SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF.

LEO BATTAD
MALOLOS V ASIA PACIFIC FINANCE
CORPORATION
147 SCRA 61
PARAS; January 07, 1987
FACTS
- Petitioner Josephine Cruz Malolos (deceased) is represented by
her heirs Emmanuel, Maria Marinela and Maria Marjorie, all
surnamed Malolos.
- APC! purchased "rom E. #rancisco $iners Company, %nc. a
postdated #ar East &an' and (rust Company chec' in the amount o"
P)*+,***.** issued in the latter,s "a-or by petitioner, Josephine Cruz
Malolos.
- n purchase, #rancisco $iners e.ecuted a /eed o" Assi0nment o"
said chec' and as payee, endorsed the same in "a-or o" pri-ate
respondent be"ore 0ettin0 the discounted proceeds.
- 1hen deposited on its maturity date, the a"oresaid chec' 2as
dishonored "or the reason that petitioner,s ban' account had already
been closed.
- APC! demanded "rom #rancisco $iners and also "rom petitioner,
in her capacity as dra2er o" the chec', the payment o" said chec',
but the obli0ation remained unpaid.
- APC! "iled a complaint "or sum o" money 2ith preliminary
attachment a0ainst E. #rancisco $iners, Co., %nc., Elias A. #rancisco,
and petitioner (in her capacity as dra2er o" said chec').
- !espondent Jud0e issued an rder o" Attachment.
- Josephine Cruz Malolos died and her counsel "iled a Motion to
/ismiss the complaint as a0ainst her pursuant to 3ec. 4), !ule 5 o"
the !ules o" Court.
- Pri-ate respondent opposed the a"orementioned motion and ar0ued
that 3ec. 4), !ule 5 o" the !ules o" Court admits o" e.ceptions and
one o" them is 2hen an attachment has been le-ied on some o" the
properties o" the de"endant, on motion o" the plainti"", to secure the
payment o" the latter,s money claim in 2hich case the pendin0 action
should not be dismissed but may be continued a0ainst the e.ecutor
or administrator, in-o'in0 the rulin0 in the case o" Macondray Co.,
%nc. -. /un0ao.
- !espondent Jud0e ruled in "a-or o" pri-ate respondent and denied
the motion to dismiss.
ISSUE
16 an attachment le-ied on some properties o" the de"endant
constitutes an e.ception to the 0eneral rule o" non-sur-i-al o" the
money claim as pro-ided "or in 3ec. 4), !ule 5 o" the !ules o" Court.
EL!
- 6. (here is no 7uestion that the action in the court belo2 is "or
collection or reco-ery o" money.
- %t is already a settled rule that an action "or reco-ery o" money or "or
collection o" a debt is one that does not sur-i-e and upon the death
o" the de"endant the case should be dismissed to be presented in the
manner especially pro-ided in the !ules o" Court. (his is e.plicitly
pro-ided in 3ec. 4), !ule 5 o" the !ules o" Court .
- /y -. Ena0e8 (he lan0ua0e o" 3ection 4) o" !ule 5 is too clear in
this respect as to re7uire any interpretation or construction. %t -ery
e.plicitly says that 2hen the action "or reco-ery o" money, debt or
interest thereon, and the de"endant dies be"ore "inal jud0ment in the
Court o" #irst %nstance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the
manner specially pro-ided by the rules, meanin0, 3ection + o" !ule
9: and its related pro-isions.
- Earlier, 3ecs. )); and <** o" Act );* (Code o" Ci-il Procedure)
"rom 2hich this !ule 2as deri-ed 2ere interpreted by the 3upreme
Court in Pabico -. Jaranilla, et al. to be mandatory in character and
con"ers no jurisdiction upon the Court.
- (he reason "or the dismissal o" the case is that upon the death o"
the de"endant a testate or intestate proceedin0 shall be instituted in
the proper court 2herein all his creditors must appear and "ile their
claims 2hich shall be paid proportionately out o" the property le"t by
the deceased.
- (he purpose o" the rule is to a-oid useless duplicity o" procedure
---- the ordinary action must be 2iped out "rom the ordinary court.
- (he case o" Macondray -. /un0ao, supra, cited by pri-ate
respondent to support its position does not "all s7uarely 2ith the case
at bar.
- %n the abo-e-cited case, the "acts are as "ollo2s8 ()) the promissory
note e.ecuted by de"endant /un0ao represented the purchase price
o" the car and truc's 2hich said de"endant bou0ht "rom Macondray
on installment= (4) a 2rit o" attachment 2as issued on Au0ust ):,
);>;, but this 2as later on dissol-ed on 3eptember 4), );>;, 2hen
the de"endant put up a surety bond= and (5) the promissory note
sued upon in the cited case 2as secured by a mort0a0e on personal
property and the proper action should ha-e been a "oreclosure o"
mort0a0e.
- %n the present case, the money claim arose out o" a pure and
simple debt, 2hich as a"orementioned, under the pro-ision o" !ule 5,
3ec. 4) o" the !ules o" Court shall be dismissed and must be
brou0ht be"ore the probate court.
- %n the li0ht o" the "ore0oin0 considerations, the conclusion is
ine-itable that the trial court de-iated "rom the procedure laid do2n
by the pro-isions o" the !ules. (he "act that a 2rit attachment has
been issued cannot pro-ide an e.cuse "or such de-iation, as a 2rit o"
attachment is a remedy ancillary to the principal proceedin0s.
Conse7uently, i" it is mandatory, under !ule 5 3ec. 4) o" the !ules o"
Court that the principal proceedin0 or action be dismissed "or non-
sur-i-al o" the money claim, the purpose o" the attachment 2hich is
to secure the outcome o" the trial no lon0er e.ists and so 2ith the
reasons "or the issuance o" the 2rit in this case, inso"ar as the
deceased debtor is concerned.
- Corollary thereto, it has been held that a court order 2hich -iolates
the !ules constitutes 0ra-e abuse o" discretion as it 2rec's the
orderly procedure prescribed "or the settlement o" claims a0ainst
deceased persons desi0ned to protect the interests o" the creditors o"
the decedent. Allo2in0 the pri-ate respondent to attach petitioners,
properties "or the bene"it o" her claim a0ainst the estate 2ould 0i-e
an undue ad-anta0e o-er other creditors a0ainst the estate.
(here"ore, under the same principle, a 2rit o" attachment already
issued in connection 2ith a money claim 2hich has to be dismissed
because o" the death o" the de"endant be"ore "inal jud0ment cannot
pro-ide an e.ception to the 0eneral rule, and must accordin0ly be
dissol-ed.
Disposition !esolution o" respondent Jud0e 3E( A3%/E
LU"ON SURET# COMPAN#, INC$ V$ IAC AN! TE
PUVATS
)+) 3C!A :+4
?@(%E!!EA, J= June 5*, );9<
FACTS
-%n Ci-il Case 6o. +;+*: o" C#% Manila, entitled ,$uzon 3urety Co.,
%nc., -. Material /istributors (Phil.), %nc., et al.,, jud0ment 2as
rendered a0ainst the de"endants, includin0 ?il Puyat, "or the principal
sum o" P4*( 2ith interest. (he jud0ment became "inal on April )5,
);:<, but 2as not en"orced. 1ithin the prescription period, Ci-il Case
6o. ;54:9 2as instituted to re-i-e the earlier jud0ment.
-1hen ?il Puyat died, a claim a0ainst his estate 2as "iled in 3p.
Proc. 6o. B-544;) o" C#% !izal (Buezon City) "or the principal sum o"
P)<9,+*<.<:, includin0 interests, unpaid premiums and stamps, and
attorney,s "ees and costs o" suits. (he administrators opposed the
claim "or the reason that it is unen"orceable and barred by laches "or
no steps 2ere ta'en by the claimant to secure a 2rit o" e.ecution
a0ainst de"endant ?il Puyat durin0 his li"etime to en"orce any o" the
t2o jud0ments.
-!(C BC dismissed the case. %AC dismissed the petitioner,s appeal
by rulin0 that the prescription o" an action is not counted "rom the
e.piration o" the "i-e-year period 2ithin 2hich the jud0ment may be
en"orced by a mere motion but "rom the "inality o" that jud0ment.
M#! 2as denied.
CCA8 1hen the claim a0ainst the estate 2as "iled on 3ept ), );94,
more than se-enteen years had elapsed "rom the time jud0ment in
Ci-il Case +;+*: became "inal and more than "i-e years a"ter the
"inality o" its re-i-ed jud0ment in Ci-il Case ;54:9. Clearly, the ri0ht
o" claimant to satis"y the ori0inal jud0ment had lon0 prescribed.D
Petitioner says: the period o" ten ()*) years prescribed in the statute
o" limitations should be counted not "rom the date o" the "inality o" the
ori0inal jud0ment but "rom the date o" the "inality o" the re-i-ed
jud0ment.
Relevant provisions:
EArticles ))>>, 6CC8 (he "ollo2in0 actions must be brou0ht 2ithin ten
years "rom the time the ri0ht o" action accrues8 ... 5. @pon
jud0ment.
E!ule 5;.:, !oC8 E.ecution o" motion or by independent action. A
jud0ment may be e.ecuted on motion 2ithin "i-e (+) years "rom the
date o" its entry or "rom the date it becomes "inal and e.ecutory. A"ter
the lapse o" such time, and be"ore it is barred by the statute o"
limitations, a jud0ment may be en"orced by action.
ISSUE
16 the action has prescribed
1
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
EL!% #ES$
-(he decision in Ci-il Case 6o. +;+*: became "inal and e.ecutory on
April )5, );:<. (he jud0ment 2as not en"orced. (he petitioner
instituted Ci-il Case 6o. ;54:9 2ithin the prescripti-e period to re-i-e
the jud0ment in Ci-il Case 6o. +;+*:. (he re-i-ed jud0ment 2as
rendered on May 4>, );<>. (his jud0ment became "inal and
e.ecutory sometime in );<>. A0ain, this 2as not en"orced. n
3eptember ), );94, the petitioner "iled a claim in 3pecial
Proceedin0s 6o. B-544;) be"ore the then Court o" #irst %nstance o"
!izal. 1hat is sou0ht is a second re-i-al o" the jud0ment that had
become "inal in );:<. (his can no lon0er be done due to the lapse o"
the allo2able period.
-I& '( n)* (+&&,+- &.a& &.+ &+n/y+ar 0+r')- *'&.'n *.'1. an a1&')n
2)r r+3'3a, )2 a 4u-56+n& (.)u,- 7+ 7r)u5.&, 1)66+n1+( &) run
2r)6 &.+ -a&+ )2 2'na,'&y )2 &.+ 4u-56+n&, an- n)& 2r)6 &.+
+80'ra&')n )2 &.+ 2'3+/y+ar 0+r')- *'&.'n *.'1. &.+ 4u-56+n& 6ay
7+ +n2)r1+- 7y 6+r+ 6)&')n 9Ar&$ 11:;, C'3', C)-+<$
-(he source o" !5;.: is 3ec.>>< o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure
2hich in turn 2as deri-ed "rom the Code o" Ci-il Procedure o"
Cali"ornia. (he rule "ollo2ed in Cali"ornia in this re0ard is that a
proceedin0 by separate ordinary action to re-i-e a jud0ment is a ne2
action rather than a continuation o" the old, and results in a ne2
jud0ment constitutin0 a ne2 cause o" action, upon 2hich a ne2
period o" limitations be0ins to run.
-P6& -. /eloso (54 3C!A 4::), citin0 ?utierrez Fermanos -. /e $a
!i-a >: Phil., 94< ();45)8 the ten-year prescripti-e period
commences to run "rom the date o" "inality o" the jud0ment and not
"rom the e.piration o" "i-e (+) years therea"ter. (hree reasons 2ere
there ad-anced, to 2it8
()) Correlatin0 the rele-ant pro-isions, the conclusion one arri-es at
is that a"ter the e.piration o" the "i-e years 2ithin 2hich e.ecution can
be issued upon a jud0ment, the 2innin0 party can re-i-e it only in the
manner therein pro-ided so lon0 as the period o" ten years does not
e.pire "rom the date o" said jud0ment
(4) !i0ht o" the 2innin0 party to en"orce the jud0ment a0ainst the
de"eated party be0ins to e.ist the moment the jud0ment is "inal= and
this ri0ht, consists in (a) ha-in0 an e.ecution o" the jud0ment issued
durin0 the "irst "i-e years ne.t "ollo2in0, and in (b) commencin0 a"ter
that period the proceedin0 to re-i-e it, a remedy to be pursued only
be"ore the jud0ment prescribes (i.e., durin0 the "i-e years ne.t
"ollo2in0)
(5) %" it is held that the 2innin0 party has still ten ()*) years 2ithin
2hich to re-i-e the jud0ment a"ter the e.piration o" "i-e (+) years,
then the jud0ment 2ould not prescribed until a"ter "i"teen ()+) years,
2hich is a0ainst the pro-isions o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure.
-#ailure o" the Puyats to raise prescription in their GComment to
ClaimG does not imply the 2ai-er o" such de"ense. %n the instant
case, there is no ne2 issue o" "act that arises in connection 2ith the
7uestion o" prescription. All the pertinent dates sho2in0 that the
petitioner,s en"orcement o" the jud0ment under Ci-il Case 6o. ;54:9
has already prescribed can be "ound in the petitioner,s alle0ations in
the GclaimG as 2ell as its e-idence "iled in 3pecial Proceedin0s 6o.
B-544;). (his remo-es the case "rom the 0eneral rule that
prescription i" not impleaded in the ans2er is deemed 2ai-ed.
Disposition Petition is dismissed.
=ON"ALES V LOO!
AL>ANO V A=TARAP
A!E$$A6= March 4+, );)4
FACTS
-$ucio A0tarap o2ned se-eral parcels o" a0ricultural land and at his
death le"t "our sons, one o" 2hom, 3il-erio, died. @pon the death o"
3il-erio A0tarap, his 2ido2, Juana /omin0o, be0an special
proceedin0s "or settlement o" the intestate estate o" her deceased
husband by petitionin0 "or an administrator and !odri0o Albano 2as
appointed.
-As such administrator !odri0o Albano instituted a ci-il action a0ainst
the other three heirs o" $ucio A0tarap.
-(he "ollo2in0 are pertinent "acts in this case8 ()) %t is pro-en that
$ucio A0tarap is the le0itimate "ather o" 3il-erio, Cornelio, and
6icolas A0tarap and the 0rand"ather o" Melecio A0tarap= (4) it is
admitted that $ucio A0tarap died lea-in0 property= (5) it is pro-en that
the property le"t at his death by $ucio A0tarap has been seized by his
said descendants, no2 the de"endants, 2ithout 0i-in0 3il-erio his
share= (>) it is pro-en that, at the least, the property 2as le"t by $ucio
A0tarap.
-Accordin0 to la2, one-"ourth o" this property belon0s to 3il-erio
A0tarap.
-(he jud0ment o" the court directs that one-"ourth part o" this property
be deli-ered to the administrator o" the intestate estate o" the late
3il-erio A0tarap, as his le0acy, so that, a"ter proper proceedin0s,
their respecti-e portions may be adjudicated to the 2ido2 and other
heirs o" the said 3il-erio.
ISSUE
16 the heirs o" 3il-erio should recei-e H

o" the estate o" $ucio and
2hat is the proper procedure
EL!
-Ies he should throu0h a special proceedin0.
(he necessary procedure o" a special proceedin0s in the intestate
estate o" 3il-erio A0tarap, in 2hich may properly be presented the
claim o" the administrator o" the said intestate estate on behal" o"
Juana /omin0o "or her Gle0al portion as 2ido2,G as 2ell as the
proceedin0s "or pro-in0 that Eu0enia A0tarap is a le0itimate dau0hter
in order to ha-e her declared the sole heir o" the 2hole o" the said
"ourth part o" the property 2hich corresponds to him 2hom she calls
her le0itimate "ather.
-A trial held "or such purpose it 2ill determine 2ho are the heirs o" the
intestate estate o" 3il-erio A0tarap= 2hether she 2ho calls hersel" his
le0itimate dau0hter, Eu0enia A0tarap= or his brothers Cornelio and
6icolas and his nephe2 Melecio, all surnamed A0tara.
