chan$ed #arria$e vows with )astor Tenchave>. fro# the 6ud$#ent of the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of 3ebu.years of a$e.R. $autista >ngelo. an en$ineer. the defendants-appellees. are the followin$5 Missin$ her late afternoon classes on -. Tenchave>. J). *t. plaintiff-appellant. for le$al separation and one #illion pesos in da#a$es a$ainst his wife and parents-in-law. before a 3atholic chaplain. 'ecause of his assignment as staff sergeant in the Cnited /tates >ir orce S his stay in the Philippines then 'eing temporary S is a non" resident alien &ho." respectively. where she was then enrolled as a second year student of co##erce. an >merican citi6en &ho no& li%es in Clark ield.8 in the ..remain there indefinitely. vs. 1. without the +nowled$e of her parents. 0. The #arria$e was the cul#ination of a previous love affair and was duly re$istered with the local civil re$ister.111. )astor !. 1arria for plaintiff$appellant.) Cara'allo. &ithout pronouncement as to costs) $eng6on. -1 years of a$e <scion of a well-to-do and socially pro#inent "ilipino fa#ily of Apanish ancestry and a "sheltered cole$iala"=. supported by the evidence of record. the petitioner.niversity of Aan 3arlos. :.eyes. municipality of >ngeles. pursuant to clause 9 of the a'o%e . 3. took no part) G. pro%ince of Pampanga. E! AL. in its 3ivil 3ase . 196D PAS!OR B.B. :icente. 1inamira M 5. . Moises *avares. J). . ICEN!A F.icardo .o. ?a'rador. J. Ma#erto and Mena. J)$)?).epu'lic of the Philippines. The facts. concur) Concepcion. "ebruary 19. e(ar#y officer and of undistin$uished stoc+. :. defendants-appellees. ESCAÑO.1 all surna#ed " scaHo. on factual and le$al %uestions. . C)J). in the house of one &uan 2lburo in the said city. RE?ES. &ho is not a resident of the Philippines. @-.. 3ebu 3ity. JJ). Paredes and Di6on. concurs in the result) $arrera. No.: Direct appeal. does not make him a resident of the place) ?ooking after the &elfare of a minor to 'e adopted the la& has surrounded him &ith safeguards to achie%e and insure such &elfare) !t cannot 'e gainsaid that an adopted minor may 'e remo%ed from the country 'y the adopter.ualified to adopt a child in the Philippines) *he decree appealed from is set aside and the petition dismissed. !ENC1A E<. Jalandoni M Jarnir for defendants$appellees. is dis. denyin$ the clai# of the plaintiff-appellant. and placed 'eyond the reach and protection of the country of his 'irth) .uoted article of the Ci%il Code. :icenta scaHo.

En 10 Aepte#ber 190. entirely #ental in character. :icenta had brou$ht so#e of her clothes to the roo# of )acita . "!-. she applied for a passport. a letter purportedly co#in$ fro# Aan 3arlos colle$e students and disclosin$ an a#orous relationship between )astor Tenchave> and )acita . En -.scaHo"=.2u$ust 1900. Mary9s ?all. fro# the standpoint of the 3hurch.oel in At. drafted by then Aenator ##anuel )elae>. 2lthou$h planned for the #idni$ht followin$ their #arria$e. because on -' "ebruary 19.oel4 :icenta translated the letter to her father. due to the lac+ of authority fro# the 2rchbishop or the parish priest for the officiatin$ chaplain to celebrate the #arria$e.s. @ussell *eo Moran. her #other. ?er letter of -. "D"=. and thereafter would not a$ree to a new #arria$e. and )astor +new it. the elope#ent did not. &une 1900. This ti#e they planned to $et #arried and then elope. :icenta had $one to &i#ene>. "M"=. The recelebration did not ta+e place. )ilar Mende>ona. on the $round of "e(tre#e cruelty." En -1 Ectober 1900. Ahe did not si$n the petition < (h. but her letters beca#e less fre%uent as the days passed. and she was do#iciled in 3ebu 3ity. was already waitin$ for her at the colle$e. "ather @eynes su$$ested a recelebration to validate what he believed to be an invalid #arria$e. &oselin$ *ao. Thereafter.oel. she filed a verified co#plaint for divorce a$ainst the herein plaintiff in the Aecond &udicial District 3ourt of the Atate of . to escape fro# the scandal that her #arria$e stirred in 3ebu society. "-. 2s of &une. Ma#erto and Mena scaHo were surprised. :icenta was bred in 3atholic ways but is of a chan$eable disposition. whose na#e he clai#s he does not re#e#ber. was not as endearin$ as her previous letters when their love was afla#e. Ahe fondly accepted her bein$ called a "6ellyfish. because )astor never as+ed for the hand of :icente."=. En -.nited Atates.n.:icenta9s letters to )astor. a lawyer filed for her a petition. which was their usual trystin$ place.8 the newlyweds were already estran$ed < (h. their en$a$e#ent was bro+en4 :icenta returned the en$a$e#ent rin$ and accepted another suitor. "D"--=. :icenta continued livin$ with her parents while )astor returned to his 6ob in Manila. There. by hi#. vol. :icenta sou$ht papal dispensation of her #arria$e < (h. has be$otten children.March 19. who $ot wind of the intended nuptials. without infor#in$ her husband. Ahe now lives with hi# in 3alifornia. that her purpose was to study. )acita . 1100-0'=.evada in and for the 3ounty of 7ashoe. and his to her. To facilitate the elope#ent.. "1." Ahe was not prevented by her parents fro# co##unicatin$ with )astor < (h. . in . while still solicitous of her husband9s welfare. :icenta #arried an 2#erican.8 < (h. and that she intended to return after two years. and they reconciled.. :icenta was ta+en ho#e where she ad#itted that she had already #arried )astor. #ateriali>e because when :icente went bac+ to her classes after the #arria$e. 2 few wee+s before their secret #arria$e. the scaHo spouses sou$ht priestly advice. The followin$ #ornin$. and she left for the . however. The case was dis#issed without pre6udice because of her nonappearance at the hearin$ < (h. pp. Misa#is Eccidental. "!-0"=. En 13 Aepte#ber 190. before the #arria$e. indicate that the couple were deeply in love. and were dis$usted because of the $reat scandal that the clandestine #arria$e would provo+e <t. ///.8 Ma#erto scaHo was handed by a #aid.scaHo"=. Ahe ac%uired 2#erican citi>enship on 8 2u$ust 1908. "final and absolute". their #atch#a+er and $o-between. a decree of divorce. indicatin$ in her application that she was sin$le. to annul her #arria$e. ?er love for )astor bec+oned4 she pleaded for his return. and. :icenta and )astor #et that day in the house of Mrs.. 19.evada. they had planned out their #arital future whereby )acita would be the $overness of their first-born4 they started savin$ #oney in a pi$$y ban+. The application was approved. was issued in open court by the said tribunal. To$ether with a friend. /n 1901 Ma#erto and Mena scaHo filed a petition with the 2rchbishop of 3ebu to annul their dau$hter9s #arria$e to )astor < (h.

)ith formal requirements . the spouses or one of the# believed in $ood faith that the person who sole#ni>ed the #arria$e was actually e#powered to do so. /t allowed the counterclai# of Ma#erto scaHo and Mena scaHo for #oral and e(e#plary da#a$es and attorney9s fees a$ainst the plaintiff-appellant. her parents. . /n not holdin$ the defendant parents Ma#erto scano and the heirs of DoHa Mena scaHo liable for da#a$es4. and otherwise %ualified4 and both consented to the #arria$e. !oth parties were then above the a$e of #a6ority. is clearly established by the record before us. -. and a$ainst the @o#an 3atholic 3hurch. /n dis#issin$ the co#plaint and in denyin$ the relief sou$ht by the plaintiff. /n not declarin$ le$al separation4 in not holdin$ defendant :icenta ".8 the plaintiff-appellant. -1. and as+ed for le$al separation and one #illion pesos in da#a$es. "ebruary 19. as re%uired by 3anon law. 5ailure to compl. for havin$. not essential to $ive the #arria$e civil effects. scaHo. but freed the plaintiff fro# supportin$ his wife and to ac%uire property to the e(clusion of his wife. which provided the followin$5 A 3. when it was perfor#ed. /t is nowhere shown that said priest was not duly authori>ed under civil law to sole#ni>e #arria$es. and that the #arria$e was perfectly le$al. is irrelevant in our civil law. which was perfor#ed by a 3atholic priest <ar#y chaplain *avares= in the presence of co#petent witnesses.000. decreed the annul#ent of the #arria$e. fro# the standpoint of our civil law. therefore. and plaintiff resorted directly to this 3ourt. )astor Tenchave>. :icenta scaHo. and.!ut on 30 &uly 1900. ssential re%uisites for #arria$e are the le$al capacity of the contractin$ parties and consent. Tenchave> had initiated the proceedin$s at bar by a co#plaint in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of 3ebu. and counterclai#ed for #oral da#a$es. a$ainst :icenta ". scaHo liable for da#a$es and in dis#issin$ the co#plaint4. 4ssential requisites. as errors of the trial court. . @ussell *eo Moran4 while her parents denied that they had in any way influenced their dau$hter9s acts. That on -. were validly #arried to each other. and the defendant-appellee. the followin$5 1. The appellant ascribes. 3 /n holdin$ the plaintiff liable for and re%uirin$ hi# to pay the da#a$es to the defendant parents on their counterclai#s4 and.o #arria$e shall be declared invalid because of the absence of one or several of the for#al re%uire#ents of this 2ct if.00.0. Ma#erto and Mena scaHo. and a#ended on 31 May 190'. who# he char$ed with havin$ dissuaded and discoura$ed :icenta fro# 6oinin$ her husband.. to the e(tent of ). and alienatin$ her affections. .3 and this is e#phasi>ed by section -1 of said #arria$e act. < #phasis supplied= The actual authority of the sole#ni>in$ officer was thus only a for#al re%uire#ent. The chaplain9s alle$ed lac+ of ecclesiastical authori>ation fro# the parish priest and the Erdinary. 1. The appealed 6ud$#ent did not decree a le$al separation. throu$h its Diocesan Tribunal. :icenta clai#ed a valid divorce fro# plaintiff and an e%ually valid #arria$e to her present husband. not only because of the separation of 3hurch and Atate but also because 2ct 3'13 of the )hilippine *e$islature <which was the #arria$e law in force at the ti#e= e(pressly provided that J A 3.

Atate of . does not ad#it absolute divorce. '0 )hil. but #erely voidable. The 3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines.. 139. &ason. even in that case. :icenta scaHo. 1=. shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or 6ud$#ents pro#ul$ated.. and those which have for their ob6ect public order.. because the #ere appearance of a non- . )ri#arily because the policy of our law cannot be nullified by acts of private parties <3ivil 3ode. even thou$h livin$ abroad. "or the )hilippine courts to reco$ni>e and $ive reco$nition or effect to a forei$n decree of absolute divorce betiveen "ilipino citi>ens could be a patent violation of the declared public policy of the state. the very act of :icenta in abandonin$ her ori$inal action for annul#ent and subse%uently suin$ for divorce i#plies an ad#ission that her #arria$e to plaintiff was valid and bindin$. in effect. to further e#phasi>e its restrictive policy on the #atter.04 "rancisco vs. entirely #ental in character." 2t the ti#e the divorce decree was issued. Ahe was then sub6ect to )hilippine law. "ro# this point of view. :icenta9s suit for annul#ent in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of Misa#is was dis#issed for non-prosecution.o. and ad#ittedly. quo ad vinculo matrimonii4 and in fact does not even use that ter#. specially in view of the third para$raph of 2rticle 11 of the 3ivil 3ode that prescribes the followin$5 )rohibitive laws concernin$ persons. . doubts as to the authority of the sole#ni>in$ priest arose only after the #arria$e. to the detri#ent of those #e#bers of our polity whose #eans do not per#it the# to so6ourn abroad and obtain absolute divorces outside the )hilippines. condition and le$al capacity of persons are bindin$ upon the citi>ens of the )hilippines. li+e her husband. and the #arria$e re#ained valid until annulled by a co#petent civil court.=4 and additionally. now in force. /t is well to note here that in the case at bar. it e(pressly prescribes that "the #arria$e bonds shall not be severed" <2rt.The $ood faith of all the parties to the #arria$e <and hence the validity of their #arria$e= will be presu#ed until the contrary is positively proved <*ao vs. This was never done.0 )hil. .oel.evada. 91 to 108=. 2rts. the truth of that contention. on $rounds of "e(tre#e cruelty. it is irrelevant that appellant )astor Tenchave> should have appeared in the . policy and $ood custo#s. ven #ore. in contrast to the precedin$ le$islation that ad#itted absolute divorce on $rounds of adultery of the wife or concubina$e of the husband <2ct -110=. . 11. subpar. such vices did not render her #arria$e a& initio void. /nstead of divorce.-. e(pressly provided5 *aws relatin$ to fa#ily ri$hts and duties or to the status. when :icenta9s parents consulted "ather @eynes and the archbishop of 3ebu. 2ct . and. /t is e%ually clear fro# the record that the valid #arria$e between )astor Tenchave> and :icenta scaHo re#ained subsistin$ and undissolved under )hilippine law. and 2rticle 10 of the 3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines <@ep.2rt. who# she char$es to have been in conspiracy with appellant Tenchave>. and assu#in$ that :icenta9s consent was vitiated by fraud and undue influence.8=. for ar$u#ent9s sa+e. ven $rantin$. notwithstandin$ the decree of absolute divorce that the wife sou$ht and obtained on -1 Ectober 1900 fro# the Aecond &udicial District 3ourt of 7ashoe 3ounty. Dee Ti#. 6a# %uot. already in force at the ti#e. their acts or property. 38'=. $ive rise to an irritatin$ and scandalous discri#ination in favor of wealthy citi>ens. Moreover. 1. !oo+ 1. the $rant of effectivity in this 6urisdiction to such forei$n divorce decrees would. 10'. was still a "ilipino citi>en. the present 3ivil 3ode only provides for legal separation <Title /:. or by deter#inations or conventions a$reed upon in a forei$n country.evada divorce court. Defendant :icenta scaHo ar$ues that when she contracted the #arria$e she was under the undue influence of )acita .

The rulin$s. and.either an unsubstantiated char$e of deceit nor an anony#ous letter char$in$ i##orality a$ainst the husband constitute. and her denial of consortium and her desertion of her husband constitute in law a wron$ caused throu$h her fault.. therefore. ade%uate e(cuse. <p. that her refusal to perfor# her wifely duties. 08 )hil. ''15 The hardship of the e(istin$ divorce laws in the )hilippine /slands are well +nown to the #e#bers of the *e$islature. in disre$ardin$ absolute divorces. when 2ct -110 beca#e effective4 and the present 3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines. li+ewise. 2s a #atter of le$al history. /n not so declarin$. 333=. 2no#alies of this +ind are not new in the )hilippines. particularly those that were rendered under our laws prior to the approval of the absolute divorce act <2ct -110 of the )hilippine *e$islature=. 1-= The appellant9s first assi$n#ent of error is. -11'=. Mory and *eona 3astro. her #arria$e and cohabitation with @ussell *eo Moran is technically "intercourse with a person not her husband" fro# the standpoint of )hilippine *aw. The fore$oin$ conclusions as to the untoward effect of a #arria$e after an invalid divorce are in accord with the previous doctrines and rulin$s of this court on the sub6ect. prior to the 2ct above#entioned. therefore. 6ustifies an action for le$al separation on the part of the innocent consort of the first #arria$e. Ef these. the trial court co##itted error. our statutes did not reco$ni>e divorces a vinculo before 1911. that stands undissolved in )hilippine law. /t is the duty of the 3ourts to enforce the laws of divorce as written by *e$islature if they are constitutional. 019=. "ro# the precedin$ facts and considerations. 2rt. The ri$ht to inherit is li#ited to le$iti#ate. True it is that our rulin$ $ives rise to ano#alous situations where the status of a person <whether divorced or not= would depend on the territory where the %uestion arises. 7herefore. fully applicable. /t follows. -mur. in effect #erely reverted to the policies on the sub6ect prevailin$ before 2ct -110. there flows as a necessary conse%uence that in this 6urisdiction :icenta scaHo9s divorce and second #arria$e are not entitled to reco$nition as valid4 for her previous union to plaintiff Tenchave> #ust be declared to be e(istent and undissolved. The children of adulterous relations are wholly e(cluded. are now. be$otten fro# :icenta9s #arria$e to *eo Moran after the invalid divorce. 2rt. the decision in "amire. the -mur case is authority for the proposition that such union is adulterous in this 6urisdiction. -on. 3ourts have no ri$ht to say that such laws are too strict or too liberal. on the basis of adultery" <@evised )enal 3ode. < #phasis supplied= (cept for the fact that the successional ri$hts of the children. . and the answer to the# was $iven in 1arretto vs. 90 )hil. therefore.resident consort cannot confer 6urisdiction where the court ori$inally had none <2rea vs. Aaid this 3ourt in that case5 2s the divorce $ranted by the "rench 3ourt #ust be i$nored. under the 3ivil 3ode of 1889. it results that the #arria$e of Dr.ales . The word "descendants" as used in 2rticle 9. &avier.)hil. . sustained. are not involved in the case at bar.1 of the 3ivil 3ode cannot be interpreted to include ille$iti#ates born of adulterous relations. . and entitles plaintiff-appellant Tenchave> to a decree of "le$al separation under our law. contrary to her clai#. could not le$ali>e their relations4 and the circu#stance that they afterwards passed for husband and wife in Awit>erland until her death is wholly without le$al si$nificance. celebrated in *ondon in 1900. for which the husband is entitled to the correspondin$ inde#nity <3ivil 3ode. The clai#s of the very children to participate in the estate of Aa#uel !ishop #ust therefore be re6ected. vs. is of particular interest. 800. le$iti#ated and ac+nowled$ed natural children.

J The law distin$uishes between the ri$ht of a parent to interest hi#self in the #arital affairs of his child and the absence of ri$hts in a stran$er to inter#eddle in such affairs. &ur. or where his advice or interference are indiscreet or unfortunate. and bein$ of a$e. )laintiff Tenchave>. 7hile this suit #ay not have been i#pelled by actual #alice. ?e #ay in $ood faith ta+e his child into his ho#e and afford hi# or her protection and support. and are belied by )astor9s own letters written before this suit was be$un < (h. A 3." "effrontery and audacity" BsicC. the plaintiff-appellant9s char$e that his wife9s parents. aided and abetted her ori$inal suit for annul#ent. 2 parent isliable for alienation of affections resultin$ fro# his own #alicious conduct.=. un%uestionably caused the# unrest and an(iety. That the spouses scaHo did not see+ to co#pel or induce their dau$hter to assent to the recelebration but respected her decision. alienated the affections of their dau$hter and influenced her conduct toward her husband are not supported by credible evidence. his child9s welfare and happiness. The testi#ony of )astor Tenchave> about the scaHo9s ani#osity toward hi# stri+es us to be #erely con6ecture and e(a$$eration.nited Atates4 for it was natural that they should not wish their dau$hter to live in penury even if they did not concur in her decision to divorce Tenchave> <-1 2#. 130-13-=. such distinction between the liability of parents and that of stran$ers is only in re$ard to what will 6ustify interference. -10--1. $ood faith bein$ always presu#ed until the contrary is proved. or that they abided by her resolve. . the #arria$e of his child not ter#inatin$ his ri$ht and liberty to interest hi#self in. the late DoHa Mena scaHo.?owever. or her subse%uent divorce4 she appears to have acted independently. /f no recelebration of the #arria$e cere#ony was had it was not due to defendants Ma#erto scaHo and his wife. and despite their shoc+ at such une(pected event. in falsely char$in$ :icenta9s a$ed parents with racial or social discri#ination and with havin$ e(erted efforts and pressured her to see+ annul#ent and divorce. out of i#proper #otives. in so doin$. ?e is not liable where he acts and advises his child in $ood faith with respect to his child9s #arital relations in the interest of his child as he sees it." @ec. as where he wron$fully entices his son or dau$hter to leave his or her spouse.. so lon$ as he has not #aliciously enticed his child away. althou$h it has been held that the parent is liable for conse%uences resultin$ fro# rec+lessness. without 6ustification and fro# unworthy #otives. "-. )laintiff was ad#itted to the scaHo house to visit and court :icenta. on 2pp. or where he acts under #ista+e or #isinfor#ation. 0-9. does not constitute in law an alienation of affections. -uardians or Nin. ven after learnin$ of the clandestine #arria$e. the char$es were certainly rec+less in the face of the proven facts . fro# his or her spouse. pp.either does the fact that :icenta9s parents sent her #oney while she was in the . Ma#erto scaHo and his wife. as $ood #anners and breedin$ de#anded. which have not been shown. of /arents. and be e(tre#ely solicitous for. ?er parents. and the record shows nothin$ to prove that he would not have been accepted to #arry :icente had he openly as+ed for her hand. %ia&ilit. she was entitled to 6ud$e what was best for her and as+ that her decisions be respected. even where his conduct and advice su$$est or result in the separation of the spouses or the obtainin$ of a divorce or annul#ent. the parents of :icenta proposed and arran$ed that the #arria$e be recelebrated in strict confor#ity with the canons of their reli$ion upon advice that the previous one was canonically defective. but he is not liable unless he acts #aliciously. entitlin$ the# to recover da#a$es. but to the refusal of :icenta to proceed with it. certainly cannot be char$ed with alienation of affections in the absence of #alice or unworthy #otives. or does not #aliciously entice or cause hi# or her to stay away. /n these letters he e(pressly apolo$i>ed to the defendants for "#is6ud$in$ the#" and for the "$reat unhappiness" caused by his "i#pulsive blunders" and "sinful pride. ?owever.scaHo" and ":icenta. This rule has #ore fre%uently been applied in the case of advice $iven to a #arried dau$hter. There is no evidence that the parents of :icenta. Dr. but it is e%ually applicable in the case of advice $iven to a son.