(he la2"ul usu"ruct pertainin0 to the 2ido2 2ill depend upon 2hether
the alle0ed dau0hter or the brothers and nephe2 o" the deceased
are entitled to the inheritance, "or i" she 2ho claims to be the
dau0hter, Eu0enia A0tarap, be declared the sole heir o" the
deceased 3il-erio A0tarap, the 2ido2s share 2ould be di""erent "rom
2hat it 2ould i" the de"endants in this case, as brothers and nephe2
o" the deceased 3il-erio A0tarap, are declared to be the sole heirs
---- in accordance 2ith the -arious pro-isions o" the Ci-il Code in this
respect.
nly in such special proceedin0s, 2herein the necessary orders can
be issued and e.ecuted, can "indin0s be made as to 2ho are the
heirs and 2hat portions to them, the nature o" their titles, and in case
o" usu"ruct 2hat part pertains to each.
!'(0)('&')n8 A""irmed
MORELAN!, !ISSENTIN=
6o2here in the la2 o" these %slands is an administrator 0i-en po2er
to brin0 an action "or the partition o" real estate. (he persons and the
only persons authorized to brin0 such an action are those mentioned
in section )9) o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure.
(he Ci-il Code does not authorize such an action as the present.
EIRS OF =RE=OIRE V$ >A?ER
+) PF%%$. <+
3(!EE(= 6o-ember );, );4<
NATURE
Appeal "rom an order o" C#%
FACTS
- J. F. An'rom, resident o" Pro-. o" /a-ao, died on 3ept. )9, );44.
(he appellee, A. $. &a'er, 2as 7uali"ied as his administrator. &a'er
"iled his in-entory o" the assets pertainin0 to the estate o" his
decedent, in 2hich in-entory 2as included a tract o" land co-ered by
(orrens cert. o" title and 2ith an area o" more than ;5* hectares. %n
this in-entory, said tract o" land, 2ith impro-ements, 2as estimated at
nearly P:*J.
- (he heirs o" !a"ael ?re0oire, appellants herein, "iled a claim
a0ainst the estate o" An'rom "or P<*, 9<<.+:, based upon a
jud0ment rendered in 3C o" !ep. o" Panama. (his claim 2as allo2ed
by the commissioners in the estate o" An'rom, and no appeal 2as at
any time ta'en a0ainst the order so allo2in0 it.
- As the a""airs o" the estate stood upon the ori0inal in-entory, there
appeared to be su""icient assets to pay all claimants= but 2hile these
intestate proceedin0s 2ere bein0 conducted the administrator
disco-ered that ) K years be"ore his death, An'rom had e.ecuted a
mort0a0e on the property in 7uestion in "a-or o" the Phil. (rust Co. to
secure that company "rom liability on a note o" P4*J. 4 days a"ter
this mort0a0e had been e.ecuted An'rom appears to ha-e made an
assi0nment o" all his interest in the mort0a0ed property to one J.?.
Jun0, o" hio, "or a purported consideration o" P) and other 0ood
and -aluable considerations.
- %n -ie2 o" these con-eyances by his intestate, the administrator
presented an amended in-entory, omittin0 the tract o" ;5* hectares
2ith its impro-ements thereon, the same bein0 the land co-ered by
2
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
the trans"ers abo-e mentioned. (he court, ho2e-er, ha-in0 its
attention called to the "act that the omission o" this property "rom the
in-entory 2ould lea-e the estate insol-ent, made an order, directin0
the administrator to restore said item to his in-entory. &ut Court
made a ne2 order, appro-in0 the omission by the administrator o"
said property "rom the in-entory. Fence this appeal.
- AppellantsL ar0uments8 CaD assumin0 that the assi0nment to Jun0 by
An'rom o" the e7uity o" redemption o" the latter in the tract o" land
2as a""ected in "raud o" creditors, they ha-e an interest in the
payment o" the appellant,s claim. CbD it 2as the duty o" the
administrator to retain the possession o" this tract o" land and thereby
place upon Jun0, or persons claimin0 under him, the burden o"
institutin0 any action that may be necessary to maintain the ri0hts o"
the trans"eree under said assi0nment.
- (he administrator contends8 the assi0nment is -alid and apparently
does not desire to enter into a contest o-er the 7uestion o" its -alidity
2ith the person or persons claimin0 under it.
ISSUE
16 the appellants remedy o" appeal is proper
EL!
NO$
- (he precise remedy open to appellants (Feirs o" ?re0oire) is clearly
pointed out in 3ec. <)5 o" Code o" Ci-il Procedure
)
. @nder this
pro-ision, appellantsL remedy is to indemni"y the administrator
a0ainst costs and, by lea-e o" court, to institute an action in the name
o" the administrator to set aside the assi0nment or other con-eyance
belie-ed to ha-e been made in "raud o" creditors.
- Feirs o" ?re0oire ar0ue that inasmuch as no appeal 2as ta'en "rom
the order, directin0 the administrator to include the land in 7uestion in
the in-entory, said order became "inal, 2ith the result that the
appealed order, authorizin0 the e.clusion o" said property "rom the
in-entory, should be considered beyond the competence o" the court.
- (his contention is untenable. rders made by a court re inclusion o"
items o" property in the in-entory or the e.clusion o" items there"rom
)
1hen there is a de"iciency o" assets in the hands o" an e.ecutor or
administrator to pay debts and e.penses, and 2hen the deceased
person made in his li"e-time such "raudulent con-eyance o" such real
or personal estate or o" a ri0ht or interest therein, as is stated in the
precedin0 section, any creditor o" the estate may, by license o" the
court, i" the e.ecutor or administrator has not commenced such
action, commence and prosecute to "inal jud0ment, in the name o"
the e.ecutor or administrator, an action "or the reco-ery o" the same
and may reco-er "or the bene"it o" the creditors, such real or personal
estate, or interest therein so con-eyed. &ut such action shall not be
commenced until the creditor "iles in court a bond 2ith su""icient
surety, to be appro-ed by the jud0e, conditioned to indemni"y the
e.ecutor or administrator a0ainst the costs o" such action. 3uch
creditor shall ha-e a lien upon the jud0ment by him so reco-ered "or
the costs incurred and such other e.penses as the court deems
e7uitable.
are mani"estly o" a purely discretionary, pro-isional, and interlocutory
nature and are subject to modi"ication or chan0e at any time durin0
the course o" the administration proceedin0s. 3uch order in 7uestion
6( "inal in the sense necessary to ma'e it appealable. %n "act 2e
note that the appealed order 2as e.pressly made 2Mo prejudice to
the ri0hts o" creditors to proceed in the manner indicated under 3ec.
<)5 o" Code o" Ci-il Procedure.
!'(0)('&')n rder appealed "rom not bein0 o" an appealable nature,
so appeal must be dismissed, 2ith costs a0ainst the appellants
A=UAS V LLEMOS
+ 3C!A ;+;
!EIE3, J&$= Au0 5*, );:4
FACTS
-March )>, );:*8 3alinas and the spouses #eli. ?uardino and Maria
A0uas jointly "iled an action in the C#% o" Catbalo0an, 3amar to
reco-er dama0es "rom $lemos, a-errin0 that the latter had ser-ed
them by re0istered mail 2ith a copy o" a petition "or a 2rit o"
possession, 2ith notice that the same 2ould be submitted to the said
court o" 3amar on #eb 45, );:*, 9am= that in -ie2 o" the copy and
notice ser-ed, plainti""s proceeded to the court "rom their residence in
Manila accompanied by their la2yers, only to disco-er that no such
petition had been "iled= and that $lemos maliciously "ailed to appear
in court, so that plainti""s, e.penditure and trouble turned out to be in
-ain, causin0 them mental an0uish and undue embarrassment.
-&e"ore ans2erin0 the complaint, de"endant died. Plainti""s amended
their complaint to include heirs o" deceased. (he heirs "iled M(/,
and by order o" Au0 )4, );:*, the court belo2 dismissed it, on the
0round that the le0al representati-e, and not the heirs, should ha-e
been made party-de"endant= and that the action bein0 "or reco-ery o"
money, testateMintestate proceedin0s should be initiated and the
claim "iled therein. M#! denied
ISSUE
16 the action sur-i-es
EL!
IE3.
Ratio !ule 99.) enumerates actions that sur-i-e a0ainst a
decedent,s e.ecutors or administrators, and they are8 )) actions to
reco-er real and personal property "rom the estate= 4) actions to
en"orce a lien thereon= and 5) actions to reco-er dama0es "or an
injury to person or property. (he present suit is one "or dama0es
under the last class, it ha-in0 been held that Ginjury to propertyG is not
limited to injuries to speci"ic property, but e.tends to other 2ron0s by
2hich personal estate is injured or diminished. (o maliciously cause
a party to incur unnecessary e.penses, as char0ed in this case, is
certainly injurious to that party,s property.
&e that as it may, it no2 appears "rom a communication "rom C#%
3amar that the parties arri-ed at an amicable settlement and ha-e
a0reed to dismiss this appeal.
Disposition (he case ha-in0 thus become moot, it becomes
unnecessary to resol-e the 7uestions raised therein. (his appeal is,
there"ore, ordered dismissed, 2ithout special pronouncement as to
costs.
SALVA!OR 3$ STA$ MARIA
4* 3C!A :*5
&E6?A6= June 5*, );:<
FACTS
- %n );>), Celestino 3al-ador e.ecuted a deed o" sale o-er < parcels
o" titled land and 4 parcels o" untitled land, situated in &i0aa, &ulacan
in "a-or o" the spouses Al"onso 3al-ador and Anatolia Falili. Alle0in0
that the sale 2as -oid "or lac' o" consideration, he "iled in );++ a suit
"or recon-eyance o" said parcels o" land in the C#% o" &ulacan, &r. %.
%n );+:, Celestino 3al-ador died, testate. As his alle0ed heirs, 4)
persons 2ere substituted as plainti""s in the action "or recon-eyance.
- Mean2hile, special proceedin0s "or the probate o" his 2ill and "or
letters testamentary 2as instituted in the C#% o" &ulacan, &r. %%.
/ominador Cardenas 2as appointed special administrator. Fe "iled
an in-entory o" properties o" the estate co-erin0 the same parcels o"
land subject matter o" the recon-eyance action. Celestino 3al-ador,s
2ill 2as admitted to probate and /ominador Cardenas 2as
appointed e.ecutor o" said 2ill. 45 persons 2ere instituted heirs in
the 2ill. " these, ; 2ere not amon0 the 4) alle0ed relati-es
substituted in the recon-eyance case= and o" the 4) substituted
alle0ed heirs, < 2ere not instituted in the 2ill.
- &r. % (recon-eyance court) rendered jud0ment orderin0 the spouses
Al"onso and Anatolia to recon-ey the parcels o" land to the estate o"
Celestino 3al-ador. (he spouses appealed to the CA. (he CA
a""irmed the recon-eyance jud0ment, 2ith the correction that
recon-eyance be in "a-or o" the 4) heirs substituted as plainti""s.
- Pursuant to an order o" &r. %% (probate court) one o" the parcels o"
land, $ot :, 2as sold so that 2ith its proceeds debtors 2ho "iled
claims may be paid. P6& bou0ht it "or P>),)9> 2hich 2as then
deposited in the same ban' by the administrator, subject to court
order.
- %n );:>, the de"endants in the suit "or recon-eyance e.ecuted a
deed o" recon-eyance o-er the parcels o" land in "a-or o" Celestino
3al-ador,s estate. !e-o'in0 the same as not in accordance 2ith the
jud0ment, &r. % ordered a ne2 deed o" recon-eyance to be e.ecuted
in "a-or o" the 4) persons substituted as plainti""s in that action.
Accordin0ly, a ne2 deed o" recon-eyance 2as made and a ne2 (C(
2as subse7uently issued in the name o" the 4) persons.
- %n );:+, &r. % ordered P6& to release the P>),)9> proceeds o" the
sale o" $ot :, to the 4) plainti""s in the recon-eyance case.
Apparently, althou0h the passboo' 2as 0i-en by the administrator to
said 4) persons, no release 2as made, as the P6& a2aited &r. %%,s
order.
- Mean2hile, in );::, &r. %% appro-ed -arious claims a0ainst the
estate amountin0 to P55,9<4.+9. &r. %% ordered the return o" the
passboo' to the administrator= and release to the administrator by
the P6& o" the P>),)9> or so much as is needed to pay the debts o"
3
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
the estate. A"ter "ailin0 to 0et reconsideration o" the order, the 4)
substituted heirs "iled this special ci-il action "or certiorari 2ith
preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
16 the P>),)9> proceeds o" the sale o" $ot : belon0 to the estate.
EL!
IE3.
Ratio (he ri0ht o" heirs to speci"ic distributi-e shares o" inheritance
does not become "inally determinable until all the debts o" the estate
are paid. @ntil then, in the "ace o" said claims, their ri0hts cannot be
en"orced, are inchoate, and subject to the e.istence o" a residue a"ter
payment o" the debts.
Reasoning Petitioners do not 7uestion the e.istence o" the debts.
(hey only contend that the properties in-ol-ed ha-in0 been ordered
by "inal jud0ment recon-eyed to them, not to the estate, the same
are not properties o" the estate but their o2n, and thus, not liable "or
debts o" the estate.
- 3uch contention is sel"-re"utin0. Petitioners rely "or their ri0hts on
their alle0ed character as heirs o" Celestino= as such, they 2ere
substituted in the recon-eyance case= the recon-eyance to them 2as
recon-eyance to them as heirs o" Celestino 3al-ador. %t "ollo2s that
the properties they claim are, e-en by their o2n reasonin0, part o"
Celestino,s estate. (heir ri0ht as alle0edly his heirs 2ould arise only i"
said parcels o" land are part o" the estate o" Celestino, not other2ise.
(heir ha-in0 recei-ed the same, there"ore, in the recon-eyance
action, 2as per"orce in trust "or the estate, subject to its obli0ations.
(hey cannot distribute said properties amon0 themsel-es as
substituted heirs 2ithout the debts o" the estate bein0 "irst satis"ied.
- At any rate, the proceeds o" $ot : alone appears more than
su""icient to pay the debt and there 2ill remain the other parcels o"
land not sold. As to the 7uestion o" 2ho 2ill recei-e ho2 much as
heirs, the same is properly determinable by the settlement court,
a"ter payment o" the debts.
Disposition Petition /E6%E/.
PAVIA 3 !ELA ROSA
?.!. 6o. $-5*95
(!!E3= March )9, );*<
FACTS
- #rancisco ?randa 2as appointed e.ecutor under the 2ill o" Pablo
$inart, in 2hich 2ill the minor Carmen $inart 2as made the only
uni-ersal heir.
- ?randa died and 2as substituted by Jose de la !osa, 2ho too'
possession o" the personal property o" the estate, amountin0 to
)*,:<5 pesos, Me.ican Currency, as 2ell as the lot o2ned by
testator=
- !a"aela Pa-ia, in her o2n behal", and as 0uardian o" Carmen,
e.ecuted a po2er o" attorney in behal" o" de la !osa, and the
attorney ha-in0 accepted such po2er proceeded to administer the
a"oresaid estate in a careless manner, ne0lectin0 the interests o" the
plainti""s and 2astin0 the capital, and causin0 dama0es amountin0 to
o-er )+,*** pesos, Philippine currency, o2in0 to the "act o" ha-in0
retired or disposed o" 2ithout any necessity the sum o" <,4*< pesos
Me.ican currency, to0ether 2ith interest thereon amountin0 to 5:*.4+
pesos.
- %n the complaint, it 2as alle0ed that the e.ecutor and attorney /e la
!osa ne0lected to appraise, count, and di-ide the estate o" $inart
not2ithstandin0 his duty to do so, and leased the testatorLs house to
his o2n relati-es at a much lo2er rental than could ha-e been
obtained.
- Jose de la !osa died, lea-in0 the de"endants &ibiana and 3alud de
la !osa as his only heirs and representati-es.
- As special de"ense, de"endants alle0e that they are not responsible
"or the personal actions o" the person "rom 2hom they deri-ed their
possession and title, a0ainst 2hom the plainti""s ne0lected to brin0
action durin0 his li"etime, and e-en then bein0 2ithout any justi"iable
reason.
ISSUE
16 the de"endants &ibiana and 3alud de la !osa are responsible
"or the personal acts o" Jose dela !osa
EL!
6
- %t has not been sho2n that the estate or the intestate succession o"
the deceased, Jose de la !osa, 2as e-er opened or that an
in-entory has e-er been presented in e-idence, not2ithstandin0 that
at the time o" the death o" /e la !osa, the Code o" Ci-il Procedure
(Act 6o. );*) 2as already in "orce, and that in accordance 2ith its
pro-isions the estate o" the deceased should ha-e been
administered and li7uidated.
- %n accordance 2ith the pro-isions o" the Act 6o. );* it is understood
that estate or intestate succession o" a deceased person is al2ays
accepted and recei-ed 2ith bene"it o" in-entory, and his heirs, e-en
a"ter ha-in0 ta'en possession o" the estate o" the deceased, do not
ma'e themsel-es responsible "or the debts o" said deceased 2ith
their o2n property, but solely 2ith that property comin0 "rom the
estate or intestate succession o" said deceased.
- (he Code o" Ci-il Procedure no2 in "orce ma'es necessary the
openin0 o" a testate or intestate succession immediately a"ter the
death o" the person 2hose estate is to be administered, the
appointment o" an e.ecutor or administrator, the ta'in0 o" an
in-entory o" the estate o" the deceased, and the appointment o" t2o
or more commissioners "or the purpose o" appraisin0 the property o"
the estate and decidin0 as to the claims a0ainst said estate
- A"ter the death o" a person the only entity 2hich may la2"ully
represent a testate or intestate succession is the e.ecutor or
administrator appointed by the court char0ed to care "or, maintain,
and administer the estate o" the deceased in such o" lands, or "or
dama0es done to such lands, shall be instituted or maintained
a0ainst him by an heir or de-isee, until such time as there is entered
s decree o" the court assi0nin0 such lands to the heir or de-isee, or
until the time or period allo2ed "or payin0 the debts o" the estate has
e.pired, unless the e.ecutor or administrator surrenders the
possession o" the lands to the heir or de-isee.
- (he heir la2"ully succeeds the deceased "rom 2hom he deri-es his
inheritance only a"ter the li7uidation o" the estate, the payment o" the
debts o" same and the adjudication o" the residue o" the estate o"
said deceased, and in the meantime the only person in char0e by la2
to consider all claims a0ainst the estate o" the deceased and to
attend to or consider the same is the e.ecutor or administrator
appointed by a competent jud0e or court.
- 1hate-er may be the ri0hts o" action on the part o" !a"aela Pa-ia
and the minor, Carmen $inart, the latter represented by the "ormer as
0uardian, as to the obli0ations assumed by Jose de la !osa, no2
deceased, it must be prosecuted a0ainst the e.ecutor or
administrator o" the estate o" said deceased Jose de la !osa, 2hose
e.ecutor or administrator is at this time the only representati-e o" the
estate or intestate succession o" said deceased= and that in -ie2 o"
this "act and considerin0 the la2 be"ore us, they should not ha-e
brou0ht action a0ainst &ibiana and 3alud de la !osa "or the mere
"act that they 2ere the sisters o" said deceased Jose de la !osa,
inasmuch as it is actually sho2n that the de"endant /e la !osa died
intestate or le"t durin0 his li"etime any 2ill, or that the t2o de"endants
are the heirs o" the deceased by -irtue o" an e.ecuted 2ill or by
reason o" e.istin0 la2, or 2hether or not the deceased has le"t
properties, or 2ho is the e.ecutor or administrator o" the said
properties, or 2hether the properties belon0in0 to the estate o" the
deceased brother o" the de"endants 2ere e-er adjudicated or
partitioned by -irtue o" an order o" court in "a-or o" the de"endants.
Dispositive Jud0ment appealed "rom re-ersed, reser-in0 to the
plainti""s to ri0ht to institute proper action a0ainst the e.ecutor or
administrator o" the properties o" the estate o" the deceased in
accordance 2ith the pro-isions o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure no2 in
"orce.
>ENE!ICTO V$ JAVELLANA
)* PF%$ );<
#ebruary 4), );*9
FACTS
- #or en"orcin0 2ill made by Ma.imo Jalandoni, his bro, Ma.imino
Jalandoni petitioned that the administrator M e.ecutor, Julio Ja-ellana,
be directed to pay him P;9+ 2Mc he held in lieu o" land donated to
petitioner.
- Ma.imino alle0ed that )M4 o" Facienda $antad 2as be7ueathed to
him, 2Mc 2as subject to payment o" debts M e.penses o" estate 2M
respect to products o" );*5-);*>, and 2Mc had already been applied
to that object by administrator Ja-ellana.
- Fal" o" the hacienda 2as sold 2M consent o" Ja-ellana, P;9+
remainin0 in his possession "rom the proceeds.
- Ma.imino alle0es that as Ja-ellana had already rc-d products o"
hacienda, heLs no lon0er entitled to retain any portion o" the le0acy,
nor demand that he shld respond "or other debts M e.penses, bec 2M
the -alue o" the portion inherited by heirs #rancisco N 3o"ia
4
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
Jalandoni, there 2as more than 2ould be re7uired to pay other debts
o" estate and e.penses.
- Ja-ellana alle0ed that it 2asnLt proper to as' by motion "or relie"
that Ma.imino claimed. Complaint shldL-e been "iled and action
brou0ht a0ainst le0atees or parties concerned and not a0ainst
administrator alone. Fe alle0ed that #rancisco N 3o"ia Jalandoni
shldnLt be considered heirs but simply as le0atees. Fe also alle0ed
that the amt 2M him 2as not P;9+ but P;>;.4;
- Jud0e 0ranted the motion. Ja-ellana appealed.
ISSUES
). 16 the le0atees are liable to pay debts M e.penses o" the estate
4. 16 separate action is proper "or the relie"s prayed "or
EL!
). IE3 (rder 0rantin0 Ma.iminoLs motion shld be re-ersed)
- (estator le"t no la2"ul ascendants M descendants. Fe distributed all
his prop in le0acies, not2ithstandin0 manner in 2Mc he desi0nates his
nephe2s #rancisco N 3o"ia Jalandoni, such nephe2s are li'e2ise
le0atees.
- (he 2ill o" testator must be respected N complied 2ith. Fe imposed
on his entire estate the obli0ation to pay his debts 2M products o" the
same. Fe prescribed manner in 2Mc same shall be done until all
obli0ations are e.tin0uished.
- Code o" Ci-il Procedure8 %" testator ma'es pro-ision by 2ill or
desi0nates estate to be appropriated "or payment o" debts N
e.penses, they shall be pd accd0 to 2ill. &ut i" pro-ision made by
2ill or estate isnLt su""icient, such part o" the estate as is not disposed
o" by 2ill, i" any, shall be appropriated "or that purpose.
- 3ince those 2ho bene"ited "r the 2ill ha-e not rc-d a uni-ersal
succession to the estate, but certain prop e.pressly stated in the 2ill,
they shld be considered merely as le0atees, 2Mo ri0ht to rc- share o"
the prop o" the deceased until a"ter his debts ha-e been pd. 6one o"
the parties interested in the 2ill is in-ested 2M the character o" heir.
- %n this case, the parties in interest 2ere indiscriminately desi0nated
as heirs or le0atees.
- Code o" Ci-il Procedure8 As to speci"ic de-ises, 3ec <4; pro-ides
e.emption "r payment o" debts N e.penses i" thereLs su""icient other
prop.
- /ebts N e.penses, in this case, must be pd pro rata by le0atees in
manner pro-ided in the 2ill or in accordance 2M Code o" Ci-il
Procedure.
4. 6
- Any challen0e to the -alidity o" the 2ill, any objection to the
authentication, e-ery demand M claim 2Mc party in interest may ma'e
must be acted upon and decided 2Min same special proceedin0s, not
in a separate action. Jud0e ha-in0 jurisdiction in administration o"
estate shall ta'e co0nizance o" 7uestion.
LI@ANA= 3 CA
)> 3C!A ;44
C6CEPC%6, J.= Au0ust )>, );:+
FACTS
?liceria $i2ana0 is the special administratri. o" the estate o" Pio
$i2ana0. A creditor instituted a0ainst her as special administratri.
proceedin0s "or the "oreclosure o" real estate mort0a0e in "a-or o" the
said creditor. $i2ana0 mo-ed to dismiss on the 0round that she canLt
be sued as special administratri.. C#% denied. 3he 2ent up to CA on
certiorari. CA e-entually denied.
ISSUE
16 a mort0a0ee can brin0 an action "or "oreclosure a0ainst the
special administrator o" the estate o" a deceased person
EL!
IE3.
- (he !ules o" Court pro-ides that a creditor holdin0 a claim a0ainst
the deceased, secured by a mort0a0e or other collateral security,
may pursue any o" these remedies8
()) abandon his security and prosecute his claim and share in the
0eneral distribution o" the assets o" the estate=
(2) foreclose his mortgage or realize upon his security by an action in
court, making the executor or administrator a party defendant, and if
there is a deficiency after the sale of the mortgaged property, he may
prove the same in the testate or intestate proceedings= and
(5) rely e.clusi-ely upon his mort0a0e and "oreclose it any time
2ithin the ordinary period o" limitations, and i" he relies e.clusi-ely
upon the mort0a0e, he shall not...share in the distribution o" the
assets.
- Clearly, the creditor can sue the administratri., e-en a special one.
ther2ise, the prescripti-e period 2ould continue to run a0ainst
creditors, until a re0ular administrator is appointed, and the purpose
o" the mort0a0e de"eated.
=O!O# V ORELLANO
>4 PF%$ 5>4
O%$$AM!= 6o-ember )<, );4)
FACTS
-n January )5, ););, in consideration P),*** recei-ed by her, a
document 2as e.ecuted by #elisa PaP0ilinan 0i-in0 Eusebio A.
?odoy an option to buy "or the sum o" P)*,***, a dred0e 2hich 2as
alle0ed to be a common property o" the -endor and o" the rellano
siblin0s
-ne o" the conditions 2as that ?odoy 2as to pay the 2hole price o"
the dred0e 2ithin t2enty days
-%t 2as also pro-ided that said option 2as 0ranted in accordance 2ith
the po2er o" attorney e.ecuted by PaP0ilinan,s coo2ners 2ho
reser-ed the ri0ht to rati"y 2hate-er sale mi0ht be made, or option
0ranted by her, their attorney-in-"act.
-PaP0ilinan,s coo2ners did not rati"y the option contract.
-&e"ore the e.piration o" t2enty days, ?odoy 2as ready to ma'e
complete payment o" the price, but PaP0ilinan "ailed to deli-er the
dred0e.
-?odoy brou0ht suit in the C#% a0ainst PaP0ilinan and rellano
siblin0s prayin0 that they be ordered to deli-er the dred0e, upon
payment by him o" the sum o" P;,***
-(he de"endants rellano alle0ed as a special de"ense that the
dred0e in 7uestion 2as the property o" the intestate estate o" Julio
rellano, pendin0 in the C#% o" Manila, and under the administration
o" #elisa Pan0ilinan= that the said dred0e is under judicial control and
could not be disposed o" 2ithout judicial authority, and that the court
has ne-er authorized the sale
-#elisa PaP0ilinan alle0es amon0 other thin0s that8 (a) (hat the
dred0e 2hich 2as the subject-matter o" the option is property o" the
intestate estate o" Julio rellano, o" 2hich she is the administratri.=
(b) that the plainti"", as 2ell as the de"endants, and the notary 2ho
prepared the a"oresaid option sale, 2ere all a2are o" these "acts, and
they led her to belie-e that she had the authority to dispose o" the
dred0e in her name and by themsel-es
ISSUE
16 PaP0ilinan, in her capacity as judicial administratri. o" the
estate o" Julio relleno, 2as authorized to sell the dred0e belon0in0
to said estate

EL!
6o.
-%n the sale o" the property o" an intestate estate "or the bene"it o" the
heirs, it is necessary to comply 2ith the pro-isions o" sections <)<,
<)9, and <44 o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure. (he said sections
prescribed the proceedin0s to be had be"ore an administrator o" an
intestate or testate estate may sell personal or real property and also
the conditions under 2hich the personal or real property pertainin0 to
an estate may be sold or disposed o" by the administrator.
-A sale and con-eyance by e.ecutors 2ithout an order o" the probate
court, under a 2ill de-isin0 property to them in trust, but not
authorizin0 any sale o" the realty, other2ise than by a direction to pay
the debts o" the testator, is -oid, and passes no title to the purchase.
(Fuse -s. /en, 9+ Cal., 5;*.)
-A sale by an administrator o" the personal property o" the estate,
2ithout the authority o" an order o" court, or o" a 2ill, or under an
order o" court 2hich is -oid "or 2ant o" jurisdiction, does not con"er on
the purchaser a title 2hich is a-ailable a0ainst a succeedin0
administrator. (1yatt,s Adm,r -s. !ambo, 4; Ala., +)*.)
-@nder the la2, the court has e.clusi-e jurisdiction to authorize the
sale o" properties li'e the one under consideration and the po2er o"
attorney e.ecuted by the heirs o" rellano in "a-or o" the
administratri., 2ithout authority o" court, has no le0al e""ect, and this
is the more so, since t2o o" the said heirs are under a0e, and the
others did not rati"y the option contract, as pro-ided in the a"oresaid
po2er o" attorney.
-PaP0ilinan 2as not, in her capacity as judicial administratri. o" the
intestate estate o" Julio rellano, le0ally authorized to sell, or
contract to sell, any property belon0in0 to said estate 2ithout the
5
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
authority o" the court, and the contract entered into by her 2ith the
plainti"", 2ithout this authority, is null and -oid.
SANTOS 3 ROMAN CATOLIC >ISOP OF NUEVA
CACERES
3(!A6/= April +, );4>
FACTS
- En0racio rense, a resident o" the municipality o" ?uinobatan,
Albay, died in );)9. Fe le"t a 2ill, accordin0 to 2hich : parcels o"
land 2ere le"t to the !oman Catholic Church (!CC) as trustee "or
-arious purposes, subject to a usu"ruct in "a-or o" his 2i"e 2ho, in the
absence o" descendants, ascendants and collateral heirs o" the
deceased, 2as made his uni-ersal testamentary heir.
- (he 2ill 2as probated in );); and the 2i"e 2as appointed
e.ecutri.. 3he stated that the deceased had obtained a "ranchise to
establish and operate an electric li0ht plant in the to2n o" ?uinobatan
and had si0ned a contract 2ith the Paci"ic Commercial Company
(PCC) 2hereby the latter a0reed to "urnish him the machinery "or the
plant= that the machinery had be0an to arri-e and that company 2as
demandin0 payment o" the second installment o" the purchase price
and that she 2as bound to continue to pay )* monthly installments in
order to completely e.tin0uish the obli0ation= that she had no "unds
2ith 2hich to meet the obli0ation. 3he 2as 0ranted authority to sell or
mort0a0e the liberty bonds or obtain a loan o" P)*,*** "rom the
ban'.
- @pon her motion, the court declared her the uni-ersal heir o" the
testator and pro-ided that the -arious le0atees under the 2ill should
not ta'e possession o" their respecti-e le0acies durin0 the li"etime o"
the appellant or 2hile Gthe debts o" the deceased occasioned by the
establishment o" the electric li0ht plant in ?uinobatan remained
unpaid.G (he court also appro-ed the nominal partition o" the estate,
2hereby the si. parcels o" land abo-e re"erred to 2ere duly assi0ned
to the !CC.
- (herea"ter, she "iled another 4 motions prayin0 "or authority to sell
the parcels o" land 2hich 2ere de-ised to the !CC, "or the debt to
PCC and the ban'. &oth contained the indorsement o" Julian pe,
the parish priest o" ?uinobatan. (he court 0ranted both motions.
- &e"ore her motion to sell < small parcels o" riceland had been acted
upon, the !oman Catholic Archbishop o" 6ue-a Caceres, a
corporation sole, "iled a motion as'in0 that the order authorizin0 the
sale o" the property 2illed to the !CC be re-o'ed on the 0round that
parish priests ha-e no control o-er the temporalities o" the !CC and
that, there"ore, the consent 0i-en by #ather Julian pe 2as in-alid
and o" no le0al e""ect and that the debts to 2hich the proceeds o" the
sale are to be de-oted are not the debts o" the deceased, but 2ere
incurred durin0 the administration o" the estate by the administratri.
throu0h the mismana0ement o" its property.