2rt. we are of the opinion that appellant should recover )-0.either party to recover costs. lawsuits havin$ beco#e a co##on occurrence in present society. the 3ourt rules5 <1= That a forei$n divorce between "ilipino citi>ens. and its failure was not characteri>ed by publicity or undue hu#iliation on appellant9s part4 <b= that the parties never lived to$ether4 and <c= that there is evidence that appellant had ori$inally a$reed to the annul#ent of the #arria$e. reduces the da#a$es awarded to )0. therefore. /n the assess#ent of the #oral da#a$es recoverable by appellant )astor Tenchave> fro# defendant :icente scaHo. the deceased Mena scaHo. 7hat is i#portant. 7? @ "E@ . Au##in$ up.= That an action for alienation of affections a$ainst the parents of one consort does not lie in the absence of proof of #alice or unworthy #otives on their part. the decision under appeal is hereby #odified as follows4 <1= 2d6ud$in$ plaintiff-appellant )astor Tenchave> entitled to a decree of le$al separation fro# defendant :icenta ". 7hile the filin$ of this unfounded suit #ust have wounded said defendants9 feelin$s and caused the# an(iety.0. a$ainst his patently unreasonable clai# for a #illion pesos in da#a$es. Ma#erto scaHo and Mena scaHo. and has been correctly established in the decision of the court below. is that said defendants were not $uilty of any i#proper conduct in the whole deplorable affair. entitled to validity in the country4 <-= That the re#arria$e of divorced wife and her co-habitation with a person other than the lawful husband entitle the latter to a decree of le$al separation confor#ably to )hilippine law4 <3= That the desertion and securin$ of an invalid divorce decree by one consort entitles the other to recover da#a$es4 <. we opine that the sa#e are e(cessive. subse%uently to the forei$n decree of divorce. 3ode=. 7hile appellant is unable to re#arry under our law. This 3ourt. Ma#erto scaHo and the estate of his wife. by the court below. . 3ourt actions are not established for parties to $ive vent to their pre6udices or spleen. 3iv. 88. it is proper to ta+e into account. the sa#e could in no way have seriously in6ured their reputation. sou$ht and decreed after the effectivity of the present 3ivil 3ode <@ep. bein$ a$ainst public policy <cf. Dr.and circu#stances. this fact is a conse%uence of the indissoluble character of the union that appellant entered into voluntarily and with open eyes rather than of her divorce and her second #arria$e.000 da#a$es awarded to the defendants. althou$h such a pro#ise was le$ally invalid. 2ll told.000 only by way of #oral da#a$es and attorney9s fees. is not entitled to reco$nition as valid in this 6urisdiction4 and neither is the #arria$e contracted with another party by the divorced consort. 2ct 38'=.000 by way of da#a$es and attorneys9 fees. that <a= the #arria$e was celebrated in secret.000 only. or otherwise pre6udiced the#. scaHo4 <-= Aentencin$ defendant-appellee :icenta scaHo to pay plaintiff-appellant Tenchave> the a#ount of )-0. )0. . 7ith re$ard to the ).000 for da#a$es and attorneys9 fees4 <3= Aentencin$ appellant )astor Tenchave> to pay the appellee.

for petitioner.on./. 8. leasin$ it to tenants. Tho#as 3hees#an and 3riselda ). Elon$apo 3ity= in favor of "3riselda ). )adilla.on. "iltration @oad. J. . . NAR ASA. 21. 1 . J.. did not ob6ect to the transfer bein$ #ade only to his wife. and 9aldivar. Concepcion.. 1eng." 2 Tho#as 3hees#an. C.o. "ilipino citi>en. 1... Ata. 9 En &uly 1. 5ernande. @ita.1eng. No. 1enFamin 0. Jr. IN!ERME5IA!E APPELLA!E CO>R! a%" ES!ELI!A PA5ILLA. althou$h aware of the deed. of le$al a$e. without the +nowled$e or consent of Tho#as 3hees#an. petitioner. JJ. 1991 !1OMAS C.:# This appeal concerns the atte#pt by an 2#erican citi>en <petitioner Tho#as 3hees#an= to annul J for lac+ of consent on his part J the sale by his "ilipino wife <3riselda= of a residential lot and buildin$ to stelita )adilla. Tho#as 3hees#an brou$ht suit in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance at Elon$apo 3ity a$ainst his wife. . respondents. vs. 1910 but have been separated since "ebruary 10. was dis%ualified to have any interest or ri$ht of ownership in the land4 and <3= stelita )adilla was a buyer in $ood faith. G. 3riselda. 8 2n answer was filed in the na#es of both defendants. alle$in$ that <1= the property sold was paraphernal. . 1981.on. 3hees#an were #arried on Dece#ber . 191..o. Cesa. #arried to an 2#erican citi>en. 3 ThereafterJand a$ain with the +nowled$e of Tho#as 3hees#an and also without any protest by hi#Jta( declarations for the property purchased were issued in the na#e only of 3riselda 3hees#an and 3riselda assu#ed e(clusive #ana$e#ent and ad#inistration of said property.eptune Atreet." 6 Thirty days later. for private respondent. 1981. 3riselda 3hees#an sold the property to stelita M. !akalintal.J.R. and residin$ at *ot . and stelita )adilla. of le$al a$e. 8 . 1 En &une . also a "ilipino. Di. havin$ been purchased by 3riselda with funds e(clusively belon$in$ to her <"her own separate #oney"=4 <-= Tho#as 3hees#an. 89833 :a%-ar.. or on &uly 31. 1autista Angelo. . a "Deed of Aale and Transfer of )ossessory @i$hts" was e(ecuted by 2r#ando 2ltares conveyin$ a parcel of unre$istered land and the house thereon <at . C1EESMAN. Elon$apo 3ity . 4stanislao %.1981. D The deed described 3riselda as bein$" . !l+. bein$ an 2#erican. prayin$ for the annul#ent of the sale on the $round that the transaction had been e(ecuted without his +nowled$e and consent. #arried to Tho#as 3hees#an. 3hees#an. "egala. concur. . 8ordon ?ei$hts.

which was ac%uired fro# 2r#ando 2ltares on &une ... Elon$apo 3ity. 1981.. 191. . stelita )adilla .00 as attorney9s fees and e(penses of liti$ation. stelita )adilla to be valid.. the stipulation bein$ of the followin$ tenor5 19 <1= that the property in %uestion was bou$ht durin$ the e(istence of the #arria$e between the plaintiff and the defendant 3riselda ). 1983." dis#issin$ Tho#as 3hees#an9s co#plaint and orderin$ hi# "to i##ediately turn over the possession of the house and lot sub6ect of . 198-. the parties ulti#ately a$reed on the rendition by the court of a su##ary 6ud$#ent after enterin$ into a stipulation of facts. 1910 and the %uestioned property was ac%uired so#eti#e on &une . . the parties a$reed upon certain facts which were subse%uently set out in a pre-trial Erder dated Ectober --. )adilla. and orderin$ the delivery of the property to Tho#as 3hees#an as ad#inistrator of the con6u$al partnership property. 19814 and -." 13 stelita )adilla filed a supple#ental pleadin$ on Dece#ber -0. at the hearin$ of the #otion on &une -1. 10 declarin$ void a& initio the sale e(ecuted by 3riselda 3hees#an in favor of stelita M. 3hees#an4 <-= that the property bou$ht durin$ the #arria$e was re$istered in the na#e of 3riselda 3hees#an and that the Deed of Aale and Transfer of )ossessory @i$hts e(ecuted by the for#er owner-vendor 2r#ando 2ltares in favor of 3riselda 3hees#an #ade no #ention of the plaintiff4 <3= that the property." 16 The Trial 3ourt found that J 1= the evidence on record satisfactorily overca#e the disputable presu#ption in 2rticle 1'0 of the 3ivil 3odeJthat all property of the #arria$e belon$s to the . #ista+e andNor e(cusable ne$li$ence" which had seriously i#paired her ri$ht to present her case ade%uately. .Durin$ the pre-trial conference. 9 as follows5 1. 1 8ranada At.o. was sold by defendant 3riselda 3hees#an in favor of the other defendant stelita M. That the transaction re$ardin$ the transfer of their property too+ place durin$ the e(istence of their #arria$e as the couple were #arried on Dece#ber ." accordin$ to petitioner. without the written consent of the plaintiff. 2lthou$h there was initial opposition by Tho#as 3hees#an to the #otion. "a new 6ud$e presided over the case. . the Trial 3ourt 1D rendered a "Au##ary &ud$#ent" dated 2u$ust 3. and the pay#ent to hi# of )0. The action resulted in a 6ud$#ent dated &une -.declarin$ "the sale e(ecuted by . 11 The 6ud$#ent was however set aside as re$ards stelita )adilla on a petition for relief filed by the latter. 3riselda 3hees#an in favor of . )adilla. 1983. !oth parties reco$ni>e the e(istence of the Deed of Aale over the residential house located at . .. . and sold by defendant 3riselda 3hees#an to stelita )adilla on &uly 1-. 198. $rounded on "fraud. Ebviously upon the theory that no $enuine issue e(isted any lon$er and there was hence no need of a trial. their respective #e#oranda each prayin$ for a favorable verdict. . . . ..as her own answer to the co#plaint. and a #otion for su##ary 6ud$#ent on May 11. as also stipulated. 198.000. the parties havin$ in fact sub#itted. 12 "2fter the petition for relief fro# 6ud$#ent was $iven due course. 8ordon ?ei$hts. sub6ect of the proceedin$s. <the= case to .191.

estopped to i#pu$n the transfer to stelita )adilla. it appearin$5 a= that the deed by which the property was conveyed to 3riselda 3hees#an described her as "#arried to Tho#as 3. Ence #ore. he ar$ues that it was reversible error for the /nter#ediate 2ppellate 3ourt J 1= to find that the presu#ption that the property in %uestion is con6u$al in accordance with 2rticle 1'0 had been satisfactorily overco#e by stelita )adilla4 18 -= to rule that stelita )adilla was a purchaser of said property in $ood faith.con6u$al partnership "unless it be proved that it pertains e(clusively to the husband or to the wife"Jand that the i##ovable in %uestion was in truth 3riselda9s paraphernal property4 -= that #oreover. "@eport"= 18 affir#in$ the "Au##ary &ud$#ent co#plained of. and the presu#ption of the con6u$al character of the property in %uestion pursuant to 2rticle 1'0 of the 3ivil 3ode4 <3= of disre$ardin$ the 6ud$#ent of &une -." and therefore. . 3hees#an. #ista+e andNor e(cusable ne$li$ence4" 20 ." and both said descriptions had thus "placed stelita on +nowled$e of the con6u$al nature of the property4" and b= that further#ore. not havin$ been set aside as a$ainst 3riselda 3hees#an.13 of the 3ivil 3ode. 198. . continued to be bindin$ on her4 and <. under 2rticle 1. and its resolution of #atters not sub6ect of said petition4 <-= of declarin$ valid the sale to stelita )adilla despite the lac+ of consent thereto by hi#." "havin$ found no reversible error" therein.. stelita had ad#itted to statin$ in the deed by which she ac%uired the property a price #uch lower than that actually paid "in order to avoid pay#ent of #ore obli$ation to the $overn#ent4" 19 3= to decline to declare that the evidence did not warrant the $rant of stelita )adilla9s petition for relief on the $round of "fraud." as well as the deed by which the property was later conveyed to stelita )adilla by 3riselda 3hees#an also described her as "#arried to an 2#erican citi>en. Tho#as 3hees#an appealed to the /nter#ediate 2ppellate 3ourt. Tho#as 3hees#an availed of the re#edy of appeal.which. 2ll of these contentions were found to be without #erit by the 2ppellate Tribunal which. 198'.= to hold that Tho#as 3hees#an had waived his ob6ection to stelita9s petition for relief by failin$ to appeal fro# the order $rantin$ the sa#e4 . There he assailed the Trial 3ourt acts <1= of $rantin$ stelita )adilla9s petition for relief. pro#ul$ated a decision <erroneously deno#inated. Tho#as 3hees#an was. said le$al presu#ption in 2rticle 1'0 could not apply "inas#uch as the husband-plaintiff is an 2#erican citi>en and therefore dis%ualified under the 3onstitution to ac%uire and own real properties4 and 3= that the e(ercise by 3riselda of e(clusive acts of do#inion with the +nowled$e of her husband "had led . on &anuary 1. stelita )adilla to believe that the properties were the e(clusive properties of 3riselda 3hees#an and on the faith of such a belief she bou$ht the properties fro# her and for value.= of #a+in$ findin$s of fact not supported by evidence. ?ere. this ti#e to this 3ourt.

these deter#inations of fact will not be here disturbed. on appeal. their relation4 to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation. They also #a+e unnecessary an e(tended discussion of the other issues raised by hi#. ta+e for#al e(ception= in order to preserve his ri$ht to %uestion the sa#e eventually. 22 Auch conclusions as that <1= fraud." 29 . or <-= that 3riselda 3hees#an had used #oney she had brou$ht into her #arria$e to Tho#as 3hees#an to purchase the lot and house in %uestion. 2s to the#.ow. 26 The creation of the 3ourt of 2ppeals was precisely intended to ta+e away fro# the Aupre#e 3ourt the wor+ of e(a#inin$ the evidence. "the restoration of the purchase price which stelita alle$edly paid to 3riselda4" 21 and '= to fail to declare that Tho#as 3hees#an9s citi>enship is not a bar to his action to recover the lot and house for the con6u$al partnership. to be sure. #ista+e or e(cusable ne$li$ence e(isted in the pre#ises 6ustifyin$ relief to stelita )adilla under @ule 38 of the @ules of 3ourt. These considerations dispose of the first three <3= points that petitioner 3hees#an see+s to #a+e in his appeal. 3onse%uently. #ista+e or e(cusable ne$li$ence by which stelita )adilla9s ri$hts had been substantially i#paired4 that the funds used by 3riselda 3hees#an was #oney she had earned and saved prior to her #arria$e to Tho#as 3hees#an. or his participation in the proceedin$s subse%uently had. it is a(io#atic that only %uestions of law. after assess#ent of the evidence and deter#ination of the probative value thereof. or perfor# any act thereafter <e. 2D 2s everyone +nows or ou$ht to +now. and confine its tas+ to the deter#ination of %uestions which do not call for the readin$ and study of transcripts containin$ the testi#ony of witnesses. this 3ourt havin$ been cited to no reason for doin$ so. sub6ect to certain e(ceptions. it should suffice to restate certain funda#ental propositions." 29 . /t is noteworthy that both the Trial 3ourt and the /nter#ediate 2ppellate 3ourt reached the sa#e conclusions on the three <3= factual #atters above set forth. !oth 3ourts found that the facts on record ade%uately proved fraud. the facts set out in the pleadin$s or otherwise appearin$ on record Jare conclusions or findin$s of fact.. e(istence and relevancy of specific surroundin$ circu#stances. distinctly set forth. cannot be construed as a waiver of his ob6ection to the petition for relief so as to preclude his raisin$ the sa#e %uestion on appeal fro# the 6ud$#ent on the #erits of the #ain case. or <3= that stelita )adilla believed in $ood faith that 3riselda 3hees#an was the e(clusive owner of the property that she < stelita= intended to and did in fact buyJderived fro# the evidence adduced by the parties.. and that stelita )adilla did believe in $ood faith that 3riselda 3hees#an was the sole owner of the property in %uestion. the appellate 6urisdiction of this 3ourt is li#ited to reviewin$ errors of law. ie. the failure of the party who opposed the petition to appeal fro# said order.0= to accord to stelita )adilla a relief other than that she had specifically prayed for in her petition for relief. 28 none of which however obtains in the case at bar.$. 2s distin$uished fro# a %uestion of lawJwhich e(ists "when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts" J "there is a %uestion of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alle$ed facts4" 23 or when the "%uery necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considerin$ #ainly the credibility of witnesses. 2n order of a 3ourt of "irst /nstance <now @e$ional Trial 3ourt= $rantin$ a petition for relief under @ule 38 is interlocutory and is not appealable. ?ence. acceptin$ as conclusive the factual findin$s of the lower court upon its own assess#ent of the evidence. #ay be raised in a petition for the review oncertiorari of a decision of the 3ourt of 2ppeals presented to this 3ourt. it bein$ sufficient for this purpose that he has #ade of record "the action which he desires the court to ta+e or his ob6ection to the action of the court and his $rounds therefor. Auch a party need not repeat his ob6ections to the petition for relief. 28 The rule of conclusiveness of the factual findin$s or conclusions of the 3ourt of 2ppeals is.

freely disposable by her without his consent or intervention. Aection 1. G. althou$h different fro# that stated in his petition for relief. 2rticle M/: of the 1913 3onstitution ordains that. L-D898 A0r$+ 23. she is entitled to the protection of the law in her purchase.2$ain. answer or other basic pleadin$. char$ed with +nowled$e of this prohibition. the 3ourt in its 6ud$#ent on the #erits #ay properly $rant the relief sou$ht in the petitioner9s basic pleadin$s. assu#in$ that it was his intention that the lot in %uestion be purchased by hi# and his wife. both the Trial 3ourt and the 2ppellate 3ourt havin$ found that 3hees#an9s own conduct had led her to believe the property to be e(clusive property of the latter9s wife. !onsod for appellant. at this sta$e of the proceedin$s be reviewed and overturned. 2n innocent buyer for value. vicariously and clandestinely. 7? @ "E@ .R. 2s already observed. or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the pu&lic domain. he #ay recover fro# his wife any share of the #oney used for the purchase or char$e her with unauthori>ed disposition or e(penditure of con6u$al funds is not now in%uired into4 that would be. J. and further proceedin$s are thereafter had. a$ainst his recoverin$ and holdin$ the property so ac%uired or any part thereof. he had and has no capacity or personality to %uestion the subse%uent sale of the sa#e property by his wife on the theory that in so doin$ he is #erely e(ercisin$ the prero$ative of a husband in respect of con6u$al property.ed e#cept to individuals. a purely acade#ic e(ercise. the findin$ that his wife had used her own #oney to purchase the property cannot. FRANCISCO S?CIP. this would accord to the alien husband a not insubstantial interest and ri$ht over land. the considerations 6ust set out #ilitate. particularly as a$ainst 3hees#an. 19D9 @ING MA> . . 0. of course.A. %ually obvious is that once a petition for relief is $ranted and the 6ud$#ent sub6ect thereof set aside. vs. and will not. Thus. "Save in cases of hereditar.C. To sustain such a theory would per#it indirect controversion of the constitutional prohibition. with costs a$ainst petitioner. defendant-appellant. This should be obvious. he +nowin$ly violated the 3onstitution4 the sale as to hi# was null and void. 2nd whether in such an event. No. succession. on hi$h constitutional $rounds." 30 )etitioner Tho#as 3hees#an was. corporations. the funda#ental law prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land. 2n e%ually decisive consideration is that stelita )adilla is a purchaser in $ood faith. who would assert ri$hts to the property denied hi# by both letter and spirit of the 3onstitution itself. he ac%uired no ri$ht whatever over the property by virtue of that purchase4 and in atte#ptin$ to ac%uire a ri$ht or interest in land. !ut even if it were a fact that said wife had used con6u$al funds to #a+e the ac%uisition. /f the property were to be declared con6u$al. the prayer in a petition for relief fro# 6ud$#ent under @ule 38 is not necessarily the sa#e prayer in the petitioner9s co#plaint. -allardo for appellee. /. no private land shall &e transferred or conve. plaintiff-appellee. 31 /n any event.>. the appealed decision is 2""/@M D. "inally. This is a ri$ht that the 3onstitution does not per#it hi# to have.. AE E@D @ D. Wolfson and /. in the pre#ises. as he would then have a decisive vote as to its transfer or disposition.

and costs. on which the defendant bases his contention that the transaction on the 1.ove#ber 19.. That is believable. Ma(well "assett.' by the "ortrade 3orporation to &as.000 #etric tons of coconut oil e#ulsion was not covered by the a$ency a$ree#ent.000..for interest fro# 1.'. who in turn assi$ned it to "ortrade 3orporation. all of which docu#ents. 2fter the trial where the depositions of the plaintiff and of &as.000 tons of coconut oil e#ulsion sold by the plaintiff. was one of those letters.9. The plaintiff clai#s that for that sale he is entitled under the a$ency contract dated 1 . tons and 00 per cent of the difference between the authori>ed sale price of X300 per ton and the actual sellin$ price of X. 2 #otion for reconsideration was denied. Ectober 19. J.1N. 2 #otion for a new trial was filed.of the 3he#ical !an+ V Trust 3o#pany for a su# not to e(ceed X. accordin$ to the defendant.000 due and unpaid..9.ove#ber 19.o. and X1. -01-. which was accepted by the defendant on -. . -011.ew Gor+ addressed to the defendant and accepted by the latter on the --nd day of the sa#e #onth. to$ether with lawful interests fro# 1. The clai# arises out of a ship#ent of 1.ove#ber 19.per cent on the total actual sale price of sales obtained throu$h his efforts in addition thereto 00 per cent of the difference between the authori>ed sale price and the actual sale price. The defendant is appealin$ fro# said 6ud$#ent. and yet if he paid the plaintiff a .000 #etric tons of coconut oil e#ulsion f. Ma(well "assett and several letters in connection therewith were introduced and the testi#ony of the defendant was heard.per cent co##ission on the first three coconut oil e#ulsion ship#ents.1. !oth parties a$reed that the only transaction or sale #ade by the plaintiff.nder an a$ency a$ree#ent set forth in a letter dated 1 .000 #etric tons of coconut oil e#ulsion and in the defendant the letter of credit referred to for a su# not to e(ceed X. to &as. The letter upon which defendant relies for his defense does not stipulate on the co##ission to be paid to the plaintiff as a$ent. there is no reason why he should not pay hi# the sa#e co##ission . and that the letter. in Manila.'.PA5ILLA. part of which has been paid by the defendant.00 per ton.19. there bein$ only a balance of X3. on the other hand.000 tons of coconut oil soap e#ulsion si$ned by &as.' in . to &as.o.b. the 3ourt rendered 6ud$#ent as prayed for in the co#plaint. despite the use of reasonable dili$ence. Ma(well "assett preparatory or leadin$ to the e(ecution of the a$ency a$ree#ent of 1 . Ectober 19. Ma(well "assett. for co##ission due and unpaid on the last ship#ent of 319. Ma(well "assett accepted it on -.000 tons of coconut oil e#ulsion. Ma(well "assett assi$ned by the latter to the defendant4 the letter of credit . the date of the written de#and for pay#ent. which a#ounts to X-0.'. The #otion for new trial was denied.' because it was a$reed upon on 1' Ectober 19.000 was established and who assi$ned to "ortrade 3orporation his fi$ht to the 1. could not be produced at the trial.1N.' and accepted by the defendant on -. Ma(well "assett assi$ned by the latter to the defendant4 and a letter dated 1' Dece#ber 19.00.'4 that it was an independent and separate transaction for which the plaintiff has been duly co#pensated.00. contends that the transaction for the sale of 1. The contention is not borne out by the evidence. as a$ent of the defendant. and if produced they would alter the result of the controversy./ This is an action to collect )09. the date of the written de#and.08-.1N. Dece#ber 19. supported by the defendant9s affidavit. in whose favor letter of credit .1.. the plaintiff was #ade the e(clusive a$ent of the defendant in the sale of coconut oil and its derivatives outside the )hilippines and was to be paid .'.per cent on the total actual sale price of 1. )hilippines. The defendant.ove#ber 19. The plaintiff and his witness depose that there were several drafts of docu#ents or letter prepared by &as.. was that of 1.' coverin$ the sale of 1.9-.000 #etric tons of coconut oil e#ulsion was not covered by the a$ency contract of -.ove#ber 19.ove#ber of the sa#e year to a co##ission of .0.o. based on newly discovered evidence which consists of a duplicate ori$inal of a letter dated 1' Ectober 19. as a$ent of the defendant.of the 3he#ical !an+ V Trust 3o#pany in favor of &as.