- Court re-o'ed the authority to sell.
ISSUES
). 16 the motion "or the re-ocation o" the license to sell 2as
presented out o" time and a"ter the order 0rantin0 the license had
become "inal
4. 16 the court erred in re-o'in0 the authority to sell
EL!
1$ NO
At the time o" the 0rantin0 o" the licensed, a distribution o" the estate
o" the deceased had been made, the order o" distribution had
become "inal and the title to the estate in remainder de-ised to the
!CC had become -ested. As "ar as the title to the property 2as
concerned, the administration proceedin0s 2ere then terminated and
the court had lost its jurisdiction in respect thereto. (here mi0ht still
be a lien on the property "or the debts o" the deceased and le0itimate
e.penses o" administration, but it seems ob-ious that the court could
ha-e no jurisdiction to "oreclose this lien and order the property sold
unless some sort o" notice 2as 0i-en the holder o" the title. 6o
notice, neither actual nor constructi-e, 2as 0i-en in the present case.
%t does not e-en appear that the order o" sale 2as recorded in the
o""ice o" the re0istry o" deeds as re7uired by subsection < o" section
<44 o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure. (he order o" sale 2as there"ore
-oid "or 2ant o" jurisdiction in the court and could be -acated at
anytime be"ore it had been acted upon and sale made and
con"irmed.
;$ NO
(he appellant also maintains that the court belo2 erred in -acatin0
the order o" sale upon an un-eri"ied motion and 2ithout the
presentation o" e-idence. %n ans2er, 2e may say that the court could
property ta'e judicial notice o" the "act that the corporation sole, the
!oman Catholic Archbishop o" 6ue-a Caceres is the administrator o"
the temporalities o" that church in the diocese 2ithin 2hich the land in
7uestion is situated and that the parish priest ha-e no control
thereo-er.
V!A$ !E CRU" 3($ JESUS ILA=AN
(@A36 = 3eptember 5*, );>9
FACTS
- (he administrator, one o" the children and heirs o" the decedent,
2ith the appro-al o" all other children and heirs o" the decedent,
e.ecuted Gan absolute deed o" saleG o-er t2o parcels o" land "or
P)9,*** in "a-or o" 3e-ero Cruz and his 2i"e.
- (he heirs o" the deceased, e.cept 3antos %la0an, the administrator,
"iled a 2ritten opposition to the sale. Jud0e Paredes, Jr., held that the
sale 2as Gimproper.G &ecause the sale 2as, in e""ect, primarily,
intended to pay the mort0a0e debt, and to sell the a"oresaid property
pre"erentially to the mort0a0ee.
ISSUES
). 16 the subject matter o" the sale, bein0 in custodia legis, the
sale Gcould only be -alidly a""ected under and by -irtue o" an e.press
authority o" the Court ha-in0 co0nizance o" the proceedin0s and only
upon strict compliance 2ith the "ormalities prescribed by la2.
4. 16 the sale is improper
EL!
). 6. Ratio (hat the land could not ordinarily be le-ied upon 2hile
in custodia le0is, does not mean that one o" the heirs may not sell the
ri0ht, interest or participation 2hich he has or mi0ht ha-e in the lands
under administration. (he ordinary e.ecution o" property in custodia
legis is prohibited in order to a-oid inter"erence 2ith the possession
by the court. &ut the sale made by an heir o" his share in an
inheritance, subject to the result o" the pendin0 administration, in no
2ise, stands in the 2ay o" such administration (Teves de Jakosalem
vs. afols)
.
4. 6. GA sale 2hich the representati-e ma'es, 2ith the 2ritten
assent o" all le0atees or distributees o" the estate, is in e""ect their
sale as 2ell as his, and, i" made in 0ood "aith, ou0ht to bind stron0ly
pro-ided that all the persons assentin0 are sui !uris.G
Reasoning
a. (he appellees by si0nin0 the deed o" sale in to'en o" appro-al
bound themsel-es as completely and as e""ecti-ely as i" they had
si0ned the document as -endors, or co--endors 2ith the
administrator.
b. Estoppel. Feir, by their conduct in remainin0 silent 2hen a sale o"
a decedent,s property is made by the e.ecutor or administrator, or by
so conductin0 themsel-es as to consent or assent in the
consummation o" the sale, may estop themsel-es "rom subse7uently
7uestionin0 the -alidity o" the sale. (he applicable estoppel by deed,
a bar 2hich precludes a party "rom denyin0 the truth o" his deed.
Prejudice is not an essential element o" this 'ind o" estoppel.
c. E7uitable estoppel or estoppel by misrepresentation "its as 2ell
into the "acts o" this case. /isappro-al o" the sale 2ould result in
material injury or detriment o" the -endees.
d. &y reason o" the sale, and relyin0 on the 0ood "aith o" these heirs,
the -endees, it is in"erred "rom the contract, a0reed to the
cancellation o" the mort0a0e and stopped collectin0 interest. 1ith the
loans cancelled, the mort0a0e or mort0a0es 2ere not "oreclosed
upon the e.piration o" their terms. Accordin0 to the administrator, in
his re7uest "or authority to sell, he had not paid interest on the entire
loan since );5;.
e. (he subse7uent increase in -alue o" the property 2as not a
su""icient reason "or turnin0 do2n the con-eyance. @nless "raud,
mista'e or duress inter-ened in the sale and there is no char0e that
any o" these -ices inter-ened, the heirs by their assent placed
themsel-es outside the protection o" the court. (hey can not be
heard to say that the sale 2as detrimental to their interest.
". 1hen there are no creditors or all the debts ha-e been paid, Gthe
heirs ha-e the ri0ht to as' the probate court to turn o-er to them both
real and personal property 2ithout di-ision= and 2here such re7uest
unanimous, it is the duty o" the court to comply 2ith it, and there is
nothin0 in section <+5 o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure (no2 section ),
!ule ;, o" the !ules o" Court) 2hich prohibits it.G (/el Oal -s. /el Oal,
4; Phil., +5>-+5;.) (he ri0ht to demand the deli-ery o" property
includes the ri0ht to dispose o" it in the manner the heir please.
!ISPOSITION (he order appealed "rom is re-ersed and the court
belo2 shall enter a ne2 order appro-in0 the sale and orderin0 the
deli-ery o" the lands in 7uestion to the -endees or their successors in
interest, 2ith costs a0ainst the appellees
6
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
>AUN 3$ >AUN
+5 Phil. :+>
JF636= ctober 4>, );4;
NATURE
Appeal "rom an order o" the C#% (arlac sustainin0 the -alidity o" the
sale made by the administrator o" the estate o" Jacinto &aun, o" a
piece or parcel o" land to0ether 2ith the machinery and buildin0
thereon belon0in0 to said estate, and denyin0 the motion o" the heirs
to set aside said sale.
FACTS
- (he administrator o" the estate "iled a motion, re7uestin0 authority
to sell personal and real properties o" the estate, in order to pay its
debts. (he motion alle0ed (a) that the estate 2as indebted to the
Asociacion Cooperation del Credito !ural de (arlac in the sum o"
P),***, 2ith interest at )*Q= (b) that it 2as also indebted to Manuel
@r7uico in the sum o" P<,>)4.44, 2ith interest at )4Q= and (c) that
the estate 2as 2ithout su""icient "unds to meet said obli0ations.
- Feirs o" the estate, 2ith the e.ception o" /amiana Manan'il, 2ido2
o" the deceased, "iled their 2ritten con"ormity to the proposed sale o"
the only real property o" the estate described in the in-entory,
consistin0 o" a parcel o" land and the machinery and buildin0
thereon. (hey also stated that ?enara Pineda o""ered P4*,*** "or
said property and that they considered said o""er as most
ad-anta0eous and bene"icial to their interest. 3aid 2ritten con"ormity
2as si0ned by Alejandro Calma in his o2n behal" and as 0uardian o"
the minors ?uillermo and 3imeona Calma, and by Celedonia &aun,
2ith the consent o" her husband $orenzo Mallari.
- Court appointed Jose P. #austo, as 0uardian ad litem o" the minors
?uillermo and 3imeona Calma, heirs o" Jacinto &aun, 2ith special
re"erence to the proposed sale o" the real property o" the estate.
- 3aid 0uardian ad litem "iled his report, recommendin0 "a-orably the
proposed sale o" the land and the machinery and buildin0 thereon to
?enara Pineda at the price o""ered by her.
- Court authorized the administrator o" the estate to sell the property
o" the deceased in the "orm and manner most ad-anta0eous to the
estate.
- 3implicio &aun, the administrator o" the estate, "iled a petition
re7uestin0 appro-al by the court o" the sale o" said property to Pedro
3antos "or the sum o" P44,***. (he administrator sold the property to
said -endee, 2ho 0a-e a better price than that o""ered by ?enara
Pineda, 2hich 2as "or P4*,*** only.
- Court appro-ed said sale, and on July )*, );49, ordered the
-endee Pedro 3antos to immediately deli-er to the administrator o"
the estate the price o" the property amountin0 to P44,***.
- Feirs o" the estate "iled a motion prayin0 that the sale o" the
property as 2ell as the decree o" the court appro-in0 the same be set
aside on the "ollo2in0 0rounds8 (a) (hat the administrator sold the
real property o" the estate 2ithout ha-in0 "irst sold the personal
property= (b) that /amiana Manan'il, the 2ido2 o" the deceased,
2ho 2as also an heir o" the estate, did not 0i-e her con"ormity or
consent to said sale= (c) that no notice o" the hearin0 o" the
application "or authority to sell the property o" the estate 2as ser-ed
upon the heirs, either personally or by publication= and (d) that no
hearin0 2as held on said application o" the administration.
- (he administrator "iled his ans2er to the motion, alle0in0 ()) that
said real property 2as sold because the personal property o" the
deceased 2as insu""icient to meet the obli0ations o" the estate= (4)
that the real property o" the estate 2as sold upon the initiati-e and
2ith the 2ritten consent o" the heirs and conse7uently they are no2
estopped "rom attac'in0 the -alidity o" said sale= (5) that notice o" the
hearin0 o" the application "or authority to sell the property o" the
estate 2as not necessary inasmuch as the re7uirements o" the la2
had been -irtually satis"ied by the 2ritten consent o" the heirs to the
sale= and (>) that the 2ritten consent o" all o" the heirs 2as not
necessary because the la2 does not speci"ically re7uire the consent
in 2ritin0 o" all o" the heirs.
- Jud0e $u'ban issued an order sustainin0 the -alidity o" the sale to
Pedro 3antos o" said land and the machinery and buildin0 thereon
"or the sum o" P44,***, and denied the motion o" the heirs to set
aside said sale.
ISSUE
16 the pro-isions o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure, re0ulatin0 the
sale o" the estate o" the deceased and prescribin0 certain "ormalities,
2ere not complied 2ith in the sale o" the real property in 7uestion,
and conse7uently the sale is null and -oid.
EL!
IE3. Consent o" all o" the heirs is necessary because each and
e-ery one o" them is interested in the estate and because the la2
does not state that the consent o" the majority o" the heirs is su""icient
to bind all o" the heirs. (he phrase Gthe consent and approbation, in
2ritin0, o" the heirs, de-isees and le0atees,G used in section <)> o"
the Code o" Ci-il Procedure, cannot be susceptible o" any other
interpretation than that the consent o" all the heirs, etc. is necessary.
- (he 2ritten consent o" the 2ido2 /amiana Manan'il, 2ho 2as also
an heir o" the deceased, to the application o" the administrator "or
authority to sell the property o" the estate, 2as not obtained.
#urthermore, the 2ido2 /amiana Manan'il 2as not noti"ied o" the
application o" the administrator "or authority to sell the property o" the
estate, neither 2as said application set "or hearin0.
- 3ection <44 re7uires a compliance 2ith the "ormalities as to 2ritten
consent o" heirs, notice o" hearin0 o" the application, and hearin0 o"
the application be"ore a decree authorizin0 the sale may be issued.
(here"ore, the decree o" the lo2er court authorizin0 the sale o" the
property in 7uestion is not in con"ormity 2ith the pro-isions o"
sections <)> and <44 o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure, because ()) the
2ritten consent o" all o" the heirs 2as not obtained, (4) the heirs 2ere
not noti"ied o" the hearin0 on said application, and (5) no hearin0 2as
held on said application = and, conse7uently, the sale o" the property
o" the estate, e""ected by the administrator in pursuance o" said
decree o" the court, is null and -oid.
- %n the present case it is true that the heirs, a"ter the sale o" the
property in pursuance o" the order o" the court, and a"ter said sale
had been appro-ed by the court, made a deposit 2ith the cler' o" a
sum o" money su""icient to pay the e.istin0 indebtedness. 1e are at
a loss to understand 2hy the lo2er court did not e-en then accept
the o""er made by the heirs to pay the indebtedness and thereby
sa-e the estate "rom the "urther e.pense o" liti0ation, in accordance
2ith the pro-isions o" the la2.
FACTS
- );)9, C#% 6e0ros ccidental issued a decree appointin0 Cecilia
rtaliz as administratri. o" estate o" Jose rtaliz Jordan 2ith po2er
to authorize ?il Montilla, amon0 other thin0s, to mort0a0e to any
entity 9 lots= but that the heirs did not 0i-e their 2ritten consent to the
administratri. to ma'e out said po2er o" attorney and to e.ecute said
mort0a0e. Authorization states8 G@nder such conditions as may be
deemed most ad-anta0eous to the interests o" the estates, etc., etc. .
. . o" Jose rtaliz Jordan.G 6o po2er 2as 0i-en to Cecilia to appoint
the substitute o" ?il Montilla in said po2er-o"-attorney, but neither is
there a prohibition a0ainst it in said authorization.
- Heirs of Ortaliz allege:
R Ernestina, Elisa, and Jose rtaliz, 2ere declared and rati"ied in the
intestate proceedin0s o" Oicenta Montilla, and Jose rtaliz y Jordan
as the only le0itimate and uni-ersal heirs o" the decedents
R by -irtue abo-e stated declaration are the le0itimate and absolute
o2ners o" all the estate le"t by Jose rtaliz and Oicenta Montilla,
consistin0 o" 9 lots
R neither the uni-ersal heirs nor their predecessors e-er e.ecuted
any mort0a0e deed in "a-or o" P6& or any document relatin0 to the
mort0a0e o" realty "or the increase o" corporate capital and e.clusi-e
bene"it o" the Maao 3u0ar Central Company, %nc.
R !/ ille0ally recorded an ille0al order o" C#% authorizin0
administratri. 2ithout "irst obtainin0 the 2ritten consent o" the heirs,
to mort0a0e the property, not "or purposes o" administration but
solely "or business and speculation
R !/ 'ne2 that C#% had no jurisdiction to issue such order
R authorization 0i-en by C#% to administratri. plainly stated that the
administratri. 2as bound to mort0a0e said property S"or the e.clusi-e
bene"it o" said intestate estates,, but the administratri. throu0h her
attorney-in-"act, ?il Montilla, ille0ally mort0a0ed said property S"or the
e.clusi-e bene"it o" the Maao 3u0ar Central Company, %nc., a
corporation 2ith 2hich the estates 2ere not connected,, and to the
serious and utter prejudice o" the interests o" the intestate estates, as
by such a mort0a0e "or millions o" pesos the property is encumbered
"ore-er 2ithout any bene"it or compensation=
R administratri.,s ille0al po2er and the unla2"ul mort0a0e e.ecuted
by ?il Montilla, in"rin0ed upon the order and !/ also ille0ally
recorded it in the re0istry o" deeds
R Maao Central Co., %nc. ille0ally mort0a0ed said realty "or millions o"
pesos "or their o2n interests and to the serious and utter prejudice o"
the interests o" the intestate estate
R administratri. died and !/ continued therea"ter to 0i-e e""ect to the
ille0al po2er o" said administratri. and re"used to consider it
terminated
R heirs rtaliz re7uested !/ to cancel said ille0al encumbrances but
!/ re"used
7
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
R P6& althou0h "ully a2are that said realty 2as adjudicated in "a-or
o" heirs rtaliz re"used to deli-er the ori0inal title
- CFI ();4;) R ordered !/ to cancel liens in "a-or o" P6&
ISSUE
16 mort0a0e o" properties o" estate by attorney-in-"act o"
administrati. is -alid 0i-en that heirs did not 0i-e their consent
EL!
6
Ratio (he 2ritten consent o" the heirs, de-isees, and le0atees is
re7uired because they, as presumpti-e o2ners, are the persons
directly a""ected by the sale, and mort0a0e as 2ell, o" the decedent,s
estate, since a mort0a0e implies a sale in case o" de"ault in payin0
the debt. (he sale o" mort0a0e must be made "or the purpose o"
payin0 the debts and e.penses o" administration, because the
creditors o" the decedent are indisputably entitled to collect their
credits e-en be"ore the distribution o" the estate. And, lastly, the sale
or mort0a0e must be bene"icial to the heirs, because, in pro-idin0 "or
the administration o" decedent,s estates, the la2 aims to protect the
heirs as 2ell as the creditors o" the decedent.
Reasoning
- 3EC. <)>. !ealty may be sold or encumbered thou0h personal
realty not e.hausted. T 1hen the personal estate o" the decease is
not su""icient to pay the debts and char0es o" administration 2ithout
injurin0 the business o" those interested in the estate, or other2ise
prejudicin0 their interests, and 2here a testator has not other2ise
made su""icient pro-ision "or the payment o" such debts and char0es,
the court, on application o" the e.ecutors or administrator 2ith the
consent and approbation, in 2ritin0, o" the heirs, de-isees, and
le0atees, residin0 in the Philippine %slands, may 0rant a license to the
e.ecutor or administrator to sell, mort0a0e or other2ise encumber "or
that purpose real, in lieu o" personal estate, i" it clearly appears that
such sale, mort0a0in0 or encumbrance or real estate 2ould be
bene"icial to the persons interested and 2ill not de"eat any de-ise o"
land= in 2hich case the assent o" the de-isee shall be re7uired.
- Accordin0 to their pro-ision o" la2, the probate court may authorize
the sale or mort0a0e o" real property, e-en 2hen there is still some
person property, subject to the "ollo2in0 conditions8
(a) application o" the administrator be accompanied by the 2ritten
consent and appro-al o" the heirs, de-isees, and le0atees residin0 in
the Philippine %slands
RRdid not 0i-e their consent nor appro-al to the mort0a0e in 7uestion
(b) sale or mort0a0e is necessary in order to pay o"" debts and
e.penses o" administration
RRmort0a0e 2as not necessary to pay o"" the debts and e.penses o"
administration
(c) sale or mort0a0e is bene"icial to the heirs and other persons
interested in the estate
RRno e-idence that mort0a0e has been bene"icial to the heirs= as a
matter o" "act, ?il Montilla, the attorney-in-"act, mort0a0ed the said
property "or the e.clusi-e bene"it o" the Maao 3u0ar Central Co., %nc.
- (he con-enience or bene"it to be deri-ed "rom the sale or mort0a0e
is not the only thin0 to be considered be"ore a court authorizes a sale
or mort0a0e= the principal re7uirement is that the heirs 0i-e their
2ritten consent and appro-al, "or they are the o2ners o" the property
to be sold or mort0a0ed, and cannot be depri-ed thereo" 2ithout due
process o" la2.
Disposition Jud0ment a""irmed in so "ar as it orders !/ to cancel
the liens in "a-or o" P6&
ESTATE OF =AM>OA V FLORAN"A
)4 Phil );) M ?.!. 6o. $->*:;
/ecember +, );*9
FACTS
- (he commissioners o" the estate allo2ed a claim in "a-or o" &albino
Jaucian "or P4,<4*, 2hich 2as secured by a mort0a0e on real estate.
(hey e.pressed an opinion as to the pre"erential ri0hts to 2hich this
creditor and another mort0a0e creditor 2ould be entitled in the
distribution o" the proceeds o" the sale.
- n the 4<th o" Au0ust, );*:, the administrator presented a petition
as'ed that the court appoint a day "or hearin0 upon the 7uestion as
to the pre"erence 2hich these creditors enjoyed.
- n the 44nd o" ctober, );*:, the court 2ithout hearin0 any parties
interested, directed the administrator to as' "or8 ()) an order directin0
the sale o" the mort0a0ed property= (4) the mort0a0e debt be paid
"rom the proceeds o" the sale, (5) 2hat remained be distributed
amon0 the other creditors. (his is one o" the orders appealed "rom.
- n the 45rd o" ctober, );*:, the administrator complied 2ith the
order o" the 44nd o" ctober
- n the )4th o" 6o-ember, );*:, the court, 2ithout notice and
hearin0 to the parties, ordered the sale o" the property to pay the
mort0a0e debt to &albino Jaucian. %t pro-ided that notice o" the sale
should be 0i-en in a certain 2ay. (his is the second order appealed
"rom.
- )>th o" /ecember, );*:, the administrator "iled a report o" the sale
2ith property sold "or P5,**+, and as'ed that the sale be con"irmed.
- 6o record that sale e-er had been con"irmed. n the contrary, it
seems that the land upon 2hich the mort0a0ed house stood did not
belon0 to the estate but belon0ed to the 2ido2.
- (he estate insists that the 7uestions as to the pre"erential ri0ht o"
Jaucian 2as determined by the commissioners in their report and
that report, not ha-in0 been appealed "rom, such determination is
"inal and conclusi-e. >UT &.+ 0r)3'(')n( )2 &.+ 1)-+ ar+ 1,+ar &.a&
1)66'((')n( .a- n) au&.)r'&y &) 6aA+ any ru,'n5 *.a&+3+r 'n
r+,a&')n &) 0r+2+r+n&'a, r'5.&( *.'1. ()6+ 1r+-'&)r( 6'5.& .a3+
)3+r )&.+r($ 9S++ (+1$ 686 an- 2),,)*'n5 (+1&')n(, an- (+1$ 7B:,
C)-+ )2 C'3', Pr)1+-ur+$<
- %t is claimed by the #loriza that, under the pro-isions o" section <*9
o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure, Jaucian 2ai-ed his mort0a0e lien by
presentin0 his claim be"ore the commissioners.
ISSUES
) 16 C#% actin0 as probate court erred in orderin0 the sale o" the
property to satis"y a speci"ic debt
4 16 C#% erred in orderin0 the sale o" the property 2ithout notice
and hearin0 as per Ci-Pro re7uirements
EL!%
) IE3
- (he code states in its sections <)> to <4) -arious conditions under
2hich the real estate o" the deceased may be sold "or the payment o"
debts. (here is nothin0 in any one o" these sections nor in any other
sections o" the code 2hich indicates that the Court o" #irst %nstance,
in the e.ercise o" its probate jurisdiction, has any po2er to order the
sale o" a speci"ic piece o" real estate "or the purpose o" payin0 a
mort0a0e debt 2hich is a lien thereon.
- %t may be that the court 2ould ha-e authority to sell the property,
subject to the mort0a0e lien, "or the purpose o" payin0 other debts o"
the estate, but there is nothin0 0i-in0 the court authority to sell it "or
the purpose o" payin0 that speci"ic debt.
4 IE3
- (he court entirely "ailed to comply 2ith the pro-isions o" section <44
o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure. (hat section re7uires the
administrator to present a petition as'in0 "or the sale o" the real
estate. I& a,() -'(&'n1&,y 0r)3'-+( &.a&, *.+n (u1. 0+&'&')n '(
6a-+, &.+ 1)ur& (.a,, a00)'n& a &'6+ an- 0,a1+ 2)r .+ar'n5 '& an-
(.a,, r+Cu'r+ n)&'1+ )2 &.+ 0+&'&')n an- )2 &.+ &'6+ an- 0,a1+ )2
(u1. .+ar'n5 &) 7+ 5'3+n 'n a n+*(0a0+r )2 5+n+ra, 1'r1u,a&')n,
an- &.a& &.+ 1)ur& 6ay )r-+r (u1. 2ur&.+r n)&'1+ 5'3+n a( '&
-++6( 0r)0+r.
- 6o attempt 2as made to comply 2ith the pro-isions o" the la2. 6o
notice 2hate-er 2as 0i-en to any o" the persons interested o" the
application "or license to sell.
!'(0)('&')n% (he orders appealed "rom are re-ersed, and case
remanded "or "urther proceedin0s in accordance 2ith the la2.
!E JESUS 9LEON< V !E JESUS 9EUSE>IA<
?! $-):++5
!EIE3, J&$= 6o-ember 4;, );:)
NATURE
Appeal "rom order o" C#% &ataan
FACTS
- in the intestate estate proceedin0s "or the settlement o" the estate
o" Melecio /e Jesus, 2ido2-administratri. %nes Alejandrino submitted
and in-entory o" the estate, includin0 a lot in Fermosa, &ataan
co-ered by a (C( in the name o" Melecio
8
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
- Eusebia (sister o" Melecio) "iled a money claim a0ainst the estate,
but this 2as ne-er heard. 3ubse7uently, %nes, Eusebia, and the heirs
o" Cirilo (brother o" Melecio) entered into a stipulation o" "acts,
reco0nizin0 that siblin0s Melecio, Eusebia, and C%rilo 2ere co-
o2ners o" the lot in Fermosa, &ataan, and that the said lot 2as
re0istered in MelecioLs name only in trust. A supplemental a0reement
2as e.ecuted 2hereby Eusebia a0reed to 2ai-e and renounce her
money claim a0ainst the estate. (hese a0reements 2ere appro-ed
by the probate court the -ery ne.t day they 2ere e.ecuted and
submitted "or appro-al
- Iears later, %nesL son $eon replaced her as administrator o" the
estate. %n such capacity, and joinin0 as plainti"" his mother, $eon "iled
an action "or annulment o" the stipulations entered by %nes 2ith
Eusebia and Cirilo, "or lac' o" jurisdiction and lac' o" re7uisite notices
to all interested parties. Eusebia, et al. "iled a motion to dismiss
(based on prescription and res judicata), 2hich the probate court
0ranted. Fence, this appeal
ISSUE
16 the stipulations in 7uestion are -oid and ine""ecti-e, either "or
lac' o" jurisdiction o" the probate court to act on them, or "or lac' o"
notice o" their appro-al to the heirs o" the deceased
EL!
IE3, the stipulations are -oid "or lac' o" notice
Ratio %t is mandatory that notice be ser-ed on the heirs and other
interested persons o" the application "or appro-al o" any con-eyance
o" property held in trust by the deceased, and 2here no such notice
is 0i-en, the order authorizin0 the con-eyance, as 2ell as the
con-eyance itsel", is completely -oid.
Reasoning !ule ;*.; pro-ides that authority can be 0i-en by the
probate court to the administrator to con-ey property held in trust by
the deceased to the bene"iciaries o" the trust only Uafter notice given
as re"uired in the last preceding sectionV= i.e., that. Uno such
conveyance shall be authorized until notice of the application for that
purpose has been given personally or by mail to all persons
interested, and such further notice has been given, by publication or
other#ise, as the court deems proper$ (!ule ;*.9).
- Fere, it is 7uite probable that there 2as no such notice, because
the heirs 2ere all minors 2hen the proceedin0s in 7uestion too'
place. %t 2ould ha-e been necessary to appoint a 0uardian ad litem
"or them be"ore they could be -alidly ser-ed said notice, yet the
records here do not sho2 that such appointment o" 0uardian 2as
obtained. %n "act, any such appointment appears improbable,
considerin0 that the stipulations in 7uestion 2ere appro-ed the -ery
ne.t day "ollo2in0 their e.ecution and submission "or appro-al. %t
must be obser-ed that in );>9, be"ore the promul0ation o" the 6CC,
parents as such 2ere not le0al representati-es o" their children
be"ore the courts and could not dispose o" their property 2ithout
judicial authorization.
- As this 7uestion or notice 2ould ultimately decide the -alidity or
in-alidity o" the entire proceedin0s in the probate court leadin0 to the
appro-al o" the contested stipulations, plainti""s should be 0i-en the
opportunity to pro-e their claim that no such notice 2as 0i-en them. %"
pro-ed, the claim 2ould li'e2ise dispose o" the de"ense o"
prescription put up by de"endants in their M/, "or an action to set
aside completely -oid proceedin0s is imprescriptible and can not be
barred by lapse o" time.
- @n7uestionably, the probate court had jurisdiction to appro-e the
stipulations under !ule ;*.;, 2hich permits the probate court,
2hene-er the deceased in his li"etime held real property in trust "or
another person, to authorize the e.ecutor or administrator to deed
such property to the person or persons "or 2hose use and bene"it it
2as so held. (here bein0 no contro-ersy bet2een %nes and the
siblin0s that the latter and Melecio co-o2n the lot and that it 2as
re0istered in Melecio,s name only in trust "or all the co-o2ners, there
2as no need to "ile a separate action to an ordinary court to establish
the common o2nership o" the parties o-er said property= and the
probate court could appro-e, as it did, the a0reement 2herein the
parties e.pressly reco0nized their common o2nership o" the property
and the trust character o" the e.clusi-e title held by Melecio,
especially since the parties themsel-es state that such a0reement
2as entered into to "orestall "uture liti0ation and to "oster "amily
relations, and in addition, Eusebia had a0reed, in consideration o" the
court,s appro-al o" said a0reement, to 2ai-e a money claim a0ainst
the estate, so that appro-al o" said a0reement 2ould really redound
to the bene"it o" the estate and the heirs.
- As "or the rulin0 o" the !(C that $eon is estopped "rom 7uestionin0
the a0reements -oluntarily entered into by "ormer administratri. %nes,
su""ice it to repeat 2hat 2as said in &oPa0a -s. 3oler8 a decedent,s
representati-e is not estopped to 7uestion the -alidity o" his o2n -oid
deed purportin0 to con-ey land= and i" this be true o" the
administrator as to his o2n acts, a fortiori, his successor can not be
estopped to 7uestion the acts o" his predecessor that are not
con"ormable to la2.
Disposition Appeal 0ranted. rder re-ersed and case remanded "or
trial on the merits
>LAS ET$ AL$ VS$ JU!=E CECILIA MUDO"/PALMA
> 3C!A ;**
$A&!A/!, J. ();:4)
NATURE
Petition "or certiorari, mandamus and prohibition a0ainst the order o"
the Court o" #irst %nstance o" !izal, Jud0e Cecilia MuPoz Palma
FACTS
(%&T'( ) *+,,'- &+T T.)/ &%' 0&1 2% '2,)' *2/' *&3
)T/ -)00)*+,T T& +%-'/T2%- T.' *+'%T *2/'
4)T.&+T '0')%5 T& T.' 6786 -'*)/)&%( )n deference to
her husband9s #ishes embodied in a last #ill and testament #here
the latter expressed desire to convey properties to certain heirs and
legatees, 1axima /antos :da. -e ;las executed her o#n #ill
obliging herself to honor said #ishes of her husband. /pecifically,
she vo#ed to give her husband9s heirs and legatees, < of her share
in the con!ugal partnership. The husband9s heirs and legatees (me
anak kasi itong si ;las sa prior marriage niya) sued on the promise
of 1axima the second #ife. /* held that the promise in the #ill is
valid and ordered Judge =alma to proceed #ith the distribution of
properties accordingly).
61W
- n July 4:, );:), plainti""s, petitioners herein, "iled be"ore the Court
o" #irst %nstance o" !izal, a 6)&')n 2)r &.+ +8+1u&')n )2 &.+
-+1'(')n )2 &.'( C)ur& 'n =$ R$ N)$ L/14070$
- Pursuant to said order, a 2rit o" e.ecution 2as issued by the cler'
o" the lo2er court on Au0ust 4>, );:), and notice thereo" ser-ed
upon respondent !osalina 3antos on Au0ust 4;, );:), 0i-in0 the
latter )* days 2ithin 2hich to comply 2ith the same.
- %nstead o" complyin0 2ith the order, respondent e.ecutri., on
3eptember )+, );:), "iled a motion to set the case "or hearin0,
alle0in0 that it 2ould be di""icult to comply 2ith the court,s order
unless the "ollo2in0 7uestions 2ere "irst resol-ed8 ()) 2hat properties
are to be con-eyed by the e.ecutri.= (4) to 2hom con-eyance is to
be made= and (5) in 2hat proportions con-eyance should be e""ected.