spea+in$ of the sa#e transaction.on the last ship#ent a#ountin$ to X3. referrin$ to the letter of 1' Ectober 19. The plaintiff is entitled to collect )1.per cent of all prices %uoted by #e plus 00-00 on over price. and you are to purchase fro# #e.-0.' pounds. There is no conflict of laws involved in the case. @e$ardin$ your co##ission.19..per cent co##ission plus our overprice provided you can $ive #e substantial order in order for #e to a#orti>e #y loss on this first deal. or a total of )01.ove#ber 19..000 #etric tons of coconut oil e#ulsion was a$reed upon in a docu#ent.!. -.88.1N. it #ust be enforced. shipboard.&anuary 19.'.E. the defendant says J 2s per our understandin$ when / was in the Atates the overprice is sub6ect to any increase in the cost of production. the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of Manila has no 6urisdiction over this case.000 for one-half of the overprice. . 1.00. yourself and other people that we deliver our $oods. i. as between ourselves. per #etric ton.ove#ber and accepted on -. and costs in both instances.1N. final and e(ecutory 6ud$#ent. .e. ).1 addressed to the plaintiff.089.Dece#ber 19. / a# doin$ everythin$ possible to fulfill these 1. because it is only a %uestion of enforcin$ an obli$ation created by or arisin$ fro# contract4 and unless the enforce#ent of the contract be a$ainst public policy of the foru#. because a non-resident #ay sue a resident in the courts of this country1 where the defendant #ay be su##oned and his property leviable upon e(ecution in the case of a favorable. . < (hibit A. is without #erit. / a# not tryin$ to #a+e thin$s difficult for you and / shall $ive you your . ".089. lawful interests thereon fro# the date of the filin$ of the co#plaint.. /t is understood that / a# to sell to you.= The defendant9s clai# that the a$ree#ent for the sale of the 1. /t is a personal action for the collection of a su# of #oney which the 3ourts of "irst /nstance have 6urisdiction to try and decide.ew Gor+. There can be no doubt that the sale of 1. Apecial. / want to prove to "ortrade.= The contention that as the contract was e(ecuted in .' by the defendant.' to "ortrade 3orporation where he says5 The purpose of this letter is to confir# in final for# the oral agreement which we have heretofore reached. is a$ain disproved by his letter dated . . Manila. #phasis supplied. it is understood to be ./. the defendant says J .000 tons of e#ulsion. and until such ti#e that we co#pleted this order / do not feel it very sensible on #y part to accept any #ore orders. Gour #oney pendin$ stop understand you authori>ed so#e local attorneys and #y relatives to intervene your behalf.9. durin$ the course of various conversations between us and our respective representatives upon the sub6ect #atter of this letter. because in a letter dated . <Achedule !.. <Achedule D.000 tons of coconut oil soap e#ulsion at a price of X.= /n a tele$ra# sent by the defendant to the plaintiff the for#er says J .= /n another letter dated 1' &anuary 1901 to the plaintiff. <Achedule 3. .nless such could be arran$ed / shall re#it to you for the present your co##ission upon collection fro# the ban+.88 for co##ission and )00.000 #etric tons of coconut oil e#ulsion.000 #etric tons of coconut oil e#ulsion was not a separate and independent contract fro# that of the a$ency a$ree#ent on 1 . referrin$ to the transaction of 1. .

who beca#e 2#erican citi>ens. 2rticle :/// of his will states5 /f #y wife. respondent. p.J. as trustee.R. a& Pr)&$"$%* :-"*). as substitute e(ecutor. . 5E PERE<.or. !ulacan presided by respondent &ud$e Ootico 2. R!C. <O!ICO A. 7e $rant the petition. in Apecial )roceedin$s . // Dr. "e.: This is a petition for certiorari under @ule '0 of the @evised @ules of 3ourt to set aside the Erder dated . then it shall be presu#ed that / predeceased her. and Concepcion.. . 1autista Angelo. Dr. @afael 8. En 2u$ust -3. /ere. B>IASON..2. ) @ O-3. 1'4 and &osephine. he be%ueathed all his property to his children and $randchildren with Dr.2s thus #odified the 6ud$#ent appealed fro# is affir#ed. The 3unanans lived at . and #y estate shall be ad#inistered and distributed. G. -89' 3itation Drive.ove#ber 19. velyn )ere>-3unanan. )o#pey. /n the event he would survive his wife.o.on. p. Dr. ?e appointed his wife as e(ecutri( of his last will and testa#ent and Dr. in all respects. &ocelyn. vs. 86819 :-%) 2. 7atividad T. 184 &ac%ueline. /aras. !OLE!E $% h$& ca0ac$'. be%ueathin$ to his wife "all the re#ainder" of his real and personal property at the ti#e of his death "wheresoever situated" < "ollo. Jugo.2.es. Tolete. petitioner.1=..ew Gor+. 3unanan and his wife. with costs a$ainst the appellant. C. 198' of the @e$ional Trial 3ourt.A. 1. JJ. Bra%ch 18.. 1ON. in accordance with such presu#ption <"ollo. 3unanan. . 30=. /a&lo. 1eng. 1enedicto T. . 1919. &r. 3unanan e(ecuted a last will and testa#ent. with their children. 1999 SAL>5 !EO5ORO 5A. Ayracuse.o.ew Gor+. and / shall die under such circu#stances that there is not sufficient evidence to deter#ine the order of our deaths. !ontema. : *G.2. J. concur. established a successful #edical practice in . %i&roFo for private respondents. B-+aca%. 1193-M. @afael 8. &r.. !ranch 18. for petitioner. &ose ".. No. 3unanan.

09. filed separate proceedin$s for the probate thereof with the Aurro$ate 3ourt of the 3ounty of Enonda$a.ew Gor+. as trustee and substitute e(ecutor of the two wills. Ar. petitioner posted the bond and too+ her oath as special ad#inistration. The trial court $ranted the #otion.1'0.9. !ulacan a petition for the reprobate of the two bills ancillary to the probate proceedin$s in . The followin$ day. Ar.000. 3unanan e(ecuted her own last will and testa#ent containin$ the sa#e provisions as that of the will of her husband. 1983. /n a #otion dated May 19. Malolos. "elipe ". &ose ". "ederico 2lday filed a notice of appearance as counsel for the heirs of Dr. directin$ the issuance of letters of special ad#inistration in favor of petitioner upon her filin$ of a )10. and the "a#ily Aavin$s !an+ ti#e deposit certificates in the total a#ount of )1-. assertin$5 <1= that the "3unanan collaterals are neither heirs nor creditors of the late Dr.. 1983. 2s her first act of ad#inistration. &r. 1983. En May 31. !ulacan. &ose ". his clients were unaware of the filin$ of the testate estate case and therefore. Thereafter. "in the interest of si#ple fair play. 3unanan.000. petitioner as+ed that Dr. and produced "effects in this 6urisdiction in .ew Gor+ laws. ?e prayed for defer#ent of the hearin$ on the #otions of May 19. na#ely. 3unanan and Dr. < "ollo. *ydia 3unanan /$nacio. de la *lana. !ranch 1'.00 bond. statin$ that said co#pany then filed a #anifestation. En 2pril 1.00 in savin$s deposit. on 2u$ust -1. representin$ the proceeds of the life insurance policy of Dr. &ose ".. 1983. Aalud Teodoro )ere>. filed with the @e$ional Trial 3ourt. &ose ". these two wills were ad#itted to probate and letters testa#entary were issued in his favor. !ulacan. . Dr. petitioner filed a #otion. presided by &ud$e 8ualberto &. and petitioner herein. 1983. 31=. were e(ecuted in accordance with the sole#nities and for#alities of . &EA ". issued an order. velyn ). the @e$ional Trial 3ourt. velyn ). then it shall be presu#ed that he predeceased #e. En March 9. Malolos.2.0-. and petitioner herein. prayin$ that the )hilippine *ife /nsurance 3o#pany be directed to deliver the proceeds in the a#ount of )00. @afael 8.00 of the life insurance policy ta+en by Dr. be ordered to deliver to her a )hilippine Trust 3o#pany passboo+ with )-0.80. 3. velyn )ere>-3unanan and their dau$hter &ocelyn as beneficiaries. Dr. @afael 3unanan." they should be notified of the proceedin$s <@ecords. they had "no le$al or proprietary interests to protect" and "no ri$ht to intervene"4 <-= that the wills of Dr. and / shall die under such circu#stances that there is not sufficient evidence to deter#ine the order of our deaths. statin$ that said co#pany had delivered to petitioner the a#ount of ). 198-. p. 3unanan.. En "ebruary -1. bein$ 2#erican citi>ens. 110=. 3unanan and *oreto 3unanan 3oncepcion <3unanan heirs=. in accordance with such presu#ption. p. )riscilla 3unanan !autista. and #y estate shall be ad#inistered and distributed in all respects. 3unanan and his entire fa#ily perished when they were trapped by fire that $utted their ho#e. velyn )ere>-3unanan. 2tty. 3unanan" and therefore. ?e also #anifested that before receivin$ petitioner9s #otion of May 19.. En &anuary 9."our days later. filed with the @e$ional ). 3ounsel for the )hilippine 2#erican *ife /nsurance 3o#pany then filed a #anifestation.2. Dr.1-. the #other of Dr. Dr. )etitioner then filed a counter #anifestation dated &une 13. 3unanan. Ahe also as+ed that she be appointed the special ad#inistratri( of the estate of the deceased couple consistin$ pri#arily of a far# land in Aan Mi$uel. 3unanan. 3unanan with Dr. @afael 3unanan. 3unanan..ew Gor+. &ose ". 2rticle :/// of her will states5 /f #y husband.

00 for hi#self and irre$ularly assi$ned assets of the estates to his 2#erican lawyer <@ecords. @afael 3unanan.of @ule 11 the "court shall fi( a ti#e and place for the hearin$ and cause notice thereof to be $iven as in case of an ori$inal will presented for allowance" <@ecords.00 to the 3unanan heirs. Dr.of @ule 11 is there a #ention of notice bein$ $iven to the e(ecutor who. Dr. by the sa#e provision. Thereafter. &r. was li+ewise not notified of the hearin$s in the !ulacan court4 <3= that the "#isrepresentation and conceal#ent co##itted by" petitioner rendered her unfit to be a special ad#inistratri(4 <. pp. it was presu#ed that the husband predeceased the wife4 and <. 198. @afael 3unanan.. petitioner and the 3unanan heirs had entered into an a$ree#ent in the . /n their reply. @afael 8. velyn )ere>-3unanan. should hi#self file the necessary ancillary proceedin$s in this country4 <. the 3unanan heirs stressed that on . le$atees or beneficiaries. the e(ecutor of the estate of the 3unanan spouses. Ahe also alle$ed that she had i#pu$ned the a$ree#ent of . not @ule 1'. on &uly -1. had.. because it involved the allowance of wills proved outside of the )hilippines and that nowhere in Aection .. ?owever. Ar. 3unanan.= that Dr. 1983 and for appropriatin$ #oney of the estate for his own benefit. 1983.before the Aurro$ate 3ourt of Enonda$a. velyn )ere>-3unanan to the e(clusion of the "3unanan collaterals"4 hence they were co#plete stran$ers to the proceedin$s and were not entitled to notice4 <-= that she could not have "concealed" the na#e and address of Dr. petitioner as special ad#inistratri( of the estates of Dr. @afael 8.nited Atates "to settle and divide e%ually the estates. Dr. the 3unanan heirs filed a #otion re%uirin$ petitioner to sub#it an inventory or accountin$ of all #onies received by her in trust for the estate. 101-1'0=. 118-1--=." and that under Aection .000. 3unanan. petitioner asserted5 <1= that she was the "sole and only heir" of her dau$hter. be cited for conte#pt of court for failure to co#ply with the Erder of &une -3.. @afael 3unanan. 18.000. 3unanan. findin$ that "all assets . )etitioner as+ed that Dr. they had been "deliberately e(cluded" in the petition for the probate of the separate wills of the 3unanan spouses thereby #isleadin$ the !ulacan court to believe that petitioner was the sole heir of the spouses4 that such "#isrepresentation" deprived the# of their ri$ht to "due process in violation of Aection . be appointed the re$ular ad#inistrator of the estate of the deceased spouses. &ose ". the probate court $ranted petitioner9s #otion of May 19. 11--113=. authori>ed his father. &r. &ose ". &ose ". 3unanan and Dr. to be his attorney-in-fact4 and <0= that Dr. the 3unanan heirs filed a #otion to nullify the proceedin$s and to set aside the appoint#ent of. 3unanan. The #otion stated5 <1= that bein$ the "brothers and sisters and the le$al and survivin$ heirs" of Dr. they prayed5 <1= that the proceedin$s in the case be declared null and void4 <-= that the appoint#ent of petitioner as special ad#inistratri( be set aside4 and <3= that Dr. 3unanan.ove#ber -.ew Gor+ which rendered a decision on 2pril 13. 3unanan. because his na#e was pro#inently #entioned not only in the two wills but also in the decrees of the 2#erican surro$ate court4 <3= that the rule applicable to the case is @ule 11. pp. 3unanan" <@ecords. @afael 8.ew Gor+ <@ecords. /n her opposition. pp. 198-.ove#ber -. &r. @afael 8.. En &une -3. had unlawfully disbursed X-10. . or to dis%ualify. 1983. 3unanan. is %ualified to be a re$ular ad#inistrator "as practically all of the sub6ect estate in the )hilippines belon$s to their brother. &ose ". 1' in relation to 2rt. #uch less. he had willed all his worldly $oods to his wife and nothin$ to his brothers and sisters4 and <0= that Dr. #isappropriated X10.180=.= that "the 3unanan collaterals are neither distributees. &r. Ar. by virtue of a verified power of attorney. ?ence. @ule 1' of the @evised @ules of 3ourt4 <-= that Dr. &r. heirs as heirship is only by institution" under a will or by operation of the law of . 81' of the 3ivil 3ode"4 <3= that under 2rticle :/// of the two wills. pp.accordance with 2rt. Ar.= that even if the !ulacan estate ca#e fro# the "capital" of Dr. @afael 8.

the 3unanan heirs replied that petitioner was estopped fro# clai#in$ that they were heirs by the a$ree#ent to divide e%ually the estates. velyn ). statin$ that in violation of the 2pril 13. 1983 decision of the 2#erican court Dr. closed <@ecords. petitioner filed a #otion prayin$ for . chattels and #onies which she had received and to surrender the sa#e to the court4 and <. 1980. issued an order statin$ that "<7=hen the last will and testa#ent . e(ecutors. was denied probate. /n the absence of such evidence. En "ebruary -1.ew Gor+ on procedure and allowance of wills and the court had no way of tellin$ whether the wills were e(ecuted in accordance with the law of . a re%uire#ent of the )hilippine law. En 2u$ust 1-. disallowin$ the reprobate of the two wills.1 subd BaC par B. 3unanan. p.-1. Erder by re%uirin$ petitioner to turn over to the estate the inventoried property. 3unananKs e(ecutor to be then distributed pursuant to )T*. where she had sufficiently proven the applicable laws of . 1980. The 3unanans heirs opposed this #otion and filed a #anifestation. En the sa#e day. he noted.ew Gor+. Malolos. the presu#ption is that the law of succession of the forei$n country is the sa#e as the law of the )hilippines.C" <"ollo. They asserted that by virtue of Aection . &ud$e de la *lana reasoned out that petitioner failed to prove the law of . &ud$e de la *lana issued another order. p. 30-=. the 3unanans filed a #otion for the reconsideration of the ob6ectionable portion of the said order so that it would confor# with the pertinent provisions of the &udiciary @eor$ani>ation 2ct of 1980 and the /nteri# @ules of 3ourt. The sa#e Erder a#ended the "ebruary -1. denyin$ the #otion of petitioner for the suspension of the proceedin$s but $ave her 10 days upon arrival in the country within which to act on the other order issued that sa#e day.are payable to Dr. . p. p. )etitioner filed a re6oinder.ove#ber -. the respondent &ud$e of !ranch 18 of the @e$ional Trial 3ourt. @afael 8. 198. to which the reprobate case was reassi$ned. that there were only two witnesses to the wills of the 3unanan spouses and the )hilippine law re%uires three witnesses and that the wills were not si$ned on each and every pa$e. . #ade "unauthori>ed disburse#ents fro# the estates as early as &uly 1. devisees and le$atees #ust be co#plied with. 198. p. &ud$e de la *lana issued an order. En 2pril 30. re%uirin$ the sub#ission of petitioner of an inventory of the property received by her as special ad#inistratri( and declarin$ all pendin$ incidents #oot and acade#ic. 0-=. @afael 3unanan.of @ule 11 of the @ules of 3ourt.8=. petitioner filed a #otion for reconsideration of the Erder dated "ebruary -1.<@ecords. statin$ that petitioner had received X-10." the case was ter#inated and therefore all orders theretofore issued should be $iven finality. recallin$ the appoint#ent of petitioner as special ad#inistratri(. &r.00 "fro# the Aurro$ateKs 3ourt as part of le$acy" based on the aforesaid a$ree#ent of . -. Ar.ew Gor+ $overnin$ the e(ecution of last wills and testa#ents. the provisions of Aections 3. petitioner #oved for the suspension of the proceedin$s as she had "to attend to the settle#ent proceedin$s" of the estate of the 3unanan spouses in . -31=. En 2u$ust -1. -.. They reiterated their prayer5 <1= that the proceedin$s in the case be nullified4 <-= that petitioner be dis%ualified as special ad#inistratri(4 <3= that she be ordered to sub#it an inventory of all $oods. be appointed the re$ular ad#inistrator.. ?owever. petitioner filed a #otion to resu#e proceedin$s on account of the final settle#ent and ter#ination of the probate cases in . .ew Gor+ <@ecords. Three days later. and 0 of @ule 1' on the re%uire#ent of notice to all heirs. 198. 198-" <@ecords. 3ontendin$ that the second portion of the second order left its finality to the discretion of counsel for petitioner.000.-=..= that Dr. Thereafter. En their part. 198. /t considered the proceedin$s for all intents and purposes.ew Gor+.

198'. 198. 391=. En &uly 18. 198'. 390=. 313-3-3=. ?e $ranted petitioner . 393=. 198' pro#pted petitioner to file a second #otion for reconsideration statin$ that she was "ready to sub#it further evidence on the law obtainin$ in the Atate of . Erder $rantin$ her a period of 10 days upon arrival in the country within which to act on the denial of probate of the wills of the 3unanan spouses. 198. respondent &ud$e $ranted the #otion and reconsidered the Erder of 2pril 30.. 198'" but allowed petitioner to "file anew the appropriate probate proceedin$s for each of the testator" <@ecords. Ahe also filed a #otion for the reconsideration of the Erder of "ebruary -1. Thereafter. pp.atividad.ew &ersey. 198'. she <the counsel= should be na#ed substitute special ad#inistratri(. they were dealt with in separate proceedin$s" <@ecords. filed a #otion prayin$ that since petitioner was ailin$ in "ort *ee. p.0 days to sub#it the evidence to that effect. respondent &ud$e ruled in his order dated &une -0. p. . and therefore incapacitated to act as special ad#inistratri(. without waitin$ for petitioner to adduce the additional evidence. 381=. ." ?e pointed out that even in .. 198'. ?owever. respondent &ud$e said that the docu#ents did not establish the law of . .ew Gor+ "where the wills in %uestion were first sub#itted for probate. which all refer to the offer and ad#ission to probate of the last wills of the 3unanan spouses includin$ all procedures underta+en and decrees issued in connection with the said probate" <@ecords. counsel for petitioner. respondent &ud$e to which the case was reassi$ned denied the #otion for reconsideration holdin$ that the docu#ents sub#itted by petitioner proved "that the wills of the testator do#iciled abroad were properly e(ecuted. the 3unanans heirs filed a #otion for reconsideration of the Erder of 2u$ust 19. 2fter the hearin$ of the #otion on 2pril -0. . $enuine and sufficient to possess real and personal property4 that letters testa#entary were issued4 and that proceedin$s were held on a forei$n tribunal and proofs ta+en by a co#petent 6ud$e who in%uired into all the facts and circu#stances and bein$ satisfied with his findin$s issued a decree ad#ittin$ to probate the wills in %uestion. respondent &ud$e denied the #otion holdin$ that to allow the probate of two wills in a sin$le proceedin$ "would be a departure fro# the typical and established #ode of probate where one petition ta+es care of one will. En 2u$ust -9. En 2u$ust 13. En 2u$ust 19. En 2pril 9. who happens to be her dau$hter. 198' that he found "no co#pellin$ reason to disturb its rulin$ of March 31.ew Gor+ on the procedure and allowance of wills <@ecords. alle$in$ lac+ of notice to their counsel.2. The Erder dated &une -0. 198'. En March 31." ?owever. 1980 on the stren$th of the "ebruary -1. Ahe pointed out that separate proceedin$s for the wills of the spouses which contain basically the sa#e provisions as they even na#ed each other as a . respondent &ud$e issued an order wherein he conceded that insufficiency of evidence to prove the forei$n law was not a fatal defect and was curable by adducin$ additional evidence. citin$ Aection 3. denyin$ probate to the wills of the 3unanan spouses.ew Gor+ has on the probate and allowance of wills" <@ecords. 1980.ew Gor+" and prayin$ that she be $ranted "the opportunity to present evidence on what the law of the Atate of . which provides that no party #ay institute #ore than one suit for a sin$le cause of action.the reconsideration of the Erder of 2pril 30. 1980. petitioner filed a #otion for the reconsideration of the Erder of &uly 18. @ule . p. p.A.of the @ules of 3ourt. petitioner filed a #otion to allow her to present further evidence on the forei$n law. . alle$in$ that respondent &ud$e "failed to appreciate the si$nificant probative value of the e(hibits .

p. En . 198'.11=. ar$uin$ that the evidence offered at the hearin$ of 2pril 11. pp. would $o a$ainst "the $rain of ine(pensive. ?ence. petitioner stated that she had furnished a copy of the #otion to the counsel of the 3unanan heirs and reiterated her #otion for a "final rulin$ on her supple#ental #otion" <@ecords. ""-'" and (h. """ and "8"=4 <b= two certifications fro# the Aecretary of Atate of . but respondent &ud$e found that this pleadin$ had been filed out of ti#e and that the adverse party had not been furnished with a copy thereof. and that the Aurro$ate is duly authori>ed to $rant copy of the respective wills of velyn and &ose < (hs. <$= certifications fro# the Aecretary of Atate that &ud$e @ea$an is duly authori>ed to $rant e(e#plified copies of the decree of probate. .ew Gor+ < (h. Moore statin$ that they have in their records and files the said wills which were recorded on 2pril 1.ove#ber 19. 1983 sufficiently proved the laws of the Atate of .01=. letters testa#entary and all proceedin$s had and proofs duly ta+en < (hs. pp. @ea$an is the Aurro$ate of the 3ountry of Enonda$a which is a court of record. citin$ 1enigno v. 198.beneficiary in their respective wills. "8-3" J "8'"=4 <e= certificates of &ud$e @ea$an and the 3hief 3ler+ certifyin$ to the $enuineness and authenticity of the e(e#plified copies of the two wills < (hs. 6ust and speedy deter#ination of the proceedin$s" <@ecords. ""-3".-1=. /n her co#pliance. petitioner instituted the instant petition. and that the separate wills of the 3unanan spouses need not be probated in separate proceedin$s.< (hs. En Aepte#ber 11. // )etitioner contends that the followin$ pieces of evidence she had sub#itted before respondent &ud$e are sufficient to warrant the allowance of the wills5 <a= two certificates of authentication of the respective wills of velyn and &ose by the 3onsulate 8eneral of the )hilippines < (hs. petitioner filed a supple#ent to the #otion for reconsideration. that his si$nature and seal of office are $enuine. . ""--" and "8--"=4 <d= the respective wills of velyn and &ose < (hs. p. . denyin$ the #otion for reconsideration filed by petitioner on the $rounds that "the probate of separate wills of two or #ore different persons even if they are husband and wife cannot be underta+en in a sin$le petition" <@ecords. ""-1" and ""-1"=4 <f= two certificates of authentication fro# the 3onsulate 8eneral of the )hilippines in . 01 )hil. ""-1" and "8-1"=4 <c= two certificates of &ud$e @ea$an and 3hief 3ler+ Donald . "?-1" and "/-1"=4 . De %a /e a. 300 <193-= <@ecords. respondent &ud$e issued an order. "?" and """=.ew Gor+ and 3ustodian of the 8reat Aeal on the facts that &ud$e !ernard *.00-.ew Gor+ on the allowance of wills. 31'-318=.

The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which have been probated outside of the )hilippines are as follows5 <1= the due e(ecution of the will in accordance with the forei$n laws4 <-= the testator has his do#icile in the forei$n country and not in the )hilippines4 <3= the will has been ad#itted to probate in such country4 <.-94 Auntay v. pp. 1910 ed. . Auntay. "?-0" and "/-0"=4 and <l= certificates of &ud$e @ea$an and the 3hief 3ler+ on the $enuineness and authenticity of each otherKs si$natures in the e(e#plified copies of the decrees of probate. $enuine and valid and that the said instru#ents were ad#itted to probate and established as wills valid to pass real and personal property < (hs. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the )hilippines if #ade with the for#alities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides. 000 B190. scolin. will only be effective in this country upon co#pliance with the followin$ provision of the 3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines5 2rt. )hil. 81'. the petitioner sub#itted all the needed evidence. "?--" and "/--"=4 <i= certification to the effect that it was durin$ the ter# of &ud$e @ea$an that a decree ad#ittin$ the wills to probate had been issued and appointin$ @afael 8.ew Gor+ laws or by )hilippine laws is i#perative. or in confor#ity with those which this 3ode prescribes.ove#ber -9. or accordin$ to the for#alities observed in his country.. )etitioner #ust have perceived this o#ission as in fact she #oved for #ore ti#e to sub#it the pertinent procedural and substantive . 90 )hil. 3unanan < (hs. 0.. 0' A3@2 -'' B191. 198. 1983 and that the proceedin$s were ter#inated on . "?-3" and "/-10"=4 <6= the decrees on probate of the two wills specifyin$ that proceedin$s were held and proofs duly ta+en < (hs.C=. and <0= the laws of a forei$n country on procedure and allowance of wills </// Moran 3o##entaries on the @ules of 3ourt. 3unanan as alternate e(ecutor < (hs. )etitioner adds that the wills had been ad#itted to probate in the Aurro$ate 3ourtKs Decision of 2pril 13. The respective wills of the 3unanan spouses. Thus. pp. (cept for the first and last re%uire#ents.C4 "lue#er v. "?-'" and "/'"= <"ollo. who were 2#erican citi>ens.ew Gor+ laws but which re%uest respondent &ud$e 6ust $lossed over. letters testa#entary and proceedin$s held in their court < (hs.= the fact that the forei$n tribunal is a probate court. '10 B1930C=. proof that both wills confor# with the for#alities prescribed by ." and "/-0"=4 <+= decrees on probate of the two wills statin$ that they were properly e(ecuted. "?-.19-.<h= certificates of &ud$e @ea$an and the 3hief 3ler+ that letters testa#entary were issued to @afael 8. ?i(. 7hile the probate of a will is a special proceedin$ wherein courts should rela( the . 13-1'=. The necessity of presentin$ evidence on the forei$n laws upon which the probate in the forei$n country is based is i#pelled by the fact that our courts cannot ta+e 6udicial notice of the# <)hilippine 3o##ercial and /ndustrial !an+ v.

and devisees of the testator resident in the )hilippines" and to the e(ecutor. le$atees. velyn )ere> 3unanan and because she does not consider herself an heir of Dr. 181 A3@2 1.C=." 2 literal application of the @ules should be avoided if they would only result in the delay in the ad#inistration of 6ustice <2cain v. de @a#os v. @ule 1 of the @evised @ules of 3ourt. the $oal is to receive the best evidence of which the #atter is susceptible before a purported will is probated or denied probate <:da. the 3unanan spouses e(ecuted separate wills. . which advise that the rules shall be "liberally construed in order to pro#ote their ob6ect and to assist the parties in obtainin$ 6ust. she noticeably failed to notify his heirs of the filin$ of the proceedin$s. the will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an "ori$inal will" or a will that is presented for probate for the first ti#e. &ose ". 3unanan. 2ccordin$ly. . contrary to petitioner9s clai#. 2rticle 818=. speedy. . /n the case at bench.nder Aection . 3unanan are $iven all notices and copies of all pleadin$s pertinent to the probate proceedin$s. This petition cannot be co#pletely resolved without touchin$ on a very $larin$ fact J petitioner has always considered herself the sole heir of Dr. @ule -1. The brothers and sisters of Dr. even in the instant petition. &ose ". Auch view overloo+s the provisions of Aection -. Dela )a>. *eonidas. and devisees of the testator. of @ule 1'. /nter#ediate 2ppellate 3ourt. practical considerations dictate their 6oint probate. which re%uire publication and notice by #ail or personally to the "+nown heirs. 81 A3@2 393 B1918C=. 7hat the law e(pressly prohibits is the #a+in$ of 6oint wills either for the testatorKs reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person <3ivil 3ode of the )hilippines. There is #erit in petitionerKs insistence that the separate wills of the 3unanan spouses should be probated 6ointly. .3 B1990C=. -10 A3@2 81' B199-C=. " 7? @ "E@ . &ose ". it will always strive to settle the entire controversy in a sin$le proceedin$ leavin$ no root or branch to bear the seeds of future liti$ation <Motoo#ull v. . AE E@D @ D. 100 A3@2 100 B1981C4 @oberts v. @espondent &ud$eKs view that the @ules on allowance of wills is couched in sin$ular ter#s and therefore should be interpreted to #ean that there should be separate probate proceedin$s for the wills of the 3unanan spouses is too literal and si#plistic an approach. for$ettin$ that a 6ud$e whose order is bein$ assailed is #erely a no#inal or for#al party <3alderon v. and ine(pensive deter#ination of every action and proceedin$. are re%uired.rules on evidence. @espondent &ud$e shall allow petitioner reasonable ti#e within which to sub#it evidence needed for the 6oint probate of the wills of the 3unanan spouses and see to it that the brothers and sisters of Dr. the %uestioned Erder is A T 2A/D . The rule that the court havin$ 6urisdiction over the reprobate of a will shall "cause notice thereof to be $iven as in case of an ori$inal will presented for allowance" <@evised @ules of 3ourt. if he is not the petitioner. 3ourt of 2ppeals. Aection -= #eans that with re$ard to notices. Thus. Aolicitor 8eneral. 2s this 3ourt has held a nu#ber of ti#es. she only i#pleaded respondent &ud$e. are entitled to notices of the ti#e and place for provin$ the wills. le$atees. co#pliance with Aections 3 and . of @ule 1' of the @evised @ules of 3ourt. the "court shall also cause copies of the notice of the ti#e and place fi(ed for provin$ the will to be addressed to the desi$nated or other +nown heirs. Aince the two wills contain essentially the sa#e provisions and pertain to property which in all probability are con6u$al in nature. 1-9 A3@2 33 B198. 3unanan.

000 pesos because the #ayor was li+e a brother to #e. and :ille$as is still #ayor. :. :ille$as denounced the investi$ation as an invasion of his fa#ily9s privacy. .o. as prayed for. 10. vs. 3 More specifically.pon petitioner9s postin$ a bond of )1. Bra%ch I. C+)rG o( Co-r'.respondents.. the issuance of a writ of preli#inary in6unction.00.000. 7itnesses who had helped hi# out under curious circu#stance were as+ed to e(plain in court. a wee+ly news #a$a>ine4 the petition. /nc.B. /nc. an investi$ation was launched. 1981 !IME. AN!ONIO :.100= without interest because he was the #ayor9s co#padre. therein plaintiffs <herein respondents= 2ntonio &.. with preli#inary in6unction. petitioner.L. entitled "3orruption in 2sia". 1ON. Ti#e. :ille$as and &uan )once nrile see+ to recover fro# the herein petitioner da#a$es upon an alle$ed libel arisin$ fro# a publication of Ti#e <2sia dition= #a$a>ine. does not alle$e the petitioner9s le$al capacity to sue in the courts of the )hilippine. INC.. S. this 3ourt. in part./E :/** 82A.03. Ene $overn#ent official ad#itted lendin$ :ille$as )30. !analo M 5eliciano for petitioner. 10. the plaintiffs9 co#plaint alle$es. 2 /n the aforesaid 3ivil 3ase . Co-r' o( F$r&' I%&'a%c) o( R$Fa+. :ille$as and &uan )once nrile vs. 2. a& :-"*) o( 'h) Co-r' o( F$r&' I%&'a%c) o( R$Fa+. in its issue of 18 2u$ust 19'1. Angel C. 1 is an 2#erican corporation with principal offices at @oc+etfeller 3enter.o..: )etition for certiorari and prohibition. entitled "2ntonio &. a& 5)0-'.R. to annul certain orders of the respondent 3ourt of "irst /nstance of @i>al. on 10 2pril 19'8. ILLEGAS a%" :>AN PONCE ENRILE. The petition alle$es that petitioner Ti#e. however. 2n assistant declared he had $iven :ille$as loans without collateral because he re$arded the boss as #y own son. and Ti#e-*ife /nternational.TE. ELISEO S. . 2 wealthy Manila business#an testified that he had lent :ille$as9 wife 10. J.000 pesos <X1. reads. L-28882 Ma. ordered. Sala. AN5RES RE?ES. inter alia that5 . Cru. and to prohibit the said court fro# further proceedin$ with the said civil case. )ublisher of 9Ti#e9 Ma$a>ine <2sia dition=". 7hen it was discovered last year that the #ayor9s coffers contained far #ore pesos than see#ed reasonable in the li$ht of his inco#e. G. %a) 2ffice for respondents. <ARI.ew Gor+ 3ity. issued in its 3ivil 3ase . %una. 31.03.. RE?ES. which. and is the publisher of "Ti#e". No..ar. of an essay. The case was dis#issed on a technicality. is a case in point. as follows5 The proble# of Manila9s #ayor. 7ith that.cip.G. .

. discredit and put in public conte#pt the )laintiffs.. )etitioner received the su##ons and a copy of the co#plaint at its offices in . 7hether or not. particularly )laintiff Mayor 2ntonio &. on its #otion to dis#iss.000.3'3 the respondent 3ourt of "irst /nstance of @i>al has 6urisdiction to ta+e co$ni>ance of the civil suit for da#a$es arisin$ fro# an alle$edly libelous publication. whether or not . on -1 Dece#ber 19'1. corruption and nepotis#4 that said publication particularly referred to )laintiff Mayor 2ntonio &.".o. on -0 .ew Gor+ on 13 Dece#ber 19'1 and. . relyin$ upon the provisions of @epublic 2ct . The orders for the ta+in$ of the said depositions. falsely and #aliciously i#putin$ to )laintiffs the co##ission of the cri#es of $raft. En 30 March 19'8. as well as disruption of public service do not appear indubitable. in connection with the activities and operations in the )hilippines of the petitioner. and the writ of attach#ent are sou$ht to be annulled in the petition. previously adverted to.. the respondent 6ud$e. Muller V )hipps <Manila= *td. published a libelous article. There is no dispute that at the ti#e of the publication of the alle$edly offendin$ essay.ove#ber 19'1. nri%ue>.100. . issued a writ of attach#ent on the real and personal estate of Ti#e. respondent court deferred the deter#ination of the #otion to dis#iss until after trial of the case on the #erits. conspirin$ and confederatin$. :ille$as in lendin$ the latter appro(i#ately )30. corruption and nepotis# in 2sia4 that said publication without any doubt referred to co-plaintiff &uan )once nrile as the hi$h $overn#ent official who helped under curious circu#stances )laintiff Mayor 2ntonio &. Ti#e-*ife international". $ranted the# leave to ta+e the depositions "of Mr. before trial.. :ille$as as a case in point in connection with $raft. /nc. 2nthony 8on>ales. and to have action ta+en.ove#ber 19'1.00= without interest because he was the Mayor9s co#padre4 that the purpose of said )ublications is to cause the dishonor. for deferrin$ deter#ination of the #otion to dis#iss.<. and because %uestions involvin$ harass#ent and inconvenience.= Defendants. the court havin$ considered that the $rounds relied upon in the #otion do not appear to be indubitable. 3esar !.00 <X1. is not applicable to actions a$ainst non-resident defendants. a#endin$ 2rticle 3'0 of the @evised )enal 3ode. respectively. with offices in the 3ity of Manila.3'3. :ille$as. it filed a #otion to dis#iss the co#plaint for lac+ of 6urisdiction and i#proper venue. and for reaffir#in$ the defer#ent. )etitioner #oved for reconsideration of the defer#ent private respondents a$ain opposed.o. and "Mr.ndersecretary of "inance and concurrently 2ctin$ 3o##issioner of 3usto#s. publicly. petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition. En #otion of the respondents-plaintiffs. considerin$ that the action was instituted by public officers whose offices were in the 3ity of Manila at the ti#e of the publication4 if it has no 6urisdiction. private respondents 2ntonio :ille$as and &uan )once nrile were the Mayor Ef the 3ity of Manila and . . under the provisions of @epublic 2ct . on -1 . respondent 6ud$e issued an order re-affir#in$ the previous order of defer#ent for the reason that "the rule laid down under @epublic 2ct.3'3. /n an order dated -' "ebruary 19'8. )rivate respondents opposed the #otion. and. The issues in this case are5 1." "ailin$ in its efforts to discontinue the ta+in$ of the depositions.

. is further a#ended to read as follows5 92@T.3'3 is applicable to action a$ainst a forei$n corporation or nonresident defendant.3'3. and the fact that such )hilippine )ress 3ouncil has . which are relevant to the resolution of the fore$oin$ issues. the newspaper#en in the )hilippines shall or$ani>e.u#bered Twelve hundred and ei$hty-nine. J 2ny person who shall publish. 7hether or not @epublic 2ct . or cause the publication or e(hibition of any defa#ation in writin$ or by si#ilar #eans. and in case such public officer does not hold office in the 3ity of Manila. e(hibit. the action shall be filed in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of the province or city where he actually resides at the ti#e of the co##ission of the offense or where the libelous #atter is printed and first published4 /rovided. 2rticle three hundred si(ty of the @evised )enal 3ode. shall be responsible for the sa#e. within thirty days fro# its approval. furthermore. as a#ended by @epublic 2ct . That this a#end#ent shall not apply to cases of written defa#ations. the action shall be filed in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of the province or city where he held office at the ti#e of the co##ission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual. a private a$ency of the said newspaper#en. /ersons responsi&le. shall be filed si#ultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the ti#e of the co##ission of the offense4 /rovided. The cri#inal and civil action for da#a$es in cases of written defa#ations as provided for in this chapter. 3'0. ho)ever. further. the civil andNor cri#inal actions which have been filed in court at the ti#e of the effectivity of the law ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( Aec. shall ac%uire 6urisdiction to the e(clusion of other courts4 2nd provided finally. )rovisions of @epublic 2ct . #a$a>ine or serial publication.o.its erroneous assu#ption of 6urisdiction #ay be challen$ed by a forei$n corporation by writ of certiorari or prohibition4 and -. and censure any newspaper#an or newspaper $uilty of any violation of the said 3ode. 3. That the court where the cri#inal action or civil action for da#a$es is first filed. That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the 3ity of Manila at the ti#e of the co##ission of the offense. read. the action shall be filed in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of the 3ity of Manila or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published. and elect the #e#bers of. whose function shall be to pro#ul$ate a 3ode of thics for the# and the )hilippine press investi$ate violations thereof. That the civil action shall be filed in the sa#e court where the cri#inal action is filed and vice versa4 /rovided. as follows5 Aection 1. The author or editor of a boo+ or pa#phlet. a )hilippine )ress 3ouncil. shall be responsible for the defa#ations contained therein to the e(tent as if he were the author thereof. This 2ct shall ta+e effect only if and when. or the editor or business #ana$er of a daily newspaper.

for the law to $ive to public officers with office in Manila the second option of filin$ a cri#inal case in the court of the place where the libelous article is printed and first published if the defendant is a forei$n corporation and that. it is clear that the only place left for the# wherein to file their action. the proviso li#its hi# to two <-= choices of venue. such defendant #ay not invo+e its provisions4 that a forei$n corporation is not inconvenienced by an out-of-town libel suit4 that it would be absurd and incon$ruous. ?ere. in order that the prosecution of the action should interfere as little as possible with the dischar$e of his official duties and labors. further#ore. at the ti#e of the co##ission of the offense. to protect "the interest of the public service" where one of the offended parties is a public officer.. for several reasons. 3on$ress did not intend to protect non-resident defendants as shown by Aection 3.been or$ani>ed and its #e#bers have been duly elected in accordance herewith shall be ascertained and proclai#ed by the )resident of the )hilippines. The i#plication of respondents9 ar$u#ent is that the law would not ta+e effect as to non-resident defendants or accused. . as petitioner Ti#e. inconveniences and harass#ents" and. . and no ter#s are e#ployed therein to indicate that the law can or will be effective only as to so#e.3'3 is not applicable where the action is a$ainst non-e(istent defendant. the rule was understood to #ean that publications in another state are not covered by venue statutes of the foru#. !ut respondents-plaintiffs ar$ue that @epublic 2ct . /f the offended party is a public officer in the office in the 3ity of Manila. .o. as introduced into the )enal 3ode throu$h its a#end#ents by @epublic 2ct . whether the offended party or plaintiff is a public officer or a private individual4 and second. . na#ely. which provides for the effectivity of the statute only if and when the "newspaper#en in the )hilippines" have or$ani>ed a ")hilippine )ress 3ouncil" whose function shall be to pro#ul$ate a 3ode of thics for "the#" and "the )hilippine press"4 and since a non-resident defendant is not in a position to co#ply with the conditions i#posed for the effectivity of the statute.ndersecretary of "inance nrile. first. Aince the offendin$ publication was not printed in the )hilippines.3'3. 7e see nothin$ in the te(t of the law that would sustain such une%ual protection to so#e of those who #ay be char$ed with libel.nder the first proviso in section 1. of the law is clear5 a libeled public official #i$ht sue in the court of the locality where he holds office. was intended "to #ini#i>e or li#it the filin$ of out-of-town libel suits" to protect an alle$ed offender fro# "hardships. the law tolerates the interference with the libeled officer9s duties only for the sa+e of avoidin$ unnecessary harass#ent of the accused. the alternative venue was not open to respondent Mayor :ille$as of Manila and . The official procla#ation that a )hilippine )ress 3ouncil has been or$ani>ed is #ade a pre-condition to the effectivity of the entire @epublic 2ct . They ur$e that. The only alternative allowed hi# by law is to prosecute those responsible for the libel in the place where the offendin$ article was printed and first published. since the respondents-plaintiffs are public officers with offices in Manila at the ti#e of the co##ission of the alle$ed offense. .3'3. in the 3ourt of "irst instance of the 3ity of Manila or in the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published . /nc.o. but not all." The co#plaint lod$ed in the court of @i>al by respondents does not alle$e that the libelous article was printed and first published in the province of @i>al and. The li#itation of the choices of venue. is the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of Manila." 9 The intent. under the "sin$le publication" rule which ori$inated in the . the venue of a civil action for da#a$es in cases of written defa#ations is locali>ed upon the basis of.3'3.nited Atates and i#ported into the )hilippines.. if he is a public officer. of those that #ay be char$ed with libelin$ our public officers.. who were the offended parties.o. whether his office is in Manila or not in Manila. in the absence of an e(tradition treaty. in enactin$ @epublic 2ct .

directly bind or affect property or persons beyond the li#its of the state..o. 0nc .4 They also invo+e the rulin$ in !arshall$Wells Co. 0nc. which provides5 A 3. boo+. Ce&u Stevedoring Co.ot only this. 0nc. conferrin$ 6urisdiction in cases of libel a$ainst )ublic officials to specified courts. These rules are not pertinent in the present sche#e because the nu#ber of causes of action that #ay be available to the respondents-plaintiffs is not here in issue.3'3 should be dee#ed #andatory for the party brin$in$ the action.. and no court which is only a creature of the state. . @espondents rely on section '9 of the 3orporation law.o." . 2t any rate. and see#s to be favored by the 2#erican *aw /nstitute. and no other. under which any sin$le inte$rated publication. that 6urisdiction is li+ewise e(clusive.. or one broadcast. re$ardless of the nu#ber of ti#es it is e(posed to different people. clai#. Enly thus can the policy of the 2ct be upheld and #aintained. .. That respondents-plaintiffs could not file a cri#inal case for libel a$ainst a non-resident defendant does not #a+e @epublic 2ct . unless it shall have the license prescribed in the section i##ediately precedin$. Ether 6urisdictions have adopted the 9sin$le publication9 rule which ori$inated in .. for venue and 6urisdiction are not dependent upon convenience or inconvenience to a party4 and #oreover. $ivin$ rise to only one cause of action. 8 that "where . and the rulin$ in Atlantic !utual 0ns. '9. #aintain by itself or assi$nee any suit for the recovery of any debt.3'3. is treated as a unit... &ur. the case filed by respondentsplaintiffs is case for da#a$es. 4lser M Co. . by #ini#i>in$ as #uch as possible any interference with the dischar$e of his duties.o. or$ani>ed. as previously stated. 8 that no forei$n corporation #ay be per#itted to #aintain any suit in the local courts unless it shall have the license re%uired by the law.. 6 whether such corporation or resident or non-resident.or is there any reason why the inapplicability of one alternative venue should result in renderin$ the other alternative. such as one edition of a newspaper. $ivin$ rise to a separate cause of action.. the re#edy is e(clusive4 and where it confers 6urisdiction upon a particular court. -d '09 differentiates the "#ultiple publication" and "sin$le publication" rules <invo+ed by private respondents= to be as follows5 The co##on law as to causes of action for tort arisin$ out of a sin$le publication was to the effect that each co##unication of written or printed #atter was a distinct and separate publication of a libel contained therein. also inapplicable. ?ence. the venue provisions of @epublic 2ct . to protect the interest of the public service when the offended party is a public officer. . unless the %uestion of venue should be waived by the defendant. or de#and whatever. for such inability to file a cri#inal case a$ainst a non-resident natural person e%ually e(ists in cri#es other than libel. or #a$a>ine. Co. no cri#inal action can lie a$ainst it. The dis#issal of the present petition is as+ed on the $round that the petitioner forei$n corporation failed to alle$e its capacity to sue in the courts of the )hilippines..o forei$n corporation or corporations for#ed. This rule <9#ultiple publication9 rule= is still followed in several 2#erican 6urisdictions.ew Gor+. which was not the case here. unless otherwise provided. . 00 2#.The assertion that a forei$n corporation or a non-resident defendant is not inconvenienced by an out-of-town suit is irrelevant and untenable.. . vs. or e(istin$ under any laws other than those of the )hilippines shall be per#itted to . pursuant to the basic policy of the law that is. venue was fi(ed under @epublic 2ct . . but if the accused is a corporation.3'3 incon$ruous of absurd. /t is a funda#ental rule of international 6urisdiction that no state can by its laws. vs. 7e are here confronted by a specific venue statute.. can by its 6ud$#ents or decrees. .. D . The rule is that where a statute creates a ri$ht and provides a re#edy for its enforce#ent.