- (his motion 2as opposed by herein petitioners as 2ell as by Marta
Chi-i on the 0round that the decision o" this Court 2as clear enou0h
on the 7uestions raised and could be complied 2ith 2ithout the
necessity o" adducin0 e-idence. A reply to this opposition 2as "iled
by respondent e.ecutri. and a rejoinder thereto presented by
petitioners.
ISSUE
@ON r+(0)n-+n& +8+1u&r'8 '( 4u(&'2'+- 'n r+2u('n5 &) 1)60,y
*'&. &.+ )r-+r )2 &.+ C)ur& )n &.+ 5r)un- &.a& '& '( 3a5u+ an-
'60)(('7,+ &) +8+1u&+ ('n1+ n) (0+1'2'1 a,,)1a&')n )2 0r)0+r&'+(
*+r+ 6a-+ 9n) -+('5na&')n a( &) *.) ar+ +n&'&,+- &) r+1+'3+
*.'1. 0r)0+r&y<$
EL!
NO$
Ratio T.+ 0ra1&'1+ 'n &.+ -'(&r'7u&')n )2 &.+ +(&a&+( )2 -+1+a(+-
0+r()n( '( &) a(('5n &.+ *.),+ )2 &.+ 0r)0+r&'+( ,+2& 2)r
-'(&r'7u&')n &) &.+ .+'r( 'n a 1+r&a'n -+2'n'&+ 0r)0)r&')n, an
a,'Cu)& 0ar& 0+r&a'n'n5 &) +a1. )2 &.+ .+'r(. (his method or plan o"
distribution and partition o" estates is pro-ided "or in section ) o" !ule
;), 2hich reads thus8
G3ection ). 1hen order "or distribution o" residue made. (estimony
ta'en on contro-ersy preser-ed. T 1hen the debts, "uneral char0es,
and e.penses o" administration, the allo2ances to the 2ido2, and
inheritance ta., i" any, char0eable to the estate in accordance 2ith
la2, ha-e been paid, &.+ 1)ur&, )n &.+ a00,'1a&')n )2 &.+ +8+1u&)r
)r a-6'n'(&ra&)r, )r )2 a 0+r()n 'n&+r+(&+- 'n &.+ +(&a&+, an-
a2&+r .+ar'n5 u0)n n)&'1+, (.a,, a(('5n &.+ r+('-u+ )2 &.+ +(&a&+
&) &.+ 0+r()n( +n&'&,+- &) &.+ (a6+, na6'n5 &.+6 an- &.+
0r)0)r&')n(, )r 0ar&(, &) *.'1. +a1. '( +n&'&,+-, an- (u1.
0+r()n( 6ay -+6an- an- r+1)3+r &.+'r r+(0+1&'3+ (.ar+( 2r)6
&.+ +8+1u&)r )r a-6'n'(&ra&)r, )r any )&.+r 0+r()n .a3'n5 &.+
(a6+ 'n .'( 0)((+((')n$ $ $ $ E
9
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
Reasoning (he project o" partition mentioned in the dispositi-e part
o" our decision sou0ht to be en"orced, 2hich is the project o" partition
in Ci-il Case 6o. :<*< o" the Court o" #irst %nstance o" !izal, contains
the "ollo2in0 resume o" the properties recei-ed by Ma.ima 3antos in
-arious capacities in the settlement o" the estate o" her husband,
3imeon &las8
)M4 o" all properties le"t by the deceased as her share in the
conju0al partnership property P55;,>>*.**
)M5 "ree disposition ))5,)>:.::
)M5 o" strict le0itime de-ised to $azaro &las and sold by the latter to
the 2ido2 5<,<)+.+:
TTTT
(otal P>;*,5*4.44
- (he properties recei-ed by Ma.ima 3antos as her share in the
conju0al partnership properties is e.pressly stated to be
P55;,>>*.**. %n accordance 2ith the promise made in Anne. GFG, to
con-ey and deli-er to the heirs o" the deceased husband one-hal"
thereo", the -alue o" the properties that she 2as obli0ed to con-ey
and deli-er is one-hal" o" said properties, or P):;,<4*. #ollo2in0
2hat 2e ha-e stated abo-e, that the practice in the settlement o"
assets o" deceased persons is to a(('5n &) +a1. .+'r )r 0ar&'1'0an&
a 1+r&a'n a,'Cu)& 0)r&')n, un-'3'-+- '2 -'3'(')n '( -'22'1u,& &) 1arry
)u&, &.+ (.ar+ &) 7+ a(('5n+- 7y Ma8'6a San&)( '( P169,7;0
-'3'-+- 7y P490,B0;$;; )r a00r)8'6a&+,y B4$61 1FBG$ In )r-+r &)
1arry )u& &.+ -+1'(')n )2 &.'( C)ur&, &.+r+2)r+, &.+ a-6'n'(&ra&r'8
(.)u,- .a3+ 7++n 1)60+,,+- )r )r-+r+- &) 1)n3+y an- -+,'3+r
&.+ B4$61 1FBG )2 &.+ &)&a, a6)un& )2 &.+ 0r)0+r&'+( &.a& (.+
r+1+'3+- 'n &.+ 0r)4+1& )2 0ar&'&')n$
- (he procedure to be "ollo2ed is that outlined in section 9 o" !ule ;*
2hich reads as "ollo2s8
G3ec. 9. 1hen court may authorize con-eyance o" realty 2hich
deceased contracted to con-ey. 6otice. E""ect o" deed. T 1here the
deceased 2as in his li"etime under contract, bindin0 in la2, to deed
real property, or an interest therein, the court ha-in0 jurisdiction o"
the estate may, on application "or that purpose, au&.)r'H+ &.+
+8+1u&)r )r a-6'n'(&ra&)r &) 1)n3+y (u1. 0r)0+r&y a11)r-'n5 &)
(u1. 1)n&ra1&, )r *'&. (u1. 6)-'2'1a&')n( a( ar+ a5r++- u0)n 7y
&.+ 0ar&'+( an- a00r)3+- 7y &.+ 1)ur&; an- '2 &.+ 1)n&ra1& '( &)
1)n3+y r+a, 0r)0+r&y &) &.+ +8+1u&)r )r a-6'n'(&ra&)r, &.+ 1,+rA
)2 &.+ 1)ur& (.a,, +8+1u&+ &.+ -++-$ (he deed e.ecuted by such
e.ecutor, administrator, or cler' o" court shall be as e""ectual to
con-ey the property as i" e.ecuted by the deceased in his li"etime=
but no such con-eyance shall be authorized until notice o" the
application "or that purpose has been 0i-en personally or by mail to
all persons interested, and such "urther notice has been 0i-en, by
publication or other2ise, as the court deems proper= nor i" the assets
in the hands o" the e.ecutor or administrator 2ill thereby be reduced
so as to pre-ent a creditor "rom recei-in0 his "ull debt or diminish his
di-idend.G
- (he abo-e-7uoted section is applicable because the deceased
Ma.ima 3antos had a0reed and promised to con-ey in her 2ill one-
hal" o" her share in the conju0al assets to such o" the heirs o" her
husband as she may desi0nate. I2 &.+ a-6'n'(&ra&r'8 R)(a,'na
San&)( '( r+,u1&an& &) +8+1u&+ &.+ -++- a( )r-+r+- 7y &.+ C)ur&,
&.+ -++- )2 1)n3+yan1+ an- -+,'3+ry )2 &.+ 0r)0+r&'+( 6ay 7+
+8+1u&+- 7y &.+ 1,+rA )2 1)ur&, 'n *.'1. 1a(+, a( -+1,ar+- 7y &.+
ru,+, &.+ -++- (.a,, 7+ a( +22+1&ua, &) 1)n3+y &.+ 0r)0+r&y a( '2
+8+1u&+- 7y &.+ -+1+a(+- 'n .+r ,'2+&'6+$
- 1e note that the petitioners prepared a deed o" con-eyance to be
si0ned by the cler' o" court, &@( (FE E!!! %6 (FE 3A%/ /EE/
# C6OEIA6CE LIES IN TAT IT INCLU!ES ALL OF TE
PROPERTIES MENTIONE! IN TE PROJECT OF PARTITION,
A!JU!ICATE! TO MAIIMA SANTOS @IC, AS A>OVE
IN!ICATE!, SOUL! NOT >E TE CASE, >ECAUSE @AT
@AS ACTUALL# A!JU!ICATE! TO ER IN TE PROJECT OF
PARTITION INCLU!E! NOT ONL# ER SARE IN TE
CONJU=AL PARTNERSIP PROPERT#, >UT ALSO @AT SE
RECEIVE! FROM ER US>AN! OUT OF TE FREE PORTION,
AN! @AT SE A! PURCASE! FROM AN EIR OF ER
US>AN!$
- %t is to be noted "urther that in order to ha-e the document e.ecuted
and appro-ed by the court, the speci"ic steps prior to the e.ecution o"
the deed o" con-eyance as pointed out in the last part o" the abo-e-
7uoted section must be strictly "ollo2ed.
VILLANUEVA VS CAVE"
4> Phil )<*
CA!36= January 4+,);)5
NATURE
Appeal "rom an order o" C#% o" %loilo dismissin0 a complaint "iled in a
separate action incident to the proceedin0s had in connection 2ith
the administration o" the estate o" ?ualberto ?al-e, deceased,
2herein plainti""s-appellants sou0ht to establish and reco-er a claim
a0ainst the estate.
FACTS
- Fu0o Cha-ez 2as appointed as the administrator o" the estate o"
?ualberto ?al-e. A committee 2as duly appointed to appraise the
assets o" the estate and to hear and pass upon claims. (he
claimants, heirs o" $ucio Oillanue-a, deceased, presented to the
committee a claim amountin0 to some P+,+<+.9*. (his claim 2as
allo2ed by the committee, but the administrator 0a-e notice o"
appeal to the C#%t. (his notice 2as incorporated in the report o" the
committee, 2hich 2as "iled.
- Counsel "or the administrator "iled a "ormal notice o" appeal settin0
"orth therein that they had just been apprised o" the "ilin0 o" the report
o" the committee. Claimants submitted their "ormal objections to the
allo2ance o" the appeal on the 0round that it had not been presented
2ithin the period prescribed by la2. C#% held that the notice o" appeal
"iled at the time 2hen the committee admitted the claim, 2hich 2as
duly incorporated in their report, 2as a su""icient compliance 2ith the
statutory pro-isions in this re0ard, and directed the claimants to "ile a
complaint a0ainst the administrator and thus brin0 the 7uestion at
issue to trial as in any other ordinary action.
- (o this order claimants e.cepted, and a0ain the court directed that a
ci-il action be instituted. n the 4>th day o" July claimants submitted
a bill o" e.ceptions to the trial court 2hich the court re"used to testi"y.
Claimants then applied "or a 2rit o" mandamus to the 3upreme Court
to compel the trial jud0e to certi"y the bill o" e.ceptions. (he
application "or the 2rit 2as denied by the 3upreme Court on Au0ust
)4, );)). n the 4>th day o" ctober the administrator reported to
the C#% that he 2as ready to ma'e distribution o" the estate, and the
court thereupon directed that he proceed to the distribution, and at
the same time entered an order disallo2in0 the claim o" these
claimants on the 0round o" their "ailure to prosecute the same to "inal
jud0ment in accordance 2ith the repeated order o" the court. %t
appears that the claimants had no notice as to the action o" the court
in this re0ard, and that they 2ere not ad-ised that an application
2ould be made by the administrator "or an order o" distribution on the
4>th day o" ctober. n the 49th o" ctober, "our days a"ter the entry
o" the order directin0 the administrator to proceed 2ith the
distribution and disallo2in0 the claimant,s claim, claimants "iled their
complaint a0ainst the administrator "or the amount o" their claim. (2o
days therea"ter, on the 5*th day o" ctober, the administrator 2as
duly noti"ied o" the "ilin0 o" this complaint. #our days therea"ter, on
the >th o" 6o-ember, 2ithout notice to claimant and in his absence,
the administrator presented his accounts and receipts to the Court o"
#irst %nstance, and on his motion his accounts and the receipts
co-erin0 the distribution o" the estate 2ere accepted and appro-ed,
and an order entered dischar0in0 the administrator.
%t appears "rom the opinion o" the trial jud0e that he had no notice o"
the "ilin0 o" the complaint at the time 2hen he appro-ed and allo2ed
the administrator,s accounts and the report o" his proceedin0s under
the order "or distribution= and it is clear that the administrator,
althou0h he had due notice "our days prior to the date o" the order
dischar0in0 him, did not ad-ise the court o" that "act at the time 2hen
he procured the issuance o" the order o" dischar0e.
- (he administrator "iled his ans2er to claimant,s complaint that he
2as no lon0er the administrator o" the estate o" ?ualberto ?al-e,
deceased, that his accounts had been settled and distribution made
under the order o" the court, and that he had been "inally dischar0ed
and 2as 2ithout le0al capacity to de"end the action. Claimants
contended that he 2as in "act the administrator at the time o" the
"ilin0 o" the suit, that he had notice thereo" prior to the time 2hen he
procured the order "or his dischar0e. Claimants "urther alle0ed that
the administrator had "raudulently concealed this 'no2led0e "rom the
court= that at the time o" the "ilin0 o" the suit the proceeds o" the
estate had not yet been distributed= and that they had no 'no2led0e
o" the settlin0 o" the administrator,s accounts, until they 2ere ad-ised
o" it by his pleadin0s "iled on the 4*th o" 6o-ember, settin0 "orth
those "acts. Claimant,s alle0ations as to lac' o" notice are not
contro-erted in the record and must there"ore be ta'en to be true.
(he case 2as heard upon the pleadin0s and the court entered an
order dismissin0 the complaint upon the "ollo2in0 0rounds8 ())
&ecause "inal distribution 2as ordered on the 4>th day o" ctober,
"our days be"ore it 2as "iled, and on the same day the claim had
been disallo2ed by the court because o" claimant,s "ailure to "ile their
complaint in compliance 2ith the court,s order. (4) &ecause all o" the
10
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
estate ha-in0 been distributed under an order issued "our days prior
to the "ilin0 o" the suit, no property remained in the hands o" the
administrator.
ISSUE
16 the action a0ainst the administrator "or the reco-ery o" the
claim a0ainst the estate may be prosecuted a0ainst him to jud0ment,
2here it appears that he has procured the erroneous dismissal o" the
action, the erroneous disallo2ance o" the claim, and the issuance o"
orders o" the distribution o" the estate and "or his o2n dischar0e
2hich are erroneous in so "ar as the claimants are a""ected thereby.
EL! IE3
Ratio (he claimants, under these circumstances, are entitled to
proceed 2ith their action a0ainst the administrator, and that the order
directin0 the dismissal o" their complaint must be re-ersed. (he
supreme court o" Mississippi, in discussin0 the ri0hts o" creditors to
reco-er "rom the estates o" deceased debtors, under the Mississippi
statutes, says that8 GI& '( )n,y a2&+r &.+ 0ay6+n& )2 a,, +8'(&'n5
-+7&( -u+ 2r)6 &.+ +(&a&+ an- n)& 7arr+- 7y &.+ (&a&u&+ )2
,'6'&a&')n(, )r u0)n &.+'r 0ay6+n& 7+'n5 0r)0+r,y (+1ur+- a(
0r)3'-+- 7y ,a*, &.a& &.+ a-6'n'(&ra&)r 6ay ,a*2u,,y 0r)1++- &)
&.+ -'(&r'7u&')n )2 &.+ +(&a&+$G
Reasoning 1hen is it that an e.ecutor or administrator may ma'e a
"ull settlement o" the administrationX (he statute ans2ers, 2hen the
estate has been "ully administered by the payment o" all the debts.
1hen is it, that upon "inal settlement, the court shall order the
e.ecutor or administrator to ma'e immediate distribution o" all the
property in his handsX (he ans2er is, 2hen the estate has been "ully
administered by the payment o" all the debts. %t is not to be presumed
that 2hilst the claims o" creditors, the primary objects o" the trust,
remain unsatis"ied, the court 2ould order an immediate distribution o"
all the property in the representati-e,s hands amon0 the secondary
objects o" the trust, the le0atees and distributees. %t is not in the
po2er o" the court to dischar0e an e.ecutor or administrator until the
trusts are "ully e.ecuted, e.cept in the case o" remo-al or
resi0nation, 2hen the administration de bonis non shall be 0ranted
as in case o" the death o" the e.ecutor or administrator, and 2ith li'e
e""ect on all the proceedin0s by or a0ainst the e.ecutor or
administrator.
Fr)6 &.'( 3'+* )2 &.+ ,a*, '& *',, 1,+ar,y a00+ar &.a& *.',+ &.+r+
ar+ 3a,'- an- (u7('(&'n5 -+7&( a5a'n(& &.+ +(&a&+, &.+ +8+1u&)r )r
a-6'n'(&ra&)r 1ann)& 7+ ,+5a,,y -'(1.ar5+- 2r)6 &.+ &ru(& )2 .'(
a-6'n'(&ra&')n, +81+0& 7y -+a&., r+('5na&')n, )r r+6)3a,; an-
u0)n &.+ .a00+n'n5 )2 +'&.+r )2 &.+(+ +3+n&(, '& '( 0r)3'-+- &.a&
a-6'n'(&ra&')n de bonis non (.a,, 7+ 5ran&+-$ (his 'eeps the
doors to the estate open, so that the creditors may ha-e an
opportunity to collect their claims a0ainst it. &ut i", as is insisted, the
settlement o" an estate, purportin0 to be "inal, precluded e.istin0
creditors "rom institutin0 suits a0ainst the e.ecutor or administrator "or
the collection o" -alid and subsistin0 claims a0ainst the estate, 0reat
2ron0 and injustice 2ould be the result, and the primary purpose,
object, and policy o" the la2, in 0rantin0 administration upon estates o"
decedents, 2ould be de"eated. (o hold the estate liable,
not2ithstandin0 such settlement, 2ould, in our opinion, accord 2ith
the spirit and policy o" the la2, and subser-e the ends o" justice, and it
2ould constitute no hardship upon the e.ecutor or administrator, as by
a "aith"ul dischar0e o" his duties he 2ould ha-e it in his po2er to 2ind
up and completely "inish the administration o" a sol-ent estate, 2ithin
a reasonable time, by 0i-in0 the proper notice to creditors to present
their claims 2ithin the time prescribed by the la2, and all claims
a0ainst the estate, o" 2hich he had no notice, 2ithin the time limited
by the la2, a"ter publication o" such notice, 2ould be barred, and could
no lon0er be re0arded as -alid and subsistin0 debts a0ainst the
estate. And the la2 thus bein0 complied 2ith, the e.ecutor or
administrator, a"ter payin0 all the debts o" 2hich he had any
'no2led0e 2ithin the time limited by the statute, could sa"ely ma'e a
"inal settlement o" the estate, and a distribution thereo" amon0 the
le0atees or distributees. &ut to hold that a settlement, purportin0 to be
a "inal settlement o" an estate, made 2ithout a compliance 2ith the
re7uisitions o" the la2, 2ould be conclusi-e upon creditors 2ould put
them completely at the mercy o" the e.ecutor and administrator and
the le0atees and distributees.
!'(0)('&')n% (he orders o" the trial jud0e declarin0 claimants, action
abandoned, disallo2in0 their claim, and dismissin0 their complaint
should be re-o'ed
CASTILLO VS >OLADOS 9A-6'n'(&ra&)r<
:4 PF%$ :>)
%MPE!%A$= /ecember 4), );5+
NATURE
Appeal "rom the order o" the court o" March 4:, );5>, appro-in0 the
amended project o" partition presented by the attorney "or the
administrator on /ecember 4;, );55.
FACTS
- #lora Castillo, one o" the heirs o" the deceased Manuela Perez,
brou0ht this appeal.
- #rom the month o" May, );5), these testamentary proceedin0s
ha-e been pendin0 settlement and distribution in court, due to
incidents brou0ht about by the only t2o heirs, dau0hters o" the
deceased testatri..
- Oarious projects o" partition 2ere presented but all o" them 2ere
opposed by the co-heir #lora Castillo. %n order to arri-e at a de"inite
solution, her sister Jo-ita, "iled a petition o""erin0 to pay all the la2"ul
obli0ations o" the estate on condition that she be a2arded the parcel
o" land in (alahiban and 4M5 o" the land in $aiya, as pro-ided in the
probated 2ill. (he proposition 2as appro-ed 2ithout opposition in an
order, and the administrator presented a project o" partition in
accordance there2ith.
- %n the amended project o" /ecember 4;, );55, appro-ed by the
court, it 2as stated that the assets o" the inheritance, consistin0 o"
said t2o parcels o" land, amount to P)*,):+.>:. (he liabilities, 2hich
include the indebtedness and other obli0ations o" the estate, the
redemption o" 4* hectares o" the land in (alahiban mort0a0ed to
$orenzo 3ales and ?abino (ejada, and Jo-ita Castillo,s betterments
o" one third )M5 and another )M+ under the se-enth clause o" the 2ill,
amount to P9,+4:.>;, lea-in0 a balance or di""erence o" P),:59.;<
2hich constitutes the net le0itime to be prorated bet2een the t2o
heirs. %n accordance there2ith, each o" them should recei-e
properties 2orth P9);.>9+.
- (o carry out the distribution pro-ided in the 2ill and 0i-e each heir
her share o" the estate, adjudication 2as made as "ollo2s8 (o #lora
Castillo, ): hectares, 59 ares and ;< centares o" the land in $aiya,
on the eastern part thereo", "rom north to south, the -alue o" 2hich, at
P+* a hectare, is P9);.>9+= and to Jo-ita Castillo, 45 hectares, :)
ares and 5 centares o" the land in $aiya, on the 2estern part thereo",
"rom north to 3outh, the -alue o" 2hich, at P+* a hectare, is
P),)9*.+)+, and the entire parcel o" land in (alahiban 2ith an area o"
>* hectares, 94 centares, the -alue o" 2hich at P4** a hectare, is
P9,):+.>:.
ISSUES
). 16 the amended project o" partition should ha-e been
appro-ed.
4. 16 the inclusion o" the items o" P5,)*>.;4, P4,***, P5,599.>9
and P4,*55.*; amon0 the liabilities o" the project 2as erroneous.
5. 16 the true -alue o" the distributable net assets is P;,5+<.55 as
assessed by the appellant.
EL!
). IE3
- %t is contended that the court should not ha-e appro-ed the
amended project o" partition because the debts and obli0ations o" the
estate ha-e not yet been paid and because the court, in appro-in0 it,
did not re7uire Jo-ita Castillo to "ile a bond to secure the payment o"
said debts and obli0ations.
- (here is no doubt that under sections <5>, <5+, <5; and <+5 o" the
Code o" Ci-il Procedure, the debts and e.penses o" administration
should be paid by the e.ecutor or administrator, and the estate
should not be distributed amon0 the heirs until all such debts and
e.penses ha-e been paid= ho2e-er, there bein0 no objection in this
case, on the part o" the creditors, and the sol-ency o" the co-heir
subro0ated not ha-in0 been 7uestioned, there is no 0ood reason to
re-erse the order appealed "rom "or said cause alone. (he appellant,
not bein0 one o" the ac'no2led0ed creditors, is not entitled to
oppose the proceedin0s on this 0round.
- 1ith respect to the bond, neither is she the ri0ht party to interpose
any objection, but, in all cases, the creditors 2ho ha-e not done so.
At any rate, e-en a"ter the amended project o" partition is appro-ed,
and pendin0 the deli-ery o" the hereditary estate, the de"ect may be
corrected i" some o" the ac'no2led0ed creditors appear and petition
that said co-heir "ile some security in case she 2ere not ready to
settle immediately the debts and other obli0ations o" the estate.
4. 6
- 1ith the e.ception o" the second item, the amounts in 7uestion
ha-e been entered in said liabilities "or the purpose o" determinin0
and "indin0 the li7uid assets or net le0itime to be prorated bet2een
the t2o heirs. As to the amount o" the debts and e.penses o"
administration, there can be no di""iculty 2hatsoe-er= their e.istence
is ac'no2led0ed by the administrator and the appellant has not
7uestioned them.
11
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
- As to the item o" P4,***, Jo-ita Castillo o""ered to pay the debts and
other e.penses o" administration on the condition stated in the "acts.
@nder the 2ill and the Ci-il Code, the redemption o" the mort0a0e
should be de"rayed by Jo-ita, but her proposition had been appro-ed
by the court and the order had become "inal because the appellant
had consented to it, so the estate should no2 ma'e payment thereo".
- (he court, considerin0 the transaction bene"icial and that it 2ould
brin0 about a prompt settlement and distribution o" the inheritance,
appro-ed the proposition and the appellant neither e.cepted to the
order appro-in0 it nor appealed there"rom. (hus, the opposition no2
entered by her is out o" time.
5. 6
- (his amount is erroneous. %" the -alue stated in the project is
correct and the amount o" the liabilities is that appearin0 therein, as
held by us in the precedin0 para0raphs, it necessarily "ollo2s that the
net assets amount to only P),:59.;<.
!'(0)('&')n% rder is a""irmed reser-in0 to the creditors o" the estate
appearin0 in the amended project o" partition o" /ecember 4;, );55,
their ri0ht to demand immediate payment o" their credits o" Jo-ita
Castillo, or that she "ile a su""icient bond in the case she has to de"er
payment thereo".
RE#ES 3 >ARRETTO/!ATU
?.!. 6o. $-)<9)9
!EIE3, J&$= Jan 4+, );:<
FACTS%
- (he spouses &ibiano &arretto and Maria ?erardo, durin0 their
li"etime, ac7uired a -ast estate, consistin0 o" real properties in
Manila, Pampan0a, and &ulacan.
- 1hen BIBIANO died on #eb )9, );5: in Manila, he le"t his share o"
these properties in a will to 3alud &arretto and Mila0ros &arretto(-
/atu) and a small portion as le0acies to his sisters !osa and #elisa
and his nephe2 and nieces. (he sfr!t of a fis"pond in 3an
!o7ue, Fa0onoy, &ulacan, ho2e-er, 2as reser-ed "or his 2ido2.
Maria 2as appointed administratri., and she prepared a pro#e!t of
partition, 2hich she si0ned in her o2n behal" and as 0uardian o"
then minor Mila0ros. (he C#% appro-ed it, and distribution o" the
estate and deli-ery o" shares "ollo2ed. 3alud too' immediate
possession o" her share and secured the cancellation o" C(s and
the issuance o" ne2 titles in her o2n name.
- 1hen $ARIA died on Mar +, );>9, it 2as disco-ered that she had
e.ecuted t2o 2ills. %n the "irst 2ill, she instituted 3alud and Mila0ros
as her heirs, and, in the second, she re-o'ed the "irst and le"t all her
properties in "a-or o" Mila0ros alone.
- (irso !eyes (plainti""), as 0uardian o" the minor children o" 3alud,
presented the "irst 2ill o" Maria. (he lo2er court rejected it (and
accepted the second 2ill) and held that 3alud 2as not the dau0hter
o" Maria by her husband &ibiano. (he 3C, on appeal, a""irmed.
(#%!3( AC(%6)
- Fa-in0 lost in the claim "or a share in the estate o" Maria, !eyes
(representin0 the minor children o" 3alud) no2 "alls bac' upon the
remnant o" the estate o" &ibiano, 2hich 2as 0i-en in usu"ruct to his
2ido2 Maria. (his action is to reco-er one-hal" portion o" said
usu"ruct. (3EC6/ AC(%6)
- (his action a""orded Mila0ros &arretto-/atu an opportunity to set up
her ri0ht o" o2nership, not only o" the "ishpond, but o" all the other
properties 2illed and deli-ered to 3alud, "or bein0 a spurious heir,
and not entitled to any share in the estate o" &ibiano. 3he ar0ued
that the Project o" Partition is -oid ab initio and 3alud did not ac7uire
any -alid title thereto, and that the court did not ac7uire any
jurisdiction o" the person o" Mila0ros, 2ho 2as then a minor.
- (he lo2er court declared the project o" partition o" the estate o"
&ibiano to be null and -oid ab initio (not merely -oidable) because
the distributee, 3alud, 2as not a dau0hter o" &ibiano and Maria, on
the basis o" Article )*9)
4
o" the Ci-il Code o" )99;. %t "urther rejected
the contention o" !eyes that since &ibiano 2as "ree to dispose o" )M5
o" his estate under the old Ci-il Code, his 2ill 2as -alid in "a-or o"
3alud to the e.tent, at least, o" such "ree part. (he lo2er court
concluded that, as Mila0ros 2as the only true heir o" &ibiano, she
2as entitled to reco-er "rom 3alud, and "rom the latter,s children and
successors, all the properties recei-ed by her "rom &ibiano,s estate,
in -ie2 o" the pro-isions o" Article )>+: o" the ne2 Ci-il Code
establishin0 that property ac7uired by "raud or mista'e is held by its
ac7uirer in implied trust "or the real o2ner. (he lo2er court dismissed
!eyesL complaint and ordered them to return the properties recei-ed
under the project o" partition, but denied Mila0rosL claim "or dama0es.
ISSUE%
16 the partition o" the estate o" &ibiano should be set aside.
EL!%
NO
- Art )*9) o" the old CC has been misapplied. 3alud had been
instituted heir in &ibiano,s last 2ill and testament to0ether 2ith
Mila0ros= hence, the partition had bet2een them could not be one
such had 2ith a party 2ho 2as belie-ed to be an heir 2ithout really
bein0 one, and thus 2as not null and -oid under that article. Art )*9)
does not spea' o" children, or descendants, but o" heirs (2ithout
distinction bet2een "orced, -oluntary or intestate ones), and the "act
that 3alud happened not to be a dau0hter o" the testator does not
preclude her "rom bein0 one o" the heirs e.pressly named in his
testament= "or &ibiano 2as at liberty to assi0n the "ree portion o" his
estate to 2homsoe-er he chose. 1hile the share assi0ned to 3alud
impin0ed on the le0itime o" Mila0ros (as she 2as allotted a share
less than her le0itime), 3alud did not "or that reason cease to be a
testamentary heir o" &ibiano, since there 2as here no preterition, or
total ommission o" a "orced heir.
- Mila0ros contends that the partition 2as -oid as a compromise on
the ci-il status o" 3alud in -iolation o" Art )9)> o" the old CC. (his is
erroneous, since a compromise presupposes the settlement o" a
contro-ersy throu0h mutual concessions o" the parties (Ci-il Code o"
)99;, Art )9*;= Ci-il Code o" the Philippines, Art 4*49)= and the
4
A partition in 2hich a person 2as belie-ed to be an heir, 2ithout bein0 so, has
been included, shall be null and -oid.
condition o" 3alud as dau0hter o" &ibiano, 2hile untrue, 2as at no
time disputed durin0 the settlement o" the estate o" the testator.
(here can be no compromise o-er issues not in dispute. And 2hile a
compromise o-er ci-il status is prohibited, the la2 no2here "orbids a
settlement by the parties o-er the share that should correspond to a
claimant to the estate.
- At any rate, independently o" a project o" partition 2hich, as its o2n
name implies, is merely a proposal "or distribution o" the estate, that
the court may accept or reject, it is the court alone that ma'es the
distribution o" the estate and determines the persons entitled thereto
and the parts to 2hich each is entitled (Camia - !eyes), and it is that
judicial decree o" distribution, once "inal, that -ests title in the
distributees. %" the decree 2as erroneous or not in con"ormity 2ith la2
or the testament, the same should ha-e been corrected by opportune
appeal= but once it had become "inal, its bindin0 e""ect is li'e that o"
any other jud0ment in rem, unless properly set aside "or lac' o"
jurisdiction or "raud. (hus, 2here a court has -alidly issued a decree
o" distribution o" the estate, and it has become "inal, the -alidity or
in-alidity o" the project o" partition becomes irrele-ant.
- Mila0ros ar0ues that since the court,s distribution 2as predicated on
the project o" partition e.ecuted by 3alud and Maria (2ho si0ned "or
hersel" and as 0uardian o" Mila0ros), and since no e-idence 2as
ta'en o" the "iliation o" the heirs, nor 2ere any "indin0s o" "act or la2
made, the decree o" distribution can ha-e no 0reater -alidity than that
o" the basic partition, and must stand or "all 2ith it, bein0 in the
nature o" a jud0ment by consent, based on a compromise.