103'4 nri%ue v.. see+ relief a$ainst the wron$ful assu#ption of 6urisdiction. nor held that it has 6urisdiction. 30 Ectober 1909.8. et al... 0'38=... !ut as it would be useless and futile to $o ahead with the proceedin$s if the court below had no 6urisdiction this petition was $iven due course... *--08... To#as v. 97hile it is true that action on a #otion to dis#iss #ay be deferred until the trial and an order to that effect is interlocutory. #ay issue in case of a denial or defer#ent of action on such a #otion to dis#iss for lac+ of 6urisdiction. still where it clearly appears that the trial 6ud$e or court is proceedin$ in e(cess or outside of its 6urisdiction. -3 &une 19'0... /f the %uestion of 6urisdiction were not the #ain $round for this petition for review by certiorari.. 83 )hil. Ai#ilarly.. 01 Eff. vs.. 9 /t is also advanced that the present petition is pre#ature.1 Eff. 7ell Co.. The #otion to dis#iss was predicated on the respondent court9s lac+ of 6urisdiction to entertain the action4 and the rulin$s of this 3ourt are that writs of certiorari or prohibition... by writ of prohibition. /t is a settledrule that the 6urisdiction of a court over the sub6ect-#atter is deter#ined by the alle$ations in the co#plaint4 and when a #otion to dis#iss is filed for lac+ of 6urisdiction those alle$ations are dee#ed ad#itted for purposes of such #otion.. Macadae$.. this 3ourt held5 9.8.. or both.. 8a>. 01 E.niversity of Ato. 0'3'.. then such co#pliance or the fact that the suin$ corporation is e(e#pt therefro#. 1-014 see also Aan !eda 3olle$e vs. /nc. et al.. Thus it has been held that the consideration thereof #ay not be postponed in the hope that the evidence #ay yield other %ualifyin$ or concurrin$ data which would brin$ the case under the court9s 6urisdiction. 1.. Al&erto.. 8a>.. so that it #ay be resolved without waitin$ for the trial... but only ar$u#ent is untenable. 9...9 <Aan !eda vs...=. :illanueva.. it would be pre#ature because it see+s to have a review of an interlocutory order... on a #otion to %uash service of su##ons... 7e hold5 . 2 forei$n corporation #ay.... <)hilippine /nternational "air. 3/@... Cu&acu&. A3@2 . 00 Eff. vs. . since respondent court has not definitely ruled on the #otion to dis#iss. 5ernando..3.. for . -1 Ectober 1908. 8a>... Au##in$ up..." 7e fail to see how these doctrines can be a propos in the case at bar. the re#edy of prohibition would lie since it would be useless and a waste of ti#e to $o ahead with the proceedin$s.. )etitioner9s failure to aver its le$al capacity to institute the present petition is not fatal.9 To the sa#e effect are the rulin$s in5 "uperto vs... 0'3'.. beco#es a necessary aver#ent in the co#plaint. et al... since the petitioner is not "#aintainin$ any suit" but is #erely defendin$ one a$ainst itself4 it did not file any co#plaint but only a corollary defensive petition to prohibit the lower court fro# further proceedin$ with a suit that it had no 6urisdiction to entertain...=9 <. in 4d)ard J... *-1-133.the law denies to a forei$n corporation the ri$ht to #aintain suit unless it has previously co#plied with a certain re%uire#ent.34 Administrator of Hacienda %uisita 4state vs.. /baHe>. 3/@. that it has 6urisdiction. on the $round of want of 6urisdiction in which 6urisdiction is not bound by the rulin$ of the court in which the suit was brou$ht. *-131....19. 2nd a forei$n corporation see+in$ a writ of prohibition a$ainst further #aintenance of a suit.

and he was convicted. The writ of preli#inary in6unction heretofore issued by this Aupre#e 3ourt is #ade per#anent.034 and its orders issued in connection therewith are hereby annulled and set aside. 5ernando. was convicted of failure to file ta( returns for the years 1911-1910. actions for da#a$es by public officials for libelous publications a$ainst the# can only be filed in the courts of first instance ofthe city or province where the offended functionary held office at the ti#e ofthe co##ission of the offense. ?e was indicted for failin$ to file returns fro# 1911-1910. on a #otion to dis#iss for lac+ of 6urisdiction over the sub6ect #atter. 2ppellant. 2ntonio &. 2ppellant was willin$ to state P/ a# a truthful #an.Q The 6ud$e was willin$ to allow hi# to say P/ state / will tell the truth in #y testi#ony. every witness shall be re%uired to declare that he will testify truthfully. 3osts a$ainst private respondents. or deferrin$ its rulin$. ?e clai#s the court erred in not allowin$ hi# to testify because he would not swear to tell the truth and would not allow cross e(a#ination.. >%$')" S'a')& 7.R.o. "ederal @ule of vidence '03 provides that Pbefore testifyin$. ?e represented hi#self at trial and appealed the conviction because the trial court did not let hi# testify because he would not swear or affir# to tell the truth.J. 2ppellant. :illamor and concur. stopped filin$ ta( returns in 1903. 10. L-D888 5)c)#E)r 16. <-= That the action of a court in refusin$ to rule.3'3. 1910 . 7? @ "E@ . C.03 aforesaid. . by oath or affir#ation. Concepcion. 1arredo. @espondent court is further co##anded to desist fro# further proceedin$s in 3ivil case . S. took no part.Q but 2ppellant did not a$ree.. "owler. No. or for i#proper venue.Q Fac'&. :ille$as and &uan )once nrile. "owler.Q and P/ would not tell a lie to stay out of 6ail.%o0&$& o( R-+) o( La6. J. even before trial on the #erits is had. 2ppellant represented hi#self at trial but was represented by counsel on appeal. Fo6+)r Br$)( Fac' S-##ar. in case the libelous article was first printed or published outside the )hilippines.o. Teehankee. Did the trial court err in refusin$ to allow hi# to testify because he would not swear or affir# that he would tell the truthL G.o. the writs applied for are $ranted5 the respondent 3ourt of "irst /nstance of @i>al is declared without 6urisdiction to ta+e co$ni>ance of its 3ivil 3ase . I&&-). Di. is in e(cess of 6urisdiction and correctable by writ of prohibition or certiorari sued out in the appellate 3ourt. Castro. 10.. as a#ended by @epublic 2ct .<1= The under 2rticle 3'0 of the @evised )enal 3ode.. !akalintal. ?e had not filed a ta( return since 1903.on.

Attorne. 9' +ilo$ra##es of opiu#. (hibit !. Thos. as his hold had already been searched several ti#es for opiu#. on the present #onth <stated as 2u$ust 19. a#on$ the# Messrs. conse%uence of that rulin$.$-eneral :illamor for appellee. shows that between 11 and 1. freely and of his own will and accord ad#itted that this sac+.o. went abroad the stea#ship 4rroll to inspect and search its car$o. The said defendant also stated. who #oreover. because the fire#en and crew of forei$n vessels. &ac+s and Milliron. 7ith re$ard to this the internal-revenue a$ent testified as follows5 itc$alf . #ar+ed." and that "he had been surprised in the act of sellin$ 1. 0881 on the $eneral doc+et of this court. 310.9 cans of opiu#. 1909=. #. C. plaintiff-appellee. #ar+ed " (hibit D. for the unlawful possession of opiu#. it says. was under the defendant9s control. one sac+ < (hibit 2= and afterwards in the hold. in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of 3ebu. /t is to be ta+en into account that the two sac+s of opiu#. in which the sac+ #entioned in (hibit ! was found. J. for the unlawful sale of opiu#." is also corpus delicti and i#portant as evidence in this cause. stated that he "carried. and found. in ?on$+on$ with the intention of sellin$ the# as contraband in Me(ico or :era 3ru>. also contained several cans of the sa#e substance.o9cloc+ a. one. another can of opiu#. chief of the depart#ent of the port of 3ebu and internal-revenue a$ent of 3ebu. +ept. several persons. vs. the second of which was the #ore than one cri#e was char$ed in the co#plaint. as the court found that the co#plaint contained two char$es. finally.000 pesos worth prepared opiu#. another sac+ < (hibit !=. properly constitute thecorpus delicti. The de#urrer was sustained." The defense presented a de#urrer based on two $rounds. and as . respectively. The hold.!1E >NI!E5 S!A!ES. and the other. desi$nated as (hibits 2 and !. Moreover. first in a cabin near the saloon. belon$ed to hi#. possessed and had in his possession and control. and that. LOO@ C1A. he ordered two other 3hina#en to +eep the sac+. 2a+$a& L>@ C1I>3. another lot of four cans of opiu#. freely and voluntarily. in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of 3ebu. was the sub6ect #atter of investi$ation at the trial. defendant-appellant. (hibit 2. as well as the other referred to in (hibit ! and found in the cabin. The facts of the case are contained in the followin$ findin$ of the trial court5 The evidence.o. and the other. were per#itted to retain certain a#ounts of opiu#. ARELLANO.: The first co#plaint filed a$ainst the defendant. Aitken for appellant. the fiscal did. /t is re$istered as . D. it ordered that the fiscal should separated one char$e fro# the other and file a co#plaint for each violation4 this. The sac+ referred to as (hibit 2 contained . as (hibit 3. pursuant to the instructions he had fro# the Manila custo#-house. 2nd. always provided it should not be ta+en shore. and with respect to which the chief of the depart#ent of the port of 3ebu testified that they were found in the part of the ship where the fire#en habitually sleep. and that they were delivered to the first officer of the ship to be returned to the said fire#en after the vessel should have left the )hilippines. and this cause concerns only the unlawful possession of opiu#. the lar$er sac+. that he had bou$ht these sac+s of opiu#. and.

/t is a can opiu# which was bou$ht fro# the defendant by a secret-service a$ent and ta+en to the office of the $overnor to prove that the accused had opiu# in his possession to sell. En #otion by the defense. 7ho as+ed you to search the vesselL 7/T. and that he had left it in their stateroo# to avoid its bein$ found in his roo#. the defendant be not ." !ut. and four $uards. in the event of an appeal bein$ ta+en or a bond $iven.000. and of the s#all one. The defense. and the court only ordered that the part thereof "that there was #ore opiu#. The defense #oved for a dis#issal of the case. via the call ports of Manila and 3ebu. ad#itted that the receptacles #entioned as (hibits 2. !. 2ccordin$ to the testi#ony of the internal-revenue a$ent. that the opiu# sei>ed in the vessel had been bou$ht by hi# in ?on$+on$. The court ruled that it did not lac+ 6urisdiction. and to the pay#ent of the costs. /t was established that the stea#ship 4rroll was of n$lish nationality. a vessel of n$lish nationality. . The court sentenced the defendant to five years9 i#prison#ent. The defense #oved that this testi#ony be re6ected. 7hat is itL 7/T. the court ruled that this answer #i$ht be stric+en out "because it refers to a sale. was his. in Me(ico and )uerto de :era 3ru>4 that on the 10th the vessel arrived at 3ebu. to abbreviate proceedin$s. inas#uch as the cri#e had been co##itted within its district. thou$h not to e(ceed one third of the principal penalty. which had already been searched #any ti#es4 and that. and that it was bound for Me(ico. accordin$ to the defendant. and the a$ent as+ed that the vessel be searched. on board the vessel" be stric+en out. and the total nu#ber. for the purpose of sellin$ it. with respect to this answer. at the conclusion of his ar$u#ent. of a 3hinese interpreter <who afterwards was not needed. and that. 1-9. the warden of the 6ail. to pay a fine of )10. of the e(hibits presented in the case. AA. that it ca#e fro# ?on$+on$. or when the sentenced should have been served."/A32*. in the presence of the provincial fiscal. in view of the considerable a#ount of opiu# sei>ed. the contents of the lar$e sac+ was 80 cans of opiu#. contained opiu# and were found on board the stea#ship 4rroll. on the wharf of 3ebu. and that it was true that the defendant stated that these sac+s of opiu# were his and that he had the# in his possession. to wit5 "/A32*. at three pesos for each round can and five pesos for each one of the others. with additional subsidiary i#prison#ent in case of insolvency.9. and 3. The fiscal. in favor of the /nsular 8overn#ent. as+ed that the #a(i#u# penalty of the law be i#posed upon the defendant. The internal-revenue a$ent ca#e to #y office and said that a party brou$ht hi# a sa#ple of opiu# and that the sa#e party +new that there was #ore opiu# on board the stea#er. AA. the defendant stated to hi#. because the defendant spo+e n$lish=. on the $round of its bein$ hearsay evidence. /t further ordered the confiscation. the chief of the depart#ent of custo#s had already $iven this testi#ony. and on the sa#e day he sold opiu#4 that he had tried to sell opiu# for )1' a can4 that he had a contract to sell an a#ount of the value of about )0004 that the opiu# found in the roo# of the other two 3hina#en prosecuted in another cause. on the $rounds that the court had no 6urisdiction to try the sa#e and the facts concerned therein did not constitute a cri#e. as contraband.

constitute a cri#e triable by the courts of this country. we affir# in all other respects the 6ud$#ent appealed fro#. as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of the co##ission of the cri#e. H. Plaintiff-Appellant. the two penalties fi(ed by the law on the sub6ect. Therefore. only the court established in that said place itself had co#petent 6urisdiction. in the present case a can of opiu#. but turned over to the custo#s authorities for the purpose of the fulfill#ent of the e(istin$ laws on i##i$ration. "ro# this 6ud$#ent. 19>9 $. N*. GRE2. Ross. %s) INS!LAR L!$"ER O$PAN2. ON EP ION. althou$h the #ere possession of a thin$ of prohibited use in these /slands. is landed fro# the vessel upon )hilippine soil.R. on such account. thus co##ittin$ an open violation of the laws of the land. should be i#posed in the #a(i#u# de$ree. aboard a forei$n vessel in transit. L-45144 A=)0. reducin$ the i#prison#ent and the fine i#posed to si( #onths and )1. in any of their ports.000. E. /t is also found5 That. Ao ordered.released fro# custody. >. as stockholder of the defendant" appellee !nsular ?um'er Company. it does not appear that. it is found5 That. in the absence of an a$ree#ent under an international treaty. respectively. even ad#ittin$ that the %uantity of the dru$ sei>ed. the sub6ect #atter of the present case. as a $eneral rule. on account of such vessel bein$ considered as an e(tension of its own nationality. !elp" and Carrascoso for appellee. Van Hoven and Harvey and O'Brien for appellant. la)phi'. whose use is prohibited within the )hilippine /slands.net The appeal havin$ been heard. La rence. to inspect and e(amine the 'ooks records of the transactions of said defendant) chanro'le s%irtuala&li'rary chanro'le s %irtual la& li'rary chanro'les %irtual la& li'rary *he parties su'mitted a stipulation of facts on &hich the lo&er court 'ased its -udgment denying the mandamus against the defendant and a'sol%ing it from the complaint) chanro'les%irtuala&li'rary chanro'les %irtual la& li'rary . the sa#e rule does not apply when the article. to$ether with the alle$ations #ade therein by the parties.uestion of la& raised in this appeal is &hether the plaintiff"appellant is entitled. with respect to which.: *he only . G. does not. was considerable. with the costs of this instance a$ainst the appellant. the defendant appealed to this court. defendant"appelle) C. J.

em'racing a particular account of all its assets and lia'ilities. in a'rica.uest the sum of ifty Dollars. and the further sum of ten dollars for e%ery t&enty"four hours thereafter until such statement shall 'e furnished) 8/) C) ?). and keep on file in the office of the corporation for t&el%e months thereafter a copy of such statement. 5ccidental 0egros.uest &ithin thirty days thereafter. &hich reads as follo&s: inancial /tatement to /tockholders: /tockholders o&ning three per centum of the shares of any corporation other than a moneyed corporation may make a &ritten re.uest to the treasurer or other fiscal officer thereof for a statement of its affairs.uired to deli%er more than one such statement in any one year) *he /upreme Court. or any -ustice thereof. during the entire period material to this action. the right of a stockholder to e(amine the 'ooks and records of a corporation organi6ed under the la&s of that /tate. sec) ::)< . the plaintiff asked the offices of the defendant in #anila and in a'rica to permit him to e(amine the 'ooks and records of the 'usiness of said defendant. under oath. only those pro%ided in section :: of the /tock Corporation ?a&. licensed to engage in 'usiness in the Philippines. in 0e& 1ork and in Philadelphia) *he plaintiff &as and is the o&ner and possessor of 5: shares of the capital stock of the defendant corporation. and the treasurer shall make such statement and deli%er it to the person making the re. &ith offices in the City of #anila. registered in his name in the 'ooks thereof= that he does not o&n three per cent of the total capital stock of the corporation. &hich shall at all times during 'usiness hours 'e e(hi'ited to any stockholders demanding an e(amination thereof= 'ut the treasurer shall not 'e re. 'ut he &as not allo&ed to do so= that under the la& of 0e& 1ork. for good cause sho&n. the defendants &as and is a corporation organi6ed and e(isting under the la&s of the /tate of 0e& 1ork. e(tend the time for making and deli%ering such statement) or e%ery neglect or refusal to comply &ith the pro%isions of this section the corporation shall and pay to the person making such re.>ccording to the stipulation of facts. may upon application. nor does he represent stockholders &ho o&n three per cent of its capital= that during the years 193B and 1933. ha%e 'een.

uire a statement of its affairs em'racing a particular account of its assets and lia'ilities) chanro'le s%irtuala&li'rary chanro'le s %irtual la& li'rary Plaintiff"appellant contends. as pro%ided in the statutes of 0e& 1ork= neither did the plaintiff ask to 'e allo&ed to e(amine any of the statements prepared 'y the defendant corporation and e(isting in its files. to e(amine the 'ooks and records of a corporation organi6ed under the la&s of said /tate. in accordance &ith our Corporation ?a&. &hich is recogni6ed in the common la&. the plaintiff. in the first place. and during the entire period material to this action.) C) ?).uestion fully settled that the plaintiff not 'eing a stockholder o&ning at least three per cent of the capital stock of the defendant corporation. >ct 0o) 1959.*hat neither the plaintiff nor any other stockholder of the defendant corporation has asked its treasurer or any of its officers for a statement of its affairs. that stipulation of facts is finding upon 'oth parties and cannot 'e altered 'y either of them) 8B5 . is entitled to inspect the record of the transactions of the defendant corporation 8sec) 51. has not 'een altered 'y section :: of the /tock Corporation ?a& of 0e& 1ork . as stockholder. under &hich the defendant company &as registered to do 'usiness in the Philippines. plaintiff has the right to 'e furnished 'y the treasurer or other fiscal officer of the corporation &ith statement of its affairs em'racing a particular account of all its . as pro%ided 'y the statutes of 0e& 1ork) chanro'le s%irtuala&li'rary chanro'le s %irtual la& li'rary !n the light of the foregoing facts agreed upon 'y the parties and in accordance &ith section :: of the /tock Corporation ?a& of 0e& 1ork &hich is conceded to 'e the la& that go%erns the right of a stockholder to e(amine the 'ooks and papers of a corporation. on the strength of this principle. has no right to e(amine the 'ooks and records of the corporation nor to re. plaintiff"appellant is 'ound to adhere to the agreement made 'y him &ith the defendant corporation in paragraph four of the stipulation of facts. to the effect that the rights of a stockholder. and this right.uoted in the stipulation of facts. and can 'e enforced 'y mandamus) chanro'le s%irtuala&li'rary chanro'le s %irtual la& li'rary *o this. ho&e%er. under the la& of 0e& 1ork. 1179. defendant corporation ans&ers. it is a . are only those pro%ided in section :: /tock Corporation ?a& of 0e& 1ork) Cnder this la&. that. 1175)< !n the second place.

1173= 95 ?) . or to protect his interest as stockholder) 8 #n re/tein&ay.. since the same can only 'e granted at the discretion of the court. 1>ENEFEL5 a%" CO. he also entitled under the common la& to e(amine and inspect the 'ooks and records of the defendant corporation) !n the fourth place. 855)< *he appellant has made no effort to pro%e or e%en allege that the information he desired to o'tain through the e(amination and inspection of defendantOs 'ooks &as necessary to protect his interests as stockholder of the corporation. neither can this right under the common la& 'e granted the defendant in the present case. and not to gratify curiosity. No. &e affirm the -udgment of the lo&er court. :7= 5B 0) 1) /). he cannot no&. 159 0) 1). and not to gratify curiosity.R. respondent. either at the hearing or in his motion for ne& trial. 9A1 Kaff) 31 >pp) Di%). for a specific and honest purpose. C1RIS!ERN. inasmuch as plaintiff. did not ask to ha%e the stipulation of facts altered or changed. 19D1 FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA 5E SEG>ROS. 2D. vs.. petitioner. raise the . nor for speculati%e or %e(atious purposes) chanro'le s%irtuala&li'rary chanro'le s %irtual la& li'rary !n %ie& of the foregoing. 393L<) chanro'les%irtuala&li'rary la& li'rary chanro'les %irtual 8 $< *hat said right to e(amine and inspect the 'ooks of the corporation must 'e e(ercised in good faith. to &it: 8 a< *hat the stockholder of a corporation in 0e& 1ork has the right to inspect its 'ooks and records if it can 'e sho&n that he seeks information for an honest purpose 819 C) J). 859. under certain conditions. B57= 53 0) E). or for speculati%e or %e(atious purposes) 819 C) J). &ith costs against the appellant) /o ordered) G.) >).uestion that aside from the right conferred upon him 'y section :: of the /tock Corporation ?a& of 0e& 1ork. for the first time on appeal. or that it &as for a specific and honest purpose. . 853<. INC.assets and lia'ilities) !n the third place. L-2299 Ma.

or durin$ the &apanese #ilitary occupation. /t re6ected the theory that nationality of private corporation is deter#ine by the character or citi>enship of its controllin$ stoc+holders. na#ely #ana$ed under the influence of individuals or corporations. The case is now before us on appeal by certiorari fro# the decision of the 3ourt of 2ppeals.ebersee "inan> Iorporation. !inondo Manila. d. decided on Dece#ber 8.nited Atates and 8er#any. 19. 19. . 4)ald Huenefeld for respondent."amire. after pay#ent of correspondin$ pre#iu#. The theory of the petitioner is that the insured #erchandise were burned up after the policy issued in 19.pon appeal to the 3ourt of 2ppeals. relyin$ on n$lish and 2#erican cases which held that a corporation is a citi>en of the country or state by and under the laws of which it was created or or$ani>ed. 19.8 the followin$ enli$htenin$ passa$es appear5 Aince 7orld 7ar /. . however.. 111 @o#an Atreet. the respondent 3orporation <thou$h or$ani>ed under and by virtue of the laws of the )hilippines= bein$ controlled by the 8er#an sub6ects and the petitioner bein$ a co#pany under 2#erican 6urisdiction when said policy was issued on Ectober 1. )hilippine (ecutive 3o##ission. coverin$ #erchandise contained in a buildin$ located at . /n " ne#y 3orporation" by Martin Do#+e.o. PARAS. The n$lish and 2#erican cases relied upon by the 3ourt of 2ppeals have lost their force in view of the latest decision of the Aupre#e 3ourt of the . fire policy . a paper presented to the Aecond /nternational 3onference of the *e$al )rofession held at the ?a$ue <. after deductin$ their value.'00 on 2pril 19. .nited Atates in 3lar+ vs. the buildin$ and insured #erchandise were burned./ En Ectober 1. the#selves considered as ene#ies.nited Atates and 8er#any on Dece#ber 10." which .1.. The present action was filed on 2u$ust '. with costs. the total loss suffered by the respondent was fi(ed at )9-. we have to rule that said respondent beca#e an ene#y corporation upon the outbrea+ of the war between the .1. 19.o.1. and 2rtigas for petitioner. dated 2pril 9. There is no %uestion that #a6ority of the stoc+holders of the respondent corporation were 8er#an sub6ects. 19.000.1.'.*aw. The petitioner refused to pay the clai# on the $round that the policy in favor of the respondent had ceased to be in force on the date the . 3hristern ?uenefeld. 9. in which the controls test has been adopted. /t was the n$lish courts which first the Daimler case applied this new concept of "piercin$ the corporate veil. /n due ti#e the respondent sub#itted to the petitioner its clai# under the policy. . pp. C. The 3ourt of 2ppeals overruled the contention of the petitioner that the respondent corporation beca#e an ene#y when the .1 in favor of the respondent corporation has ceased to be effective because of the outbrea+ of the war between the .8-103. 19. 2fter trial. The petitioner.nited Atates declared war a$ainst 8er#any.'00 above #entioned. En "ebruary -1.3. in pursuance of the order of the Director of !ureau of "inancin$.'00. in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of Manila for the purpose of recoverin$ fro# the respondent the su# of )9-. V 3o.etherlands= in 2u$ust.3. This bein$ so. the deter#ination of ene#y nationality of corporations has been discussion in #any countries. 2 corporation was sub6ect to ene#y le$islation when it was controlled by ene#ies.. 19. The salva$e $oods were sold at public auction and.nited Atates declared war a$ainst 8er#any. 19.o."ilipinas 3ia.J. and that the pay#ent #ade by the petitioner to the respondent corporation durin$ the &apanese #ilitary occupation was under pressure. obtained fro# the petitioner . the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of Manila dis#issed the action without pronounce#ent as to costs. belli$erent and neutral. 1.-. /nc. 19. de Ae$uros. the respondent corporation. the 6ud$#ent of the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of Manila was affir#ed. 2dvance Epinions. paid to the respondent the su# of )9-. -9333 in the su# of )1000.

9= -99. The .-1..Y . -. .was adopted by the peace of Treaties of 1919 and the Mi(ed 2rbitral established after the "irst 7orld 7ar. The power of sei>ure and vestin$ was e(tended to all property of any forei$n country or national so that no innocent appearin$ device could beco#e a Tro6an horse." /t beco#es unnecessary. as a#ended..nited Atates definitely approved of the control theory. /n 3lar+ vs. . <Aupp. in Ha) /ia vs. or tend to increase. on Dece#ber 8. include as did other le$islations the applications of the control test and a$ain. 3ourts refused to reco$ni>ed the concept whereby 2#erican-re$istered corporations could be considered as ene#ies and thus sub6ect to do#estic le$islation and ad#inistrative #easures re$ardin$ ene#y property. The .nited Atates of 2#erica did not adopt the control test durin$ the "irst 7orld 7ar.nited Atates allowed to lar$e de$ree the deter#ination of ene#y interest in do#estic corporations and thus the application of the control test. provides that "anyone e(cept a public ene#y #ay be insured. dealin$ with a Awiss corporation alle$edly controlled by 8er#an interest. China 1anking Corporation. the incidents of control. as in 7orld 7ar /. we #ay add that. to dwell at len$th on the authorities cited in support of the appealed decision. The )hilippine /nsurance *aw <2ct . in the a#end#ents of the Tradin$ with the ne#y 2ct durin$ the last war. the so called free>in$ re$ulations. . 3ourt decisions were rendered on the basis of such newly enacted statutory provisions in deter#inin$ ene#y character of do#estic corporation. "or that reason. 3ourt decisions sanctioned such ad#inistrative practice enacted under the "irst 7ar )owers 2ct of 19. le$islation on ene#y property enacted in various countries durin$ 7orld 7ar // adopted by statutory provisions to the control test and deter#ined. Auch prohibition includes all ne$otiations. and other ad#inistrative practice in the treat#ent of forei$n-owned property in the . therefore. and #ore recently. the Aupre#e 3ourt of the . to various de$rees. Measures of bloc+in$ forei$n funds. we already held that 3hina !an+in$ 3orporation ca#e within the #eanin$ of the word "ene#y" as used in the Tradin$ with the ne#y 2cts of civili>ed countries not only because it was incorporated under the laws of an ene#y country but because it was controlled by ene#ies.nited Atates did not.1.. 2. /t was not only by le$al ownership of shares that a #aterial influence could be e(ercised on the #ana$e#ent of the corporation but also by lon$ ter# loans and other factual situations. or tradin$ with the ene#y4 all acts which will increase.= in section 8. ?owever. the 3ourt5 "The property of all forei$n interest was placed within the reach of the vestin$ power <of the 2lien )roperty 3ustodian= not to appropriate friendly or neutral assets but to reach ene#y interest which #as%ueraded under those innocent fronts. co##erce. J 2ll intercourse between citi>ens of belli$erent powers which is inconsistent with a state of war is prohibited by the law of nations. generall. its inco#e or resources4 all acts of voluntary sub#ission to it4 or receivin$ its protection4 also all acts concernin$ the trans#ission of #oney or $oods4 and all contracts .0 Eff 8a>. .1. 8. /t was +nown that 8er#an and other ene#y interests were cloa+ed by do#estic corporation structure. 7orld 7ar // revived the proble# a$ain. courts refused to apply this concept whereby the ene#y character of an 2#erican or neutral-re$istered corporation is deter#ined by the ene#y nationality of the controllin$ stoc+holders.ebersee "inan> Iorporation.o. 19. 4ffect of )ar." /t stands to reason that an insurance policy ceases to be allowable as soon as an insured beco#es a public ene#y.

19. 2s a #atter of fact. )hilippine currency. lost. in decidin$ the case. in actual )hilippines currency of )9-. pp. as to each other. or that it should in such #anner increase the resources of the ene#y.-08. and since the insured $oods were burned after Dece#ber 10. 030--0303. less the a#ount of the pre#iu#. alien sub6ects.33. /nc.= /n the case of an ordinary fire policy. ?uenefeld V 3o. The 3ourt of 2ppeals necessarily assu#ed that. which prior thereto #ay have been lawful.3 copy of which was sent to your office and the concurrence therein of the "inancial Depart#ent of the &apanese Military 2d#inistration.'00 paid on 2pril 19.1. 19. by the petitioner <a )hilippine corporation= had ceased to be valid and enforcible.. e(ist. 7herefore. should be returned by the petitioner.= /t results that the petitioner is entitled to recover what paid to the respondent under the circu#stances on this case. p. The 3ourt of 2ppeals.1. 3yc. all tradin$ intercourse with the ene#y.. The purpose of war is to cripple the power and e(haust the resources of the ene#y. in a state of utter e(clusion.1." < #phasis supplied. 3hristern. 2ll individuals therefore. who co#pose the belli$erent powers. ?owever. and durin$ the war. or to do anythin$ detri#ental too their country9s interest. 19. 19. the contractual tie is bro+en and the contractual ri$hts of the parties. /t further prohibits insurance upon trade with or by the ene#y. as #ay be seen fro# the followin$5 "/n view of the findin$s and conclusion of this office contained in its decision on 2d#inistrative 3ase dated "ebruary 9.nited Atates and 8er#any on Dece#ber 10. so far as not vested. in accordance with the rate fi(ed in the !allantyne scale. in . well founded.1. of /ns. in orderin$ the petitioner to pay the clai# of the respondent. the respondent was not entitled to any inde#nity under said policy fro# the petitioner. .relatin$ thereto are thereby nullified. ?owever. <' 3ouch. Aec. even if the pay#ent by the petitioner to the respondent was involuntary. the 3ourt of 2ppeals held that "any inti#idation resorted to by the appellee was not un6ust but the e(ercise of its lawful ri$ht to clai# for and received the pay#ent of the insurance policy. and its 6ud$#ent in favor of the respondent corporation was predicated on its conclusion that the policy did not cease to be in force.1. upon the life or lives of aliens en$a$ed in service with the ene#y4 this for the reason that the sub6ects of one country cannot be per#itted to lend their assistance to protect by insurance the co##erce or property of belli$erent. 19. the petitioner will be entitled to recover only the e%uivalent. the appealed decision is hereby reversed and the respondent corporation is ordered to pay to the petitioner the su# of )11. or for so#e other specified ter# it is plain that when the parties beco#e alien ene#ies. and are public ene#ies. <:ance. however." and that the rulin$ of the !ureau of "inancin$ to the effect that "the appellee was entitled to pay#ent fro# the appellant was. its action is not tenable in view of the rulin$ on the validity of the policy. stated that the #ain issue hin$es on the %uestion of whether the policy in %uestion beca#e null and void upon the declaration of war between the . which $rants insurance only fro# year. there can be no doubt that the Director of the !ureau of "inancin$. you are hereby ordered to pay the clai# of Messrs.. or render it aid." "actually. #erely obeyed the instruction of the &apanese Military 2d#inistration. *aw. ele#entary rules of 6ustice <in the absence of specific provision in the /nsurance *aw= re%uire that the pre#iu# paid by the respondent for the period covered by its policy fro# Dece#ber 11. the *aw on /nsurance.3. 19. should be #ade by #eans of crossed chec+. the insurance policy issued in its favor on Ectober 1. and follo)ing the instruction of said authorit. 19. 11-. and it is inconsistent that one country should destroy its ene#y9s property and repay in insurance the value of what has been so destroyed. for li+e reasons. The pay#ent of said clai#.= The respondent havin$ beco#e an ene#y corporation on Dece#ber 10. and the co##ence#ent of war deter#ines..

'1 <as of Dece#ber 10.2.110.T and A2. No&. 1981= . within the #eanin$ of Aection -0 of the /nsolvency *aw <2ct . 1909= readin$ in part as follows5 1 2n ad6udication of insolvency #ay be #ade on the petition of three or #ore creditors. vs. 19. N! A SA. eff. a%" S!A!E FINANCING CEN!ER. and #ust be verified by at least three <3= of the petitioners. whose credits or de#ands accrued in the )hilippine /slands. 1unag. 2 The case was doc+eted as Ap. respondents.. and the a#ount of which credits or de#ands are in the a$$re$ate not less than one thousand pesos5 )rovided. that should be returned by the petitioner for the une(pired ter# of the policy in %uestion. 89926-28 Oc'oE)r 18. within thirty days prior to the filin$ of said petition. however #ade. be$innin$ Dece#ber 11. as a#ended.. and that as of . and 1ank of America 7T M SA.)hilippine currency. . Ao ordered.A. 9-'3 and assi$ned to !ranch -8 of the 3ourt. BAN@ OF AMERICA. 3itiban+ . /nc. that none of said creditors has beco#e a creditor by assi$n#ent. 1991 S!A!E IN ES!MEN! 1O>SE.88 .. NAR ASA. CI!IBAN@.3'1. . 1ONG@ONG A S1ANG1AI BAN@ING CORPORA!ION. "oco. INC.1. INC. Napunan M !igallos for petitioners. G. Agcaoili M Associates for Citi&ank. 1981.R. <3M/=. 1981..residents of the /hilippine 0slands.ove#berNDece#ber.831. which they a#ended four days later. 7ithout costs. . and ?on$+on$ and Ahan$hai !an+in$ 3orporation. a%" 'h) CO>R! OF APPEALS. Auch petition #ust be filed in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of the province or city in which the debtor resides or has his principal place of business. En Dece#ber 11. . N. they 6ointly filed with the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of @i>al a petition for involuntary insolvency of 3onsolidated Mines.AX .-91. The petition for involuntary insolvency alle$ed5 1= that 3M/ had obtained loans fro# the three petitionin$ ban+s.o. #ay be considered . its outstandin$ obli$ations were as follows5 a= /n favor of !an+ of 2#erica <!2= )10. 1elo.:# The chief %uestion in the appeal at bar is whether or not forei$n ban+s licensed to do business in the )hilippines. 190'. May -0.o. residents of the /hilippine 0slands. petitioners. )roc. J.A. A&iera M Associates for Hongkong M Shanghai 1anking Corp. The forei$n ban+s involved in the controversy are !an+ of 2#erica . 7.

that bein$ a #erchant or trades#an he <3M/= has $enerally defaulted in the pay#ent of his <3M/9s= current obli$ations for a period of thirty days4 . 1981=4 )'. . 3M/ filed its 2nswer to the petition for insolvency. that he <3M/= has suffered his <3M/9s= property to re#ain under attach#ent or le$al process for three days for the purpose of hinderin$ or delayin$ or defraudin$ his <3M/9s= creditors4 ((( ((( ((( 11. /nc4" and 3= that 3M/ had "co##itted specific acts of insolvency as provided in Aection -0 of the /nsolvency *aw. doc+eted respectively as 3ivil 3ases . /nc.800.3. .AX . /nc.u#bered ." echoin$ the theory of A/?/ and A"3/ that the petitioner ban+s are not ")hilippine . Atate /nvest#ent ?ouse. <A"3/= had separately instituted actions for collection of su#s of #oney and da#a$es in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of @i>al a$ainst 3M/. <A/?/= and Atate "inancin$ 3enter.8.004" -= the 3ourt had no 6urisdiction because the alle$ed acts of insolvency were false5 the writs of attach#ent a$ainst 3M/ had re#ained in force because there were "6ust.-.<b= /n favor of 3itiban+ . 1981. /nc. /nc.-33. <A/?/= and Atate "inancin$ 3enter.1<as of . 9 and later filed a "Motion to Dis#iss !ased on 2ffir#ative Defense of )etitioner9s *ac+ of 3apacity to Aue.. writs of preli#inary attach#ent had been issued which were e(ecuted on "the royaltyNprofit sharin$ pay#ents due 3M/ fro# !en$uet 3onsolidated Minin$. . <A"3/=. . 1981= c= /n favor of ?on$+on$ V Ahan$hai !an+ ..0. assertin$ in the #ain that it was not insolvent.9'9. The petition was opposed by Atate /nvest#ent ?ouse.ove#ber.3088 and .80 <as of Dece#ber 10. and they wished all creditors to share in its assets J althou$h a few days earlier.389.000.AX 0." and 3M/ was not a "#erchant or trades#an" nor had it "$enerally defaulted in the pay#ent of <its= obli$ations for a period of thirty days .9-0. valid and lawful $rounds for the<ir= issuance. 3 /t clai#ed that5 1= the three petitioner ban+s had co#e to court with unclean hands in that they filed the petition for insolvency J alle$in$ the 3M/ was defraudin$ its creditors. 4" 3= the 3ourt had no 6urisdiction to ta+e co$ni>ance of the petition for insolvency because petitioners are notresident creditors of 3M/ in conte#plation of the /nsolvency *aw4 and . they had "received for the account of 3M/ substantial pay#ents a$$re$atin$ )10..3'114 and that on application of said plaintiffs.ove#ber 30. -= that in .= the 3ourt has no power to set aside the attach#ent issued in favor of intervenors-oppositors A/?/ and A"3/. to wit5 ((( ((( ((( 0.

residents." D @esolution on the #otion was "deferred until after hearin$ of the case on the #erits" it appearin$ to the 3ourt that the $rounds therefor did not appear to be indubitable. 6 A/?/ and A"3/ filed their own 2nswer-in-/ntervention, 8 and served on the three petitioner ban+s re%uests for ad#ission of certain facts in accordance with @ule -' of the @ules of 3ourt, 8 receivin$ a response only fro# ?on$+on$ V Ahan$hai !an+. 9 A/?/ and A"3/ then filed a Motion for Au##ary &ud$#ent dated May -3, 1983 "on the $round that, based on the pleadin$s and ad#issions on record, the trial court had no 6urisdiction to ad6udicate 3M/ insolvent since the petitioners <respondent forei$n ban+s= are not "resident creditors" of 3M/ as re%uired under the /nsolvency *aw."10 Eppositions to the #otion were filed, 11 to which a reply was sub#itted. 12 The @e$ional Trial 3ourt 13 found #erit in the #otion for su##ary 6ud$#ent. !y Erder dated Ectober 10, 1983, it rendered "su##ary 6ud$#ent dis#issin$ the . . . petition for lac+ of 6urisdiction over the sub6ect #atter, with costs a$ainst petitioners." 19 /t ruled that on the basis of the "facts on record, as shown in the pleadin$s, #otions and ad#issions of the parties, an insolvency court could "not ac%uire 6urisdiction to ad6udicate the debtor as insolvent if the creditors petitionin$ for ad6udication of insolvency are not "residents" of the )hilippines" J citing a decision of the 3alifornia Aupre#e 3ourt which it declared "s%uarely applicable especially considerin$ that one of the sources of our /nsolvency *aw is the /nsolvency 2ct of 3alifornia of 1890 . . . " 2nd it declared that since petitioners had been #erely licensed to do business in the )hilippines, they could not be dee#ed residents thereof. The three forei$n ban+s sou$ht to ta+e an appeal fro# the Erder of Ectober 10, 1983. They filed a notice of appeal and a record on appeal. 1D A/?/ and A"3/ #oved to dis#iss their appeal clai#in$ it was atte#pted out of ti#e. The Trial 3ourt denied the #otion. A/?/ and A"3/ filed with this 3ourt a petition for certiorari and prohibition <8.@. ;E. ''..9=, i#pu$nin$ that denial. The 3ourt dis#issed the petition and instead re%uired the three ban+s to file a petition for review in accordance with @ule .0 of the @ules of 3ourt. 16 This the ban+s did <their petition was doc+eted as 8.@. ;o. ''80.=. ?owever, by @esolution dated May 1', 198., the court referred the petition for review to the /nter#ediate 2ppellate 3ourt, where it was doc+eted as 23 A)03'1.. 18 /n the #eanti#e, the Trial 3ourt approved on May 3, 1980 the ban+s9 record on appeal and trans#itted it to this 3ourt, where it was recorded as ,DI-'8''. 2s #i$ht have been e(pected, this 3ourt re%uired the ban+s to file a petition for review under @ule .0, but they as+ed to be e(cused fro# doin$ so since they had already filed such a petition, which had been referred to the /nter#ediate 2ppellate 3ourt and was there pendin$ as 23-8.@. ;o. A) 03'1., supra. This 3ourt then also referred ,DI-'8'' to the /nter#ediate 2ppellate 3ourt where it was doc+eted as 23-8.@. ;o. 3: 01830. !oth referred cases, 23-8.@. ;o. A) 03'1. and 23-8.@. ;o. 3: 01830, were consolidated by @esolution of the 3ourt of 2ppeals dated 2pril 9, 198', and Decision thereon was pro#ul$ated on &uly 1., 1981 by the "ifteenth Division of said 3ourt. 18 The 2ppellate 3ourt reversed the Trial 3ourt9s Erder of Ectober 10, 1983 and re#anded the case to it for further proceedin$s. /t ruled5 1= that the purpose of the /nsolvency *aw was "to convert the assets of the ban+rupt in cash for distribution a#on$ creditors, and then to relieve the honest debtor fro# the wei$ht of oppressive

indebtedness and per#it hi# to start life anew, free fro# the obli$ations and responsibilities conse%uent upon business #isfortunes4" 19 and that it was "crystal clear" that the law was "desi$ned not only for the benefit of the creditors but #ore i#portantly for the benefit of the debtor hi#self," the ob6ect bein$ "to provide not only for the suspension of pay#ents and the protection of creditors but also the dischar$e of insolvent honest debtors to enable the# to have a fresh start4" -= that the Trial 3ourt had placed "a very strained and restrictive interpretation of the ter# "resident," as to e(clude forei$n ban+s which have been operatin$ in this country since the early part of the century," and "the better approach . . . would have been to har#oni>e the provisions . . . <of the /nsolvency *aw= with si#ilar provisions of other succeedin$ laws, li+e the 3orporation 3ode of the )hilippines, the 8eneral !an+in$ 2ct, the Effshore !an+in$ *aw and the ;ational /nternal @evenue 3ode in connection with or related to their doin$ business in the )hilippines4" 3= that in li$ht of said statutes, the three ban+s "are in truth and in fact considered as "residents" of the )hilippines for purposes of doin$ business in the )hilippines and even for ta(ation #atters4" .= that the ban+s had "co#plied with all the laws, rules and re$ulations <for doin$ business in the country= and have been doin$ business in the )hilippines for #any years now4" that the authority $ranted to the# by the Aecurities and (chan$e 3o##ission upon orders of the Monetary !oard "covers not only transactin$ ban+in$ business . . . but li+ewise #aintainin$ suits "for recovery of any debt, clai#s or de#and whatsoever," and that their petition for involuntary insolvency was "nothin$ #ore than a suit ai#ed at recoverin$ a debt $ranted by the# to 3onsolidated Mines, /nc., or at least a portion thereof4" .= that to deprive the forei$n ban+s of their ri$ht to proceed a$ainst their debtors throu$h insolvency proceedin$s would "contravene the basic standards of e%uity and fair play, . . . would discoura$e their operations in econo#ic develop#ent pro6ects that create not only 6obs for our people but also opportunities for advance#ent as a nation4" and 0= that the ter#s "residence" and "do#icile" do not #ean the sa#e thin$, and that as re$ards a corporation, it is $enerally dee#ed an "inhabitant" of the state under whose law it is incorporated, and has a "residence" wherever it conducts its ordinary business, and #ay have its le$al "do#icile" in one place and "residence" in another. A/?/ and A"3/ #oved for reconsideration and then, when rebuffed, too+ an appeal to this 3ourt. ?ere, they ar$ue that the 2ppellate 3ourt9s 6ud$#ent should be reversed because it failed to declare that J 1= the failure of the three forei$n ban+s to alle$e under oath in their petition for involuntary insolvency that they are )hilippine residents, wishin$ only to "be considered )hilippine residents," is fatal to their cause4 -= also fatal to their cause is their failure to prove, #uch less alle$e, that under the do#iciliary laws of the forei$n ban+s, a )hilippine corporation is allowed the reciprocal ri$ht to petition for a debtor9s involuntary insolvency4 3= in fact and in law, the three ban+s are not )hilippine residents because5 a= corporations have do#icile and residence only in the state of their incorporation or in the place desi$nated by law, althou$h for limited

and e#clusive purposes, other states #ay consider the# as residents4 b= 6uridical persons #ay not have residence separate fro# their do#icile4 .= actually, the non-resident status of the ban+s within the conte(t of the /nsolvency *aw is confir#ed by other laws4 0= the license $ranted to the ban+s to do business in the )hilippines does not #a+e the# residents4 '= no substantive law e(plicitly $rants forei$n ban+s the power to petition for the ad6udication of the )hilippine corporation as a ban+rupt4 1= the Monetary !oard can not appoint a conservator or receiver for a forei$n ban+ or orders its li%uidation havin$ only the power to revo+e its license, sub6ect to such proceedin$s as the Aolicitor 8eneral #ay thereafter dee# proper to protect its creditors4 8= the forei$n ban+s are not denied the ri$ht to collect their credits a$ainst )hilippine debtors, only the ri$ht to "petition for the harsh re#edy of involuntary insolvency" not bein$ conceded to the#4 9= said ban+s have co#e to court with unclean hands, their filin$ of the petition for involuntary insolvency bein$ an atte#pt to defeat validly ac%uired ri$hts of do#estic corporations. The concept of a forei$n corporation under Aection 1-3 of the 3orporation 3ode is of "one for#ed, or$ani>ed or e(istin$ under laws other than those of the )hilippines and . . . <which= laws allow "ilipino citi>ens and corporations to do business . . . ." There is no %uestion that the three ban+s are forei$n corporations in this sence, with principal offices situated outside of the )hilippines. There is no %uestion either that said ban+s have been licensed to do business in this country and have in fact been doin$ business here for #any years, throu$h branch offices or a$encies, includin$ "forei$n currency deposit units4" in fact, one of the#, ?on$+on$ V Ahan$hai !an+ has been doin$ business in the )hilippines since as early as 1810. The issue is whether these )hilippine branches or units #ay be considered "residents of the )hilippine /slands" as that ter# is used in Aection -0 of the /nsolvency *aw, supra, 20 or residents of the state under the laws of which they were respectively incorporated. The answer cannot be found in the /nsolvency *aw itself, which contains no definition of the ter#, resident, or any clear indication of its #eanin$. There are however other statutes, albeit of subse%uent enact#ent and effectivity, fro# which enli$htenin$ notions of the ter# #ay be derived. The ;ational /nternal @evenue 3ode declares that the ter# "9resident forei$n corporation9 applies to a forei$n corporation en$a$ed in trade or business within the )hilippines," as distin$uished fro# a " "non-resident forei$n corporation" . . . <which is one= not en$a$ed in trade or business within the )hilippines." 21 The Effshore !an+in$ *aw, )residential Decree ;o. 103., states "that branches, subsidiaries, affiliation, e(tension offices or any other units of corporation or 6uridical person or$ani>ed under the laws of any forei$n country operatin$ in the )hilippines shall be considered residents of the )hilippines." 22

The 8eneral !an+in$ 2ct, @epublic 2ct ;o. 331, places "branches and a$encies in the )hilippines of forei$n ban+s . . . <which are= called )hilippine branches," in the sa#e cate$ory as "co##ercial ban+s, savin$s associations, #ort$a$e ban+s, develop#ent ban+s, rural ban+s, stoc+ savin$s and loan associations" <which have been for#ed and or$ani>ed under )hilippine laws=, #a+in$ no distinction between the for#er and the later in so far, as the ter#s "ban+in$ institutions" and "ban+" are used in the 2ct, 23 declarin$ on the contrary that in "all #atters not specifically covered by special provisions applicable only to forei$n ban+s, or their branches and a$encies in the )hilippines, said forei$n ban+s or their branches and a$encies lawfully doin$ business in the )hilippines "shall be bound by all laws, rules, and re$ulations applicable to do#estic ban+in$ corporations of the sa#e class, e(cept such laws, rules and re$ulations as provided for the creation, for#ation, or$ani>ation, or dissolution of corporations or as fi( the relation, liabilities, responsibilities, or duties of #e#bers, stoc+holders or officers or corporations." 29 This 3ourt itself has already had occasion to hold 2D that a forei$n corporation licitly doin$ business in the )hilippines, which is a defendant in a civil suit, #ay not be considered a non$resident within the scope of the le$al provision authori>in$ attach#ent a$ainst a defendant not residing in the /hilippine 0slands4" 26 in other words, a preli#inary attach#ent #ay not be applied for and $ranted solely on the asserted fact that the defendant is a forei$n corporation authori>ed to do business in the )hilippines J and is conse%uently and necessarily, "a party who resides out of the )hilippines." )arenthetically, if it #ay not be considered as a party not residin$ in the )hilippines, or as a party who resides out of the country, then, lo$ically, it #ust be considered a party who does reside in the )hilippines, who is a resident of the country. !e this as it #ay, this 3ourt pointed out that5 . . . Eur laws and 6urisprudence indicate a purpose to assi#ilate forei$n corporations, duly licensed to do business here, to the status of do#estic corporations. <3f. Aection 13, 2ct ;o. 1.09, and Marshall 7ells 3o. vs. ?enry 7. lser V 3o., .' )hil. 10, 1'4 Gu4 3on$ n$ vs. Trinidad, .1 )hil. 380, .11= 7e thin+ it would be entirely out of line with this policy should we #a+e a discri#ination a$ainst a forei$n corporation, li+e the petitioner, and sub6ect its property to the harsh writ of sei>ure by attach#ent when it has co#plied not only with every re%uire#ent of law #ade specially of forei$n corporations, but in addition with every re%uire#ent of law #ade of do#estic corporations. . . . . Ebviously, the assi#ilation of forei$n corporations authori>ed to do business in the )hilippines "to the status ofdomestic corporations," subsu#es their bein$ found and operatin$ as corporations, hence, residing, in the country. The sa#e principle is reco$ni>ed in 2#erican law5 that the "residence of a corporation, if it can be said to have a residence, is necessarily where it e(ercises corporate functions . . . 4" that it is .considered as dwellin$ "in the place where its business is done . . . ," as bein$ "located where its franchises are e(ercised . . . ," and as bein$ "present where it is en$a$ed in the prosecution of the corporate enterprise4" that a "forei$n corporation licensed to do business in a state is a resident of any country where it #aintains an office or a$ent for transaction of its usual and custo#ary business for venue purposes4" and that the "necessary ele#ent in its si$nification is locality of e(istence." 28 3ourts have held that "a do#estic corporation is re$arded as havin$ a residence within the state at any place where it is en$a$ed in the particulars of the corporate enterprise, and not only at its chief place or ho#e office4" 28 that "a corporation #ay be do#iciled in one state and resident in another4 its le$al do#icil in the state of its creation presents no i#pedi#ent to its residence in a real and practical sense in the state of its business activities." 29 The fore$oin$ propositions are in accord with the dictionary concept of residence as applied to 6uridical persons, a ter# which appears to co#prehend per#anent as well as te#porary residence.

ens and corporations to do &usiness in its o)n countr. and that they #ay be considered by other states as residents only for limited and e#clusive purposes. and actually doin$ business in this 3ountry throu$h branch offices or a$encies. Aection 1-3 does not say. The petitioners9 point is thus not well ta+en and need not be belabored. the place where they operate and transact business= separate fro# their do#icile < i. for neither is there any le$al provision e(pressly $ivin$ domestic &anks the sa#e power. of course. the "necessary ele#ent in . 7hat effectively #a+es such a forei$n corporation a resident corporation in the )hilippines is its actually bein$ in the )hilippines and licitly doin$ business here. That the Monetary !oard can not appoint a conservator or receiver for a forei$n ban+ or order its li%uidation havin$ only the power to revo+e its license. that the law is not lac+in$ in sanctions a$ainst forei$n ban+s or powerless to protect the latter9s creditors. when they alle$ed in that petition that they are forei$n ban+in$ corporations. /n truth. .. no substantive law e(plicitly $rantin$ foreign &anks the power to petition for the ad6udication of a )hilippine corporation as a ban+rupt. that it is re%uired that the laws under which forei$n corporations are for#ed "give /hilippine nationals. Ef course." 2s basis for the ar$u#ent they invo+e Aection 1-3 of the 3orporation 3ode which. as petitioners assert." which is not %uite the sa#e thin$. The law plainly $rants to a 6uridical person. or$ani>ed or e(istin$ ." is fatal to their cause. to repeat. does not for#ulate the proposition in the sa#e way. is of no #o#ent. or state. This is inconse%uential. in li$ht of the concept of resident forei$n corporations 6ust e(pounded.. natural or 6uridical.e. . <the= si$nification" of the ter#. which is another point that petitioners see+ to #a+e. the state of their for#ation or or$ani>ation=. The petitioners ne(t ar$ue that ")hilippine law is e#phatic that only forei$n corporations whose own laws $ive )hilippine nationals reciprocal ri$hts #ay do business in the )hilippines. licensed to do business in the )hilippines. .nited Atates= do "allow "ilipino citi>ens and corporations to do business" in their own territory and 6urisdiction. such a power to petition for the ad6udication of ban+ruptcy of any person. it is not really the $rant of a license to a forei$n corporation to do business in this country that #a+es it a resident4 the license #erely $ives le$iti#acy to its doin$ business here.ow. althou$h their capacity to petition for insolvency can scarcely be disputed and is not in truth disputed by petitioners. "locality of e(istence" bein$. as to natural persons as well. they were in effect statin$ that they are resident forei$n corporations in the )hilippines. whether it be a ban+ or not or it be a forei$n or do#estic corporation.either can the 3ourt accept the theory that the o#ission by the ban+s in their petition for involuntary insolvency of an e(plicit and cate$orical state#ent that they are "residents of the )hilippine /slands.e. There is. The fact is. allo) 5ilipino citi.The 3ourt cannot thus accept the petitioners9 theory that corporations #ay not have a residence <i. resident corporation. . . /t also see#s to the 3ourt %uite apparent that the /nsolvency *aw contains no re%uire#ent that the laws of the state under which a forei$n corporation has been for#ed or or$ani>ed should $rant reciprocal ri$hts to )hilippine citi>ens to apply for involuntary insolvency of a resident or citi>en thereof. /t has no lo$ical connection to the #atter of whether or not the forei$n ban+ #ay properly as+ for a 6udicial declaration of the involuntary insolvency of a do#estic corporation." 7hat it does say is that the laws of the country or state under which a forei$n corporation is "for#ed. . provided that it is a resident corporation and 6oins at least two other residents in presentin$ the petition to the !an+ruptcy 3ourt. sub6ect to such proceedin$s as the Aolicitor 8eneral #ay thereafter dee# proper to protect its creditors. which is the issue at hand. in any event. as petitioners correctly aver. as petitioners ar$ue. however. reciprocal rights . . it see#s to the 3ourt that there can be no serious debate about the fact that the laws of the countries under which the three <3= respondent ban+s were for#ed or or$ani>ed <?on$+on$ and the .

.5= "incorporate its branch or branches into a new ban+ in accordance with )hilippine laws . the pay#ent adverted to does not appear to be all that lar$e. )ith one sole requirement. Moreover. .80. 7? @ "E@ . i.91. and therefore the pay#ent to the# of )'. in an a#ount which shall not be less than the #ini#u# a#ount of capital accounts re%uired for do#estic co##ercial ban+s under section twenty-two of this 2ct.010. too. their filin$ of the petition for involuntary insolvency bein$ an atte#pt to defeat validly ac%uired ri$hts of do#estic corporations.81.80.90. within one year fro# the effectivity" of the 8eneral !an+in$ 2ct.800.1 as of Dece#ber. The 3ourt wishes to si#ply point out that the effects of the institution of ban+ruptcy proceedin$s on all the creditors of the alle$ed ban+rupt are clearly spelled out by the law. Atill another ar$u#ent put forth by the petitioners is that the three ban+s9 failure to incorporate their branches in the )hilippines into new ban+s in accordance with said Aection '8 of the 8eneral !an+in$ 2ct connotes an intention on their part to continue as residents of their respective states of incorporation and not to be re$arded as residents of the )hilippines.33'. not merel. 3onverted into )hilippine currency at the rate of )1. the a$$re$ate liabilities of 3M/ to the ban+s.. the better. Thus.. that the respondent ban+s have co#e to court with unclean hands. . and .188./ D and the challen$ed Decision of the 3ourt of 2ppeals is 2""/@M D in toto.800.010. . was )130. e(pressed in )hilippine currency.-3.. 30the dollar account would be )11. 1981.. 4 or -= "assi$n capital per#anently to the local branch with the concurrent #aintenance of a 9net due to9 head office account which shall include all net a#ounts due to other branches outside the )hilippines in an a#ount which when added to the assi$ned capital shall at all ti#es be not less than the #ini#u# a#ount of capital accounts re%uired for do#estic co##ercial ban+s under section twenty-two of this 2ct4" or 3= "#aintain a "net due to" head office account which shall include all net a#ounts due to other branches outside the )hilippines... 1981 was )-1. The total liabilities of 3M/ to the three respondent ban+s as of Dece#ber. was to co#ply with an. The ar$u#ent is based on an inco#plete and inaccurate %uotation of the cited Aection.031. These three <3= options are the followin$5 1= <that singled out and quoted by the petitioners.The petitioners contend.. 1981. and will be observed by the /nsolvency 3ourt re$ardless of whatever #otives J apart fro# the desire to share in the assets of the insolvent in satisfyin$ its credits J that the party institutin$ the proceedin$s #i$ht have..899 to the dollar.-U of the total indebtedness. with the result that they were "preferred in the distribution of 3M/9s assets thereby defraudin$ other creditors of 3M/. the avera$e rate of e(chan$e durin$ Dece#ber.AX1.00 constituted only so#e .01. /t is in any case a circu#stance that the !an+ruptcy 3ourt #ay well ta+e into consideration in deter#inin$ the #anner and proportion by which the assets of the insolvent co#pany shall be distributed a#on$ its creditors4 but it should not be considered a $round for $ivin$ the petition for insolvency short shrift.. 7hat Aection '8 re%uired of a "forei$n ban+ presently havin$ branches and a$encies in the )hilippines." The less said about this ar$u#ent then. they received fro# the latter substantial pay#ents on account in the a$$re$ate a#ount of )'. of three D>E options. with costs a$ainst the petitioners. the petition is D .00.00. AE E@D @ D. . The petitioners alle$e that three days before respondent ban+s filed their petition for involuntary insolvency a$ainst 3M/. ..e." 7on sequitur.

where he arrived on Ectober 10. ?is widow. /n #a+in$ this state#ent the testator i$nored the possible clai#s of two sets of children. 1913. /n the year 1890 *eona 3astro was #arried to "rederic+ von Iauff#an. and father "un+nown. and rnesto. G. which was devised to the testator9s brothers and sisters. S!REE!.. L-11896 A-*-&' D. Three children were born of this #arria$e." . she was reco$ni>ed by Aa#uel !ischoff on &une --.)r'h#-++)r. JJ. she was born in that pue&lo on 2pril 11. C. Thos. !y the will everythin$ was $iven to the widow. Awit>erland. J.-ri o$Aquino and !edialdea. a& *-ar"$a% o( 'h) #$%or& E&'h)r R)%a') Mor." This annotation as well as the ori$inal entry is authenticated by the si$nature of "ather "errero. Awit>erland. *eona 3astro. upon publication of notice. The pertinent bio$raphical facts concernin$ *eona 3astro are these5 2s appears fro# the ori$inal baptis#al entry #ade in the church record of !acolod. was duly allowed and established by the court. 1899. %o.. with the e(ception of a piece of real property located in the 3ity of Thun. and to her accordin$ly letters testa#entary were issued. @a#ire> he was therefore devoid of forced heirs. for the purpose of recuperatin$ her health. 2 few days after his de#ise the will was offered for probate in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of /loilo and. born in ?on$ Ion$. a%" L)o%'$%a E+$FaE)'h. Car#)% Mar$a Mor. vs. e(ecutri(-appellant. died in the city of /loilo on &une -9. O!!O GM>R. who had co#e to live in the city of /loilo. na#ely. lena. a !ritish sub6ect. Cru. 1918 I% 'h) #a'')r o( )&'a') o( Sa#-)+ B$&cho(( .ano for e#ecutri#$appellant.ove#ber 10. took no part. DoHa 2na M. but for #any years a resident of the )hilippine /slands. concur. 2s the years passed *eona 3astro was ta+en into the fa#ily of Aa#uel !ischoff and brou$ht up by hi# and his wife a a #e#ber of the fa#ily4 and it is sufficiently shown by the evidence adduced in this case that Aa#uel !ischoff tacitly reco$ni>ed *eona a his dau$hter and treated her as such. 1898. 1810.pon the #ar$in of this record there is written in Apanish an additional annotation of the followin$ tenor5 "2ccordin$ to a public docu#ent <escritura= which was e(hibited. /n the #onth of 2pril 1899. ANA M./ Aa#uel !ischoff 7erth#uller. The first cause of the will contains a state#ent to the effect that inas#uch as the testator had no children fro# his #arria$e with 2na M. clai#ant-appellant. Ahe was there placed in a sanitariu#. leavin$ a valuable estate of which he disposed by will. native of the @epublic of Awit>erland. No.R. 1811. *eona 3astro was ta+en by her husband fro# /loilo to the 3ity of Thun. the youn$est havin$ been born on . and on 2u$ust -0th the husband departed for the )hilippine /slands. Aitken for claimant$appellant. born to his natural dau$hter. J. was na#ed as e(ecutri( in the will.. her #other bein$ "elisa 3astro. RAMIRE<. D. "ederico. .. @a#ire>.. whose deposition was ta+en in this case. ?e testifies that the wor+ "escritura" in this entry #eans a public docu#ent4 and he says that such docu#ent was e(hibited to hi# when the #ar$inal note which has been %uoted was added to the baptis#al record and supplied the basis for the annotation in %uestion.

2s will be sur#ised fro# the fore$oin$ state#ent. a third dau$hter was born. insists J at least as a$ainst the Mory clai#ants. /t appears that Doctor Mory hi#self had been previously #arried to one ?elena 7olp#an. *eona. it was ori$inally insisted in the court below. in Thun. the physician in char$e of the sanatoriu# in Awit>erland where she was ori$inally placed4 and soon after the decree of divorce was entered. as the le$iti#ate offsprin$ of *eona 3astro. was born to the# in !erne. fro# which it appears that a divorce was there decreed on &anuary 0. as aforesaid. )rior to the celebration of this cere#ony of #arria$e a dau$hter. and rnesto. Awit>erland. )aris. went throu$h the for#s of a #arria$e cere#ony before an officer duly %ualified to celebrate #arria$e under the n$lish law. she was to be considered as a le$iti#ate dau$hter of the wedded pair. in the year 190. in default. 2na M. En Ectober '. and a few years later infor#ed her husband. "ederico. /n behalf of *eontina. 1900. 1900. that she desired to re#ain free and would not resu#e life in co##on with hi#. in the re$istrar9s office in the district of 7est#inster. for the purpose of obtainin$ a divorce fro# his wife under the "rench laws4 and there is sub#itted in evidence in this case a certified copy of an e(tract fro# the #inutes of the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of the Depart#ent of the Aeine. Doctor Mory and *eona 3astro repaired to the 3ity of *ondon. now the place of their abode4 and on &une 10. that. 1909. Awit>erland. Iauff#an went to the 3ity of )aris. J that *eona 3astro had never been reco$ni>ed at all by Aa#uel !ischoff. En &uly -. 190'. rnest #il Mory. if livin$. "rance. that all three of the Mory children are the offsprin$ of adulterous relations. who# she had not seen a$ain. '.. and that the von Iauff#an children. havin$ been born while her #other still passed as the wife of "rederic+ von Iauff#an. had been born <&uly -1. 2s a conse%uence. @a#ire>. The estran$e#ent between the von Iauff#an spouses is e(plained by the fact that *eona 3astro had beco#e attracted to Dr.o. 1910. Mr. at the ti#e of her father9s death. it is ar$ued that the bonds of #atri#ony which united "rederic+ von Iauff#an and *eona 3astro were dissolved by the decree of divorce $ranted by the )aris court on &anuary 0. @ue Doni>etti. 1900= to Doctor Mory and *eona 3astro. n$land. the two youn$er of the Mory clai#ants. there is no evidence that she had ac%uired a per#anent do#icile in that city. /n the present proceedin$s Etto 8#ur has appeared as the $uardian of the three Mory clai#ants. na#ed 3ar#en Maria. in favor of Mr. the #other died. the clai#s of both sets of children are founded upon the contention that *eona 3astro was the reco$ni>ed natural dau$hter of Aa#uel !ischoff and that as such she would. and on May 0. lena. /n behalf of the children of "rederic+ von Iauff#an it is insisted that the decree of divorce was wholly invalid. as the widow of Aa#uel !ischoff and residuary le$atee under his will. bein$ ori$inally the ille$iti#ate dau$hter of Doctor Mory and *eona 3astro.*eona 3astro continued to re#ain in Awit>erland. na#e sther. while "rederic+ von Iauff#an has appeared as the $uardian of his own three children. the oldest of the Mory clai#ants. Thou$h the record recites that *eona was then in fact residin$ at . na#ed *eontina li>abeth. are alone entitled to participate in the . and had been divorced fro# her4 but how or under what circu#stances this divorce had been obtained does not appear. she was le$iti#ated by their subse%uent #arria$e. a second dau$hter. have been a forced heir of his estate and would have been entitled to participate therein to the e(tend of a one-third interest. 19004 that the #arria$e cere#ony which was soon thereafter celebrated between Doctor Mory and *eona in *ondon was in all respects valid4 and that therefore these clai#ants are to be considered the le$iti#ate offsprin$ of their #other. This contention has been abandoned on this appeal a untenable4 and it is now contended here #erely that. /n behalf of 3ar#en Maria and sther @enate. Iauff#an and a$ainst his wife.

This was sufficient to 6ustify the introduction of secondary evidence concernin$ its contents4 and the testi#ony of the priest show that the fact of reco$nition was therein stated. an affir#ative presu#ption which places the burden of provin$ the contrary upon those who are interested in i#pu$nin$ the natural filiation. The ori$inal docu#ent itself was not produced in evidence but it is shown that dili$ent search was #ade to discover its whereabouts. the burden of provin$ it would have been upon the . that said docu#ent was presented to the priest. pp. and there is no evidence to show that "elisa 3atro was either a sin$le wo#an or widow at the ti#e of the conception or birth of *eona. the #e#orandu# in the baptis#al record itself constitutes ori$inal and substantive proof of the facts therein recited.division of such part of the estate of Aa#uel !ischoff as would have been inherited by their #other. it #ust be presu#ed that she was a sin$le wo#an or a widow. @elative to this presu#ption of the capacity of the parents to #arry.= .= /n other words at tacit reco$nition was sufficient. &ustice Torres. of the 7ovisima "ecopilacion. however. which cannot be entertained.nder that law reco$nition could be established by proof of acts on the part of the parent une%uivocally reco$ni>in$ the status of his offsprin$. to wit. under *aw 11 of Toro. 1-. accordin$ to the 6urisprudence of our for#er law. 8 )hil.= The contrary presu#ption would be that "elisa 3astro was $uilty of adultery. /t will be observed that the reco$nition of *eona 3astro as the dau$hter of Aa#uel !ischoff occurred prior to the date when the 3ivil 3ode was put in force in these /slands4 and conse%uently her ri$hts as derived fro# the reco$nition #ust be deter#ined under the law as it then e(isted. . whose spirit is #aintained in the 3ode. showin$ the fact of such reco$nition. viewin$ the conception of natural child in connection with two #utually interrelated circu#stances. /f such had in fact been the case. 7e are of the opinion that the reco$nition of *eona 3astro is sufficiently shown whether the case be 6ud$ed by the one provision or the other. <3osio vs.nder article 131 of the present 3ivil 3ode. 10 )hil. boo+ 10. "urther#ore. Derecho Civil. as well as fro# the testi#ony of this priest. /n the absence of proof to the contrary. or in other public instru#ent. which afterwards beca#e *aw 1. 1018-1019.. the freedo# of the parents to inter#arry. !ut it is contended by counsel for DoHa 2na @a#ire> that only children born of persons free to #arry #ay possess the status of reco$ni>ed natural children. where this statute is %uoted in the opinion written by Mr. it also appears that Aa#uel !ischoff had e(ecuted a docu#ent. or freedo# to #arry. /t is proved that prior to her #arria$e with "rederic+ von Iauff#an she was in an uninterrupted en6oy#ent of the de facto status of a natural child and was treated as such by Aa#uel !ischoff and his +indred. if livin$. <See 3apistrano vs. is a point upon which there is. The proof of tacit reco$nition is full and co#plete. reco$ni>in$ *eona as his dau$hter. as custodian of the church records. the first of these. 11. authenticated by a notarial act. at the ti#e of the conception of the offsprin$ sti$#ati>ed as natural. <:ol. 0. state of 8abino. without avail. with or without dispensation. "ro# the #e#orandu# #ade by )adre "errero in the record of the birth. 7e are of the opinion that the status of *eona 3astro as reco$ni>ed natural dau$hter of Aa#uel !ischoff is fully and satisfactorily shown. the author Aanche> @o#an #a+es the followin$ co##ent5 "urther#ore. 139.. and upon the faith of that docu#ent the #ar$inal note was added to the baptis#al record. 130. the ac+nowled$#ent of a natural child #ust be #ade in the record of birth. title 0. )ili. that is. by will. ta+en upon the deposition.

= The voluntary appearance of the defendant before such a tribunal does not invest the court with 6urisdiction. The evidence shows that the decree was entered a$ainst the defendant in default. 1. for failure to answer. 3''. or had atte#pted to ac%uire.= "ro# the fact that *eona 3astro was an ac+nowled$ed natural dau$hter of her father. 3ivil 3ode=.. A. <3ivil 3ode.. and there is nothin$ to show that she had ac%uired.-. <1. 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure. 8. and would be entitle to participate in their #other9s portion of Mr. 1. his residence #ust be &ona fide. <2ndrews vs. <See . born to their parents in lawful wedloc+4 and they are therefore entitled to participate in the inheritance which would have devolved upon their #other. and is now. art. and with no intention of re#ainin$.. 1. and that /loilo was their #atri#onial do#icile4 that his departure fro# iloilo for the purpose of ta+in$ his wife to Awit>erland was li#ited to that purpose alone. it is evident that their ri$hts principally depend upon the effect to be $iven by this court to the decree of divorce $ranted to von Iauff#an by the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of the 3ity of )aris. 3yc. the older one of the Mory clai#ants. The evidence shows conclusively that "rederic+ von Iauff#an at all ti#es since earliest youth has been. This is especially true where the cause of divorce is one not reco$ni>ed by the laws of the Atate of his own do#icile. 33. do#iciled in the city of /loilo in the )hilippine /slands4 that he there #arried *eona 3astro. the subse%uent #arria$e of Doctor Mory and *eona 3astro #ust also be conceded to be valid4 and as a conse%uence the two youn$er children..3. 2ndrews. who was a citi>en of the )hilippine /slands. 811.ote to Auccession of !enton. it is enou$h to say that they are le$iti#ate children. he havin$ died after the 3ivil 3ode too+ effect. 818. such #arria$e bein$ indissoluble under the laws then prevailin$ in this country. 7e are of the opinion that the decree of divorce upon which reliance is placed by the representation of the Mory children cannot be reco$ni>ed as valid in the courts of the )hilippine /slands. if he had survived the testator. his residence there is not sufficient to confer 6urisdiction on the courts of that Atate.1 *. for the sole purpose of $ettin$ a divorce. to $ive a court 6urisdiction on the $round of the plaintiff9s residence in the Atate or country of the 6udicial foru#. <Aec.= /t follows that. 7ith reference to the ri$ht of the von Iauff#an children. 9394 3ivil 3ode. The "rench tribunal has no 6urisdiction to entertain an action for the dissolution of a #arria$e contracted in these /slands by person do#iciled here. there would in the case still be the insuperable obstacle which results fro# the fact that she was the offsprin$ of adulterous intercourse and a such was incapable of le$iti#ation <art. a per#anent do#icile in the 3ity of )aris. /f a spouse leaves the fa#ily do#icile and $oes to another Atate for the sole purpose of obtainin$ a divorce. first transitory disposition=4 and as such forced heir she would have been entitled to one-third of the inheritance <art. /t is established by the $reat wei$ht of authority that the court of a country in which neither of the spouses is do#iciled and to which one or both of the# #ay resort #erely for the purpose of obtainin$ a divorce has no 6urisdiction to deter#ine their #atri#onial status4 and a divorce $ranted by such a court is not entitled to reco$nition elsewhere.4 . 2. !ischoff9s estate. 119. article 801 B3C. par. /t is evident of course that the presence of both the spouses in that city was due #erely to the #utual desire to procure a divorce fro# each other. born after said #arria$e. it follows that had she survived hi# she would have been his forced heir. /f this decree is valid. 3ivil 3ode=.. 7ith respect to *eontina li>abeth..= ..persons i#pu$nin$ the reco$nition of the child by her father. ed. @. without any intent to establish a do#icile elsewhere4 and finally that he went to )aris in 190. 09 *. without any intention of establishin$ a per#anent residence in that city. 188 . 2s re$ards the Mory clai#ants. would be the le$iti#ate offsprin$ of their #other.

he rendered a decision in which he held <1= that *eona 3astro was the reco$ni>ed natural dau$hter of Aa#uel !ischoff4 <-= that the #inor. the von Iauff#an heirs. 1911=. A. 2 co##ittee on clai#s was appointed and it report was field and accepted "ebruary -0. without which there could be neither civili>ation nor pro$ress. . ed.= .. on behalf of the said #inors. !ut inas#uch as the tenets of the 3atholic 3hurch absolutely deny the validity of #arria$es where one of the parties is divorced. 191. as $uardian. validly contracted. DoHa 2na @a#ire> answered denyin$ all the alle$ations of von Iauff#an9s petition. was entitled to the re#ainin$ two-thirds. which petition was $ranted by order dated March . the sole contention of said answer bein$ that the #atter to which the petition relates had been disposed of by the decision of the 3ourt of "irst /nstance rendered in said proceedin$s by &ud$e Mariano on Dece#ber 9. is a le$iti#ate dau$hter of *eona 3astro4 and <3= that the #inors 3ar#en Maria and sther @enate are ille$iti#ate children of *eona 3astro. filed in the cause a petition settin$ forth their ri$ht to share in the estate. Etto 8#ur. The 2ct to which we have referred per#its an absolute divorce to be $ranted where the wife has been $uilty of adultery or the husband of concubina$e. and ac+nowled$ed natural children. -110 by the )hilippine *e$islature <March 11. it had been the law of these /slands that #arria$e. DoHa 2na @a#ire>. could not le$ali>e their relations4 and the circu#stance that they afterwards passed for husband and wife in Awit>erland until her death is wholly without le$al si$nificance. for it is the foundation of the fa#ily and of society.pon the issues thus presented a trial was had before the ?onorable "er#in Mariano. on 2pril -'. *eontina li>abeth. /n this connection it appears that the will of Aa#uel !ischoff was probated in 2u$ust. Thereafter. "ro# this decision both DoHa 2na @a#ire> and Etto 8#ur. 2n i#portant %uestion arises in connection with the ti#e within which the clai#s of the two sets of children were presented to the court. the e(act effect and bearin$ of which need not be here discussed. -104 31 *. le$iti#ated. Mr.2s have been well said by the Aupre#e 3ourt of the .ntil the adoption of 2ct . 191'. <Maynard vs. '09. The word "descendants. 1-0 . "rederic+ von Iauff#an #ade application to the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of /loilo by petition filed in the proceedin$s therein pendin$ upon the estate of the late Aa#uel !ischoff for appoint#ent as $uardian ad litem of his #inor children. on 2pril 1. von Iauff#an.1 of the 3ivil 3ode cannot be interpreted to include ille$iti#ates born of adulterous relations. 191'. celebrated in *ondon in 1900. it is evident that the reco$nition of a divorce obtained under the conditions revealed in this case would be as repu$nant to the #oral sensibilities of our people as it is contrary to the well-established rules of law. could not be dissolved absolutely e(cept by the death of one of the parties4 and such was the law in this 6urisdiction at the ti#e when the divorce in %uestion was procured. The children of adulterous relations are wholly e(cluded. and that his widow. "ro# these facts the court drew the conclusion that *eontina li>abeth was entitled to one-third of the estate of the late Aa#uel !ischoff. DoHa 2na @a#ire>. 1913. This petition was answered by Mr. The enact#ent of this statute undoubtedly reflect a chan$e in the policy of our laws upon the sub6ect of divorce. Ahortly after the appeals above-#entioned were ta+en. 1910. appealed. it results that the #arria$e of Doctor Mory and *eona 3astro. 2s the divorce $ranted by the "rench court #ust be i$nored." as used in article 9. The clai#s of the Mory children to participate in the estate of Aa#uel !ischoff #ust therefore be re6ected. answered the petition denyin$ that said #inors were the le$iti#ate children of *eona 3astro and further denyin$ that the latter was the reco$ni>ed natural dau$hter of Aa#uel !ischoff.o. 1910.. . and on Dece#ber -9.. 2bout the sa#e ti#e Etto 8#ur entered an appearance for the Mory clai#ants and petitioned the court to enter a decree establishin$ their ri$ht to participate in the distribution of the estate..nited Atates #arria$e is an institution in the #aintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested. 191'. ?ill. The ri$ht to inherit is li#ited to le$iti#ate. $uardian.. The e(ecutri(.

180. sec. /f this contention is sustainable. -1 )hil. Two %uestions are here involved. <3ode of 3ivil )rocedure. Etto 8#ur as $uardian. The %uestion as to the conclusiveness of the order of distribution can best be considered with reference to the von Iauff#an children. . as $uardian. thereby e(cludin$ by inference the Mory clai#ants fro# all participation in the estate. as a$ainst persons who are not before the court. The parties to the liti$ation have also stipulated that all the "evidence. rendered a decision under date of .= /ndeed it is evident.ove#ber 1. @a#ire> that her ri$hts to the estate under the will of Aa#uel !ischoff were at the latest deter#ined by the final decree of Dece#ber -9. one as to the effect of the probate of a will upon the ri$hts of forced heirs who do not appear to contest the probate. 191'. are the le$iti#ate children of "rederic+ von Iauff#an and the said *eona 3astro. were brou$ht to this court separately4 but the causes were subse%uently consolidated and have been heard to$ether. no appeal havin$ ta+en by DoHa 2#a @a#ire>.. had actually been perfected and the cause had been transferred to the Aupre#e 3ourt. or practically all of it. 8 )hil.. "rit>. it #ay be stated in passin$ that the appeals of DoHa 2na @a#ire> and of Etto 8#ur. &ud$e )owell based his conclusion that all that portion of the estate of Aa#uel !ischoff pertainin$ to *eona 3astro should be e%ually divided a#on$ the children "ederico. A. 1910.. and the appeal of Etto 8#ur. 3 )hil. 3.ove#ber 1.pon the facts so found.pon the evidence ta+en at that hearin$ the ?onorable &. and the other as to the conclusiveness and finality of an order for the distribution of an estate. the %uestion of its intrinsic validity not bein$ deter#ined by such decree. and lena. 19104 and that it was thereafter inco#petent for the court to ta+e co$ni>ance of the application of the Mory clai#ants. "ro# this 6ud$#ents an appeal was ta+en by Mr. Thou$h the circu#stance is now of no practical i#portance. 1 )hil. $uardian fro# the decision of &ud$e )owell.pon the first of these %uestions it is enou$h to say that the ri$hts of forced heirs to their le$iti#e are not divested by the decree ad#ittin$ a will to probate.14 &ocAoy vs. )owell.-'4 Aaha$un vs. . ca#e on for hearin$ before the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of /loilo on the 10th day of 2u$ust. $uardian. . rnesto. the will is intrinsically invalid so far a it would operate to cut off their ri$hts. De 8orosti>a. '-04 3astaHeda vs. stipulations and ad#issions in each of the two proceedin$s above-#entioned #ay be considered for all purposes by this court in the other.. lena. fro# the decision of &ud$e Mariano of Dece#ber 9.pon the facts above stated it is insisted for 2na M. of . born in lawful wedloc+. that the forced heirs cannot be pre6udiced by the failure of the testator to provide for the# in his will4 and re$ardless of the intention of the testator to leave all his property. 11 )hil. as 6ud$e then presidin$ in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance of /loilo. 3904 2ustria vs. :entenilla. . 1910." The case is therefore considered here as thou$h there had been but one trial below and all the issues of law and fact arisin$ fro# the contentions of the oppossin$ clai#ants had been heard at the sa#e ti#e. 393. 1194 *i#6uco vs.2le#any. in which he found as a fact *eona 3astro was the ac+nowled$ed natural dau$hter of Aa#uel !ischoff and that the #inors. 191'.. as the solution of the proble# as to the# necessarily involves the disposition of the %uestion as to the Mory clai#ants. . under the e(press ter#s of the proviso to section 103 of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure. for the decree of probate is conclusive only a re$ards the due e(ecution of the will. J and this re$ardless of the fact that no provision has been #ade for the# in the will. J since this application was not #ade until the appeals fro# the decree of Dece#ber 9.. :aHo. 191'. the sa#e considerations would operate to defeat the later application filed on behalf of the von Iauff#an children J and indeed with even $reater force.The trial of the petition of von Iauff#an. . and rnesto. 8anara. to his wife..

Eur conclusion is that the application of the von Iauff#an children was presented in a#ple ti#e and that the 6ud$#ent entered in their favor by &ud$e )owell was correct. Ao far a the record shows the court was then unaware even of their e(istence. )asco <0 @ob./t is evident that the von Iauff#an children cannot be considered to have been in any sense parties to the proceedin$ at the ti#e &ud$e Mariano rendered his decision.evertheless. /n other respects the 6ud$#ent of &ud$e Mariano is affir#ed. This would indicate that a decree of distribution under which one #ay be placed in possession of land ac%uired by descent. . Aection . Ingenohl vs olsen This is a suit to recover the costs adjudged to the plaintiff. B*a. or service of any +ind upon other persons who #i$ht consider the#selves entitled to participate in the estate. as already stated. the petitioner here. $rant. as we have already shown. of such application. or otherwise9 shall vest title in the possessor. The costs of this instance will be paid out of the estate. a held in *ayre vs. was #ade without publication of notice. /n $eneral ter#s the law is that after the pay#ent of the debts and e(penses of ad#inistration the court shall distribute the residue of the estate a#on$ the persons who are entitled to receive it. how has it been since divestedL The record shows that the decision of Dece#ber -9.o notice of any +ind was served upon the#4 nor was any person then before the court authori>ed to act in their behalf.ove#ber 1. in a former suit that was brought by him against the defendant in the British Colony of Hongkong and was . and that. 10. of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure.. in which &ud$e Mariano holds that the estate should be divided between *eontina li>abeth and the residuary le$atee DoHa 2na @a#ire>.1 of the 3ode of 3ivil )rocedure provides that ten years actual adverse possession by "occupancy.. /t will be noted that while the law <sec. the ri$ht to participate in his estate vested i##ediately in this children. 1910. 1910. the action of revindication #ay be brou$ht by the heir a$ainst the persons put in possession by decree of the probate court at any ti#e within the period allowed by the $eneral statute of li#itations. to the e(tent to which their #other would have been entitled to participate had she survived her father. 9=. pursuant to the decision of &ud$e Mariano of Dece#ber -9. as ad#its *eontina li>abeth Mory to participate in the estate of Aa#uel !ischoff is reversed4 and instead the von Iauff#an children will be ad#itted to share e%ually in one-third of the estate as provided in the decision of &ud$e )owell of . had without notice by personal service or by publication. is not in itself conclusive. or of a person interested in the estate. is to all intents and purposes e# parte. descent. . by publication or otherwise. are debarred fro# participation in the estate on other $rounds. Ao ordered. 191'. /f the ri$ht vested upon the death of Aa#uel !ischoff. The Mory clai#ants. The proceedin$.C. whether by the ter#s of the will or by operation of law. 2 will be seen our law is very va$ue and inco#plete4 and certainly it cannot be held that a purely e# parte proceedin$. by which the court underta+es to distribute the property of deceased persons. The law in force in the )hilippine /slands re$ardin$ the distribution of estates of deceased persons is to be found in section 103 et seq. Ao #uch of the 6ud$#ent entered in the 3ourt of "irst /nstance. upon the death of Aa#uel !ischoff. therefore. can be conclusive upon #inor heirs who are not represented therein.= provides that the order of distribution #ay be had upon the application of the e(ecutor or ad#inistrator. no provision is #ade for notice.

and the good will. fraud or clear mistake of law or fact. collusion. trade!names and trade!marks thereof. want of notice to the party. is the final e"ponent of that law.trade!mark started elsewhere would depend for its protection in Hongkong upon the law prevailing in Hongkong and would confer no rights e"cept by the consent of that law Hanover Star $illing Co v $etcalf. or what the effect./. would be . S Ct 40. we do not see how it is possible for a foreign Court to pronounce his decision wrong It will be acted on and settles the rights of the parties in Hongkong and in view of that fact it seems somewhat parado"ical to say that it is not the law If the -lien &roperty Custodian purported to convey rights in :nglish territory valid as against those whom the :nglish law protects he e"ceeded the powers that were or could be given to him by the 5nited States It is not necessary to consider whether the section of the Code of Civil &rocedure relied upon was within the power of the &hilippine Commission to pass In any event as interpreted it involved delicate considerations of international relations and therefore we should not hold ourselves bound to that deference that we show to the judgment of the local Court upon matters of only local concern =e are of opinion that whatever scope may be given to the section it is far from warranting the refusal to enforce this :nglish judgment for costs. but no principle re1uires the transfer to be given effect outside of the 5nited States and when as here it has been decided to have been ineffectual it is unnecessary to in1uire whether in the other event the -lien &roperty Custodian was authori2ed by the statute to use or did use in fact words purporting to have that effect. being the above mentioned business of the plaintiff in the &hilippines The Supreme Court of the &hilippines held that it was plain error in the Supreme Court of the British Colony to hold that this sale did not carry the e"clusive right to use the trade!marks in the latter place . the outside bo" or package of the Hongkong goods having a label indicating that they came from there The trade!marks were registered in Hongkong and the cigars covered by them had ac1uired a reputation In (. obtained after a fair trial before a court having jurisdiction of the parties. *40 5 S . of Syndicat %riente. and that may be the fact for China outside of Hongkong as seems to have been held in another case not yet finally disposed of. the circumstances and nature of which may be stated in few words so far as they concern the present case The plaintiff Ingenohl had built up a great business as a cigar manufacturer and e"porter having his factory at $anila In (. '6 S Ct '78. 6' 9 :d (4( =hen then the judge who.rug Co v Theodore <ectanus Co . 5nited .. authoritatively declares that the assignment by the Custodian of the assets of the $anila firm cannot and will not be allowed to affect the rights of the party concerned in Hongkong. in the absence of an appeal to the &rivy Council.(0 the -lien &roperty Custodian sei2ed and sold all the property .wheresoever situate in the &hilippine Islands 3 3 3 including the business as going concern.s transfer as good within its jurisdiction. if there were no opposing local interest or right. '.may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction. 6/ 9 :d 8('./0 he established a factory at Hongkong and thereafter goods from both factories were sold under the same trade!marks. and that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Hongkong showed such a clear mistake The supposed mistake consisted in denying effect in Hongkong to a sale of business and trade!marks by the -lien &roperty Custodian to the defendant. when the judgment is un1uestionably valid and in other respects will be enforced %f course a foreign state might accept the Custodian.determined in his favor by the Supreme Court there The judgment declared the plaintiff to be the owner of certain trade!marks and trade!names and entitled to the e"clusive use of them in connection with his business as a cigar manufacturer It restrained the defendants from selling cigars under these trade!marks and awarded the costs now sued for The Court of #irst Instance of $anila gave judgment for the plaintiff %n appeal the Supreme Court of the &hilippine Islands reversed this decision on the ground that by section '(()*+ of the Code of Civil &rocedure a judgment against a person . *4/ 5 S 4/'.. if any.

". 030. Aantos. J. 19'1. 26. REP>BLIC OF !1E P1ILIPPINES. 2ttached to the petition were affidavits of Marcelo de la 3ru> and "ederico 8. filed an "Epposition" clai#in$ that the two witnesses of petitioner are not credible and did not testify as to petitioner9s $ood reputation and #oral irreproachability. as a#ended by 3o##onwealth 2ct . 2fter the trial.R. and let the proper naturali>ation certificate be issued in his favor and the re$istration thereof in the proper civil re$istry.. and we confirm it now The validity of the section of the Code of Civil &rocedure is drawn in 1uestion. the Effice of the Aolicitor 8eneral on Ectober . this 3ourt finds that petitioner has all the %ualifications re%uired by. the dispositive portion of which states5 ((( ((( ((( /n view of the fore$oin$. the pertinent portion of which is hereby reproduced5 T?/@D. this decision to beco#e e(ecutory in accordance with the provisions of Aection 1 of @epublic 2ct . a citi>en of the @epublic of 3hina. . ?> @IAN C1IE. 19'0.: Gu Iian 3hie. when the writ of certiorari was granted There are few cases in which it is more important to maintain it. petitioner-appellee.o. En Dece#ber 18.00. a petition for naturali>ation. %.. at least provisionally. and also the construction of the Trading with the :nemy -ct )Comp St >> '((7 (?* a!'((7 (?* j+ which is treated as purporting to authori2e what in our opinion it could not authori2e if it tried @udgment reversed G. the said petition of Gu Iian 3hie to be ad#itted a citi>en of the )hilippines is hereby $ranted. 7? @ "E@ . 03. containin$ all the 6urisdictional re%uire#ents. "a&a.. and has co#plied with all the re%uisites established therein.o. L-20169 F)Er-ar. and none of the dis%ualifications specified in. . 196D IN !1E MA!!ER OF !1E PE!I!ION OF ?> @IAN C1IE !O BE A5MI!!E5 A CI!I<EN OF !1E P1ILIPPINES. who acted as character witnesses4 Declaration of /ntention and 3ertificate of 2rrival. oppositor-appellant. 2ffice of the Solicitor -eneral for oppositor$appellant. No.o.000.J My trade or profession is that of an e#ployee in which / have been en$a$ed since 1901 and fro# which / derive an avera$e annual inco#e of )3.Some 1uestion was made of the jurisdiction of this Court The jurisdiction was asserted. 19'1. presented with the 3"/ of Manila. PARE5ES.13.on for petitioner$appellee. on "ebruary . the lower court rendered a decision. 3o##onwealth 2ct . vs.

alle$edly co##itted by the court a quo. fro# sin$le to #arried. which states5 . ven $rantin$.. 7e %uote a portion of the ar$u#ent of counsel for petitioner-appellee. any additional thereof bein$ purely contin$ent. /t is not. /n 19'1 also.00 in 19'0 and )1. 7hen there are no profits.00.A/D @ D. there has been a chan$e in the status of petitioner.. /n other words. to the rendition of the Aupple#ental Decision.00 in 1901. /n other words. the allowances and the bonuses are not $iven. to )0.00 a #onth.00. the sa#e lucrative inco#e. the court a quo rendered a "Aupple#ental Decision. considerin$ that the petitioner is now a #arried #an." clai#in$ that his inco#e has risen fro# )3. still this a#ount cannot be considered lucrative in the face of the fact that in 19'1 he $ot #arried. althou$h 7e entertain serious doubts re$ardin$ their veracity J a point which 7e will discuss later J the overridin$ issue would be. but #ust sprin$ fro# purely voluntary actuations. dependin$ of course.000. plus.000. /nsofar as the evidence is concerned. conditioned to the circu#stance that the e#ployer was #a+in$ profits. which a#ount does not co#e up to the cate$ory of a lucrative inco#e.= 2nd the livin$ allowance is $iven re$ularly fro# the ti#e the petitioner started wor+in$ with the @epublic ?ardware in 1909 up to the present. 3. was only receivin$ )100.000. and on &uly 18. his client.. for purposes of ar$u#ent. on the profit which said co#pany reali>es every year fro# its business.00 in 19'0 and )0. petitioner-appellee herein presented with the lower court a "Motion to @eopen 3ase to nable )etitioner to present 2dditional Docu#entary )roof of his /nco#e. <p. . 19'-. and considerin$ that the raise in salary was $iven durin$ the pendency of his naturali>ation case.00. accidental or incidental. but durin$ the pendency of the approval of the record on appeal. brief. The #otion was heard. the rest bein$ in the for# of allowances and bonuses which #ay or #ay not be $iven to appellee. 2s a starter on this point. it <livin$ allowance= has assu#ed its re$ularity as a part of the salary in consideration of the services rendered by the petitioner. The above-%uoted portion of the ar$u#ents of petitioner9s counsel is a clear indication that as far as salary is concerned. the bonuses of )100. as pointed out in his /nco#e Ta( @eturn for 19'1 < (h. therefore.-00. fro# the ti#e he presented his petition. 3osts a$ainst petitionerappellee.00 in 19'1. .00 yearly. as it is hereby reversed and another entered denyin$ Gu Iian 3hie9s petition for )hilippine citi>enship. '()ph*'. aside fro# the yearly bonus which the co#pany $ives hi#. or #ore. should be. . that the fi$ures appearin$ in the docu#entary evidence sub#itted are correct.=.100. that petitioner started to receive a fi(ed salary of ). it beco#es indisputable that petitioner9s true inco#e is only )100. +t "urther#ore. for purpose of ar$u#ent. appellee herein. There see# to be no %uestion re$ardin$ the fact that there has been an increase in the inco#e of petitioner.2fter the Aolicitor 8eneral has perfected his appeal fro# the above 6ud$#ent. !ut even $rantin$." !oth the ori$inal and the supple#ental decisions are the sub6ects of the instant appeal. the Aolicitor 8eneral ur$in$ a reversal thereof on a sin$ular assi$n#ent of error.. )@ M/A A 3E. )-.00 a #onth in 19'-. The increase in the inco#e had been due to a little increase in the salary.00 in 19'1. to wit5 in not findin$ that the petitioner failed to prove that he has a lucrative inco#e. safe to consider that the inco#e of petitioner is )3. as to enable it to $ive such bi$ allowance and bonus to appellee. the decision appealed fro#. petitioner9s e#ployer was not duty bound to $ive such allowances and bonuses. 7e are not convinced that petitioner9s e#ployee could be that $enerous to hi#. /t will be noted that the @epublic ?ardware did not present its boo+s to show that it was #a+in$ a $ood profit. ?e received a unifor# livin$ allowance of )100.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->