/aminiada v 1ata, 2hich held that a jud0ment by compromise may
be set aside on the 0round o" mista'e or "raud, upon petition "iled in
due time, 2here petition "or Grelie" 2as "iled be"ore the compromise
a0reement or proceedin0, 2as consummatedG, and here in-o'ed by
Mila0ros, cannot be applied as the a0reement o" partition 2as not
only rati"ied by the court,s decree o" distribution, but actually
consummated, so much so that the titles in the name o" the
deceased 2ere cancelled, and ne2 certi"icates issued in "a-or o" the
heirs, lon0 be"ore the decree 2as attac'ed. Moreo-er, Mila0rosL
ar0ument 2ould be plausible i" it 2ere sho2n that the sole basis "or
the decree o" distribution 2as the project o" partition. &ut, in "act,
e-en 2ithout it, the distribution could stand, since it 2as in con"ormity
2ith the probated 2ill o" &ibiano. %n "act it 2as the court,s duty to do
so
5
.
- (hat Mila0ros 2as a minor at the time the probate court distributed
the estate o" her "ather in );5; does not imply that the court 2as
2ithout jurisdiction to enter the decree o" distribution. %n amos v
&rtuzar8 U(he proceedin0 "or probate is one in rem and the court
ac7uires jurisdiction o-er all persons interested, throu0h the
5
Act );*, 3EC. :>*. 'state, .o# 2dministered. - 1hen a 2ill is thus allo2ed,
the court shall 0rant letters testamentary, or letters o" administration 2ith the
2ill anne.ed, and such letters testamentary or o" administration, shall e.tend to
all the estate o" the testator in the Philippine %slands. /uch estate, a"ter the
payment o" just debts and e.penses o" administration, shall be disposed of
according to such #ill, so "ar as such 2ill may operate upon it= and the residue,
i" any, shall be disposed o" as is pro-ided by la2 in cases o" estates in these
%slands belon0in0 to persons 2ho are inhabitants o" another state or country.
12
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
publication o" the noticeW= and any order that may be entered
therein is bindin0 a0ainst all o" them (citin0 Manolo - Paredes). A
"inal order o" distribution o" the estate o" a deceased person -ests the
title to the land o" the estate in the distributees (citin0 3antos -
!oman Catholic &ishop o" 6ue-a Caceres)W A party interested in a
probate proceedin0 may ha-e a "inal li7uidation set aside 2hen he is
le"t out by reason o" circumstances beyond his control or throu0h
mista'e or inad-ertence not imputable to ne0li0ence. E-en then, the
better practice to secure relie" is reopenin0 o" the same case by
proper motion 2ithin the re0lementary period, instead o" an
independent action the e""ect o" 2hich, i" success"ul, 2ould beW "or
another court or jud0e to thro2 out a decision or order already "inal
and e.ecuted and reshu""le properties lon0 a0o distributed and
disposed o".V As held in eyes v ;arretto -atu (#irst Action), Maria
?erardo si0ned as 0uardian o" then minor Mila0ros. %t is no2
incontestable that Mila0ros 2as not only made a party by publication
but actually appeared and participated in the proceedin0s throu0h
her 0uardian= she, there"ore, can not escape the jurisdiction o" the
court 2hich settled her "ather,s estate.
- Mila0ros "urther pleads that as her mother and 0uardian (Maria)
could not ha-e i0nored that 3alud 2as not her child, the act o" Maria
in a0reein0 to the partition and distribution 2as a "raud on Mila0rosL
ri0hts and entitles her to relie". 3C held that "irst, there is no e-idence
that 2hen the estate o" &ibiano 2as judicially settled and distributed,
3alud 'ne2 that she 2as not &ibiano,s child8 so that i" "raud 2as
committed, it 2as Maria 2ho 2as solely responsible, and neither
3alud nor her minor children can be held liable there"or. 3econd,
0rantin0 that there 2as such "raud, relie" can only be obtained 2ithin
> years "rom its disco-ery, and this period had lapsed lon0 a0o 2hen
she contested the partition in );+: (2hether counted "rom date she
became o" a0e in );>>, or 2hen she became a2are o" the true "acts
in );>:). (o e-ade this, Mila0ros contends that her delay in "ilin0 2as
due to !eyesL -erbal promise to recon-ey the properties. Fo2e-er,
there is no reliable e-idence to support this. E-en more8 0rantin0
arguendo that the promise 2as made, it can not bind the minor
children o" 3alud, 2ho are the real parties in interest. An abdicati-e
2ai-er o" ri0hts by a 0uardian, bein0 an act o" disposition, and not o"
administration, can not bind his 2ards, bein0 null and -oid as to them
unless duly authorized by the proper court ($edesma Fermanos -s.
Castro).
!'(0)('&')n /ecision re-ersed and set aside in so "ar as it orders
!eyes to recon-ey to Mila0ros the properties, and a""irmed in so "ar
as it denies any ri0ht o" Mila0ros to accountin0.
!AEL V IAC
)<) 3C!A +4>
March 5), );9;= !E?A$A/
FACTS
- Cesario Cabutihan 2as "irst married to &ien-enida /urana. 1hen
the latter died, Cesario married her sister, Oictorina /urana.
- Cesario died "ollo2ed by Oictorina /urana 2ho died intestate .
- (he "irst marria0e o" Cesario produced le0itimate children 2ho are
the inter-enors in the case althou0h Carmencita Cabutihan instituted
the case as petitioner.
- (he second marria0e o" Cesario 2ith Oictorina did not produce any
issue= ho2e-er, the latter,s heirs are the children o" her t2o sisters
and a brother includin0 the petitioner and the inter-enors 2ho are all
the children o" &ien-enida.
- %t is claimed by all the oppositors that they are entitled to 4M5 portion
o" the estate o" Oictorina /urana considerin0 that their predecessors-
in-interest are the brother and sister o" Oictorina /urana= 2hile the
remainin0 )M5 portion should de-ol-e to the petitioner and the
inter-enors 2ho represent their mother &ien-enida /urana and the
other sister o" Oictorina /urana.
- /urin0 the second marria0e o" Cesario and Oictorina, they 2ere
en0a0ed in a copra business and a public transportation business,
2ith Oictorina mana0in0 the "ormer. A"ter the demise o" Cesario,
Oictorina and the pri-ate respondents entered into a e.tra-judicial
settlement o" his estate.
- Part o" the properties adjudicated to Oictorina include the copra
business as 2ell as some o" the -ehicles used in the transportation
business. 3ubse7uently, ho2e-er, the -ehicles 2ere trans"erred to
the pri-ate respondents by -irtue o" a Gdeed o" saleG.
- Carmencita Cabutihan "iled a petition "or the settlement o" the
intestate estate o" Oictorina /urana, 2herein she also prayed "or her
appointment as administratri.. Petitioners herein "iled an opposition,
as'in0 that the letters o" administration be issued instead to herein
petitioner $ucilda /ael. (he other pri-ate respondents, on their
motion, inter-ened in the case.
- Court belo2 appointed Amado Aoleta as special administrator o" the
estate o" the late Oictorina /urana . 3aid special administrator, upon
order o" the probate court, submitted an in-entory o" the properties o"
the estate .
- A G3upplementary %n-entoryG 2as "iled by the special administrator
co-erin0 other real properties o" the estate o" Oictorina, consistin0 o"
the undi-ided shares in the inheritance o" Cesario Cabutihan "rom his
parents.
- !espondents mo-ed "or the disappro-al o" said in-entories claimin0
that the properties listed therein 2ere either ac7uired durin0 the "irst
marria0e o" Cesario Cabutihan or 2ere merely the products or "ruits
o" the properties o" said "irst union or other2ise ac7uired throu0h the
"unds thereo".
- (C8 Oictorina had no paraphernal properties brou0ht or contributed
to her marria0e 2ith Cesario= that the copra business 2as "ormed
durin0 the "irst marria0e. All the properties listed in the in-entories in
her name or jointly 2ith Cesario do not belon0 to her e.clusi-ely=
these properties in are either the assets o" &ien-enida as her
paraphernal property or as the conju0al partnership assets o"
spouses Cesario or the latter,s capital.
- (o determine, there"ore, the e.tent o" the estate o" Oictorina, the
conju0al estate o" Cesario Cabutihan and &ien-enida /urana must
be settled or li7uidated "irst= K o" the conju0al estate shall be
inherited by Cesario Cabutihan and his + children= the inheritance o"
Cesario in the Estate o" &ien-enida in addition to the other K hal"
shall constitute Cesario,s estate 2hich shall be inherited by his
second 2i"e and his le0itimate children.
- (he probate court thereby disappro-ed both in-entories and
annulled the e.trajudicial settlement and deed o" sale. (he latter t2o
2ere annulled "or bein0 simulated or "ictitious and "or in-ol-in0
conju0al properties o" the "irst marria0e, includin0 properties o"
&ien-enida, to 2hich Oictorina is not an heir.
- Petitioners appealed to the %AC.
- Carmencita "iled a Gmotion "or authority to 2ithdra2 "undsG "rom the
estate, in the amount o" P;*,***.** to be partitioned amon0 the
heirs in accordance 2ith the proportion pro-ided "or in the a"oresaid
decision o" the probate court. Motion 2as 0ranted.
- %AC8 a""irmed decision o" lo2er court.
ISSUES
). 16 the copra business, as 2ell as the properties listed in the
in-entories as ac7uired durin0 the second marria0e, are assets o" the
conju0al partnership o" the "irst marria0e bet2een Cesario and
&ien-enida.
4. Fo2 2ill the properties in-ol-ed bet2een the t2o conju0al
partnerships be apportioned.
5. 16 the court erred in allo2in0 the 2ithdra2al o" "unds "or
distribution to the heirs as ad-ance inheritance.
EL!
). 6. 1hen &ien-enida died, the "irst conju0al partnership 2as
automatically dissol-ed. (hat conju0al partnership 2as then
con-erted into an implied ordinary co-o2nership. %t 2as also at this
point in time that the inheritance 2as transmitted to the heirs o"
&ien-enida. (hus, her heirs, ac7uired respecti-e and de"inite ri0hts
o-er-one-hal" K o" the conju0al partnership property 2hich pertained
to &ien-inida. Conse7uently, 2hate-er "ruits or income may
therea"ter be deri-ed "rom the properties, includin0 the copra
business, 2ould no lon0er be conju0al but 2ould belon0 in part to the
heirs in proportion to their respecti-e shares. (he "ruits and income
o" the other hal" o" the property o" the conju0al partnership 2ould
e.clusi-ely belon0 to Cesario.
- (he marria0e o" Cesario and Oictorina also produced the
correspondin0 le0al conse7uences. #rom that moment on, the "ruits
or income o" the separate properties o" the spouses 2ould be
conju0al, includin0 those ac7uired throu0h their industry. Fence, the
"ruits and income o" Cesario,s share in the inheritance "rom
&ien-enida and o" his conju0al share in the property o" the "irst
conju0al partnership 2ould "orm part o" the conju0al partnership
properties o" the second marria0e. (he "ruits and income deri-ed or
ac7uired throu0h these last-mentioned properties 2ould li'e2ise be
conju0al in nature.
- %t 2ould ha-e been ideal had there been a li7uidation o" the
conju0al partnership properties o" the "irst marria0e bet2een Cesario
and &ien-enida. @n"ortunately, the Court cannot determine "rom the
records the amount o" such properties at the time o" &ien-enida,s
demise. 1hat appears e-ident, ho2e-er, is that, considerin0 the
continuity in the operation o" the t2o businesses durin0 the marital
co-erture bet2een Cesario and Oictorina 2hich spanned a period o"
13
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
)> years, and the "act that a"ter Cesario,s death Oictorina still acti-ely
en0a0ed in the same business until her o2n death + years later, the
properties enumerated in the a"oresaid in-entories submitted to the
probate court could not all ha-e been properties o" the "irst marria0e.
4. ?uidance should be sou0ht "rom the pro-isions o" the Ci-il Code
to the e""ect that 2hene-er the li7uidation o" the partnership o" t2o or
more marria0es contracted by the same person should be carried out
at the same time and there is no e-idence to sho2 the capital or the
conju0al property belon0in0 to each o" the partnerships to be
li7uidated, the total mass o" the partnership property shall be di-ided
bet2een the di""erent partnerships in proportion to the duration o"
each and to the property belon0in0 to the respecti-e spouses.
(he "irst marria0e e.isted "or appro.imately )+ years 2hile the
second marria0e lasted "or about )> years . Applyin0 the a"orestated
rule, the "irst conju0al partnership 2ill be prorated a share o" )+M4; o"
the properties included in the in-entory 2hile the second conju0al
partnership 2ill 0et )>M4; thereo". 6ot to be included, ho2e-er, are
the real properties listed in the supplementary in-entory because
they de"initely belon0 to the estate o" Cesario as the latter,s
inheritance "rom his parents.
- )M4 o" the properties that pertain to the "irst conju0al partnership
belon0 to Cesario as his conju0al share therein, 2hile the other hal"
shall be considered as inherited by him and his "i-e children as the
heirs o" &ien-enida.
(he properties pertainin0 to the second partnership shall also be
e7ually di-ided, )M4 to belon0 to Cesario and the other to Oictorina as
their respecti-e shares in their conju0al partnership properties. (he
share o" Cesario should then be di-ided amon0 his heirs, namely,
Oictorina and his + children.
- (o recapitulate, the estate o" Oictorina "or distribution to her heirs
shall consist o" her )M4 share in the conju0al properties o" the
a"oresaid second marria0e and her one-si.th ()M:) share in the estate
o" Cesario as an heir.
5. 6.
3aid order is 2ithin the contemplation and authority o" !ule )*;,
3ection 4 2hereo" pro-ides that Unot2ithstandin0 a pendin0
contro-ersy or appeal in proceedin0s to settle the estate o" a
decedent, the court may, in its discretion and upon such terms as it
may deem proper and just, permit that such part o" the estate as may
not be a""ected by the contro-ersy or appeal be distributed amon0
the heirs or le0atees, upon compliance 2ith the conditions set "orth in
!ule ;* o" these rules.V
!ule ;*, on the other hand, pro-ides in part that Gno distribution shall
be allo2ed until the payment o" the obli0ations abo-e mentioned has
been made or pro-ided "or, unless the distributes or any o" them, 0i-e
a bond, in a sum to be "i.ed by the court, conditioned "or the payment
o" said obli0ations 2ithin such time as the court directs.G
- %t is true that Gpartial distribution o" the decedent,s estate pendin0
the "inal termination o" the testate or intestate proceedin0s should as
much as possible be discoura0ed by the courts and, unless in
e.treme cases, such "orm o" ad-ances o" inheritance should not be
countenanced. (he reason "or this strict rule is ob-ious - courts
should 0uard 2ith utmost zeal and jealousy the estate o" the
decedent to the end that the creditors thereo" be ade7uately
protected and all the ri0ht"ul heirs assured o" their shares in the
inheritance.G
(he respondent court correctly held than Gi" oppositors 2ould stand to
share more in the inheritance than 2hat 2as "i.ed "or them in the
appealed jud0ment, the estate has su""icient assets to ensure an
e7uitable distribution o" the inheritance in accordance 2ith la2 and
"inal jud0ment in the proceedin0s.G Also, it does not appear that
there are unpaid obli0ations, as contemplated in !ule ;*, "or 2hich
pro-isions should ha-e been made or a bond re7uired. %t is clear that
the pro-isions o" the !ules o" Court, as 2ell as the jurisprudence
thereon, 2ere "ollo2ed in this particular incident.
Disposition. /ecision M/%#%E/.
PA>LO RALLA 3($ J$ UNTALAN J+'r( )2 P+-r)
Ra,,aK
)<4 3C!A 9+9
3A!M%E6(= April 4<, );9;
FACTS
-C#% Albay, 3p. Proc. +:>8 !osendo !alla, 2ido2er, "iled a petition "or
the probate o" his o2n 2ill, lea-in0 his entire estate to his son Pablo
and nothin0 to his other son, Pedro. %n the course o" the hearin0,
Pablo "iled M(/ on the 0round that he 2as no lon0er interested in
the allo2ance o" the !osendoLs 2ill, "or its probate 2ould no lon0er
be bene"icial and ad-anta0eous to him. (his motion 2as denied, and
the denial 2as a""irmed by the CA and the 3C. n the scheduled
hearin0, Pablo reiterated his lac' o" interest in the probate o" the
subject 2ill. Conse7uently, Jud0e Buicho decreed e7ual di-ision o"
!osendoLs estate bet2een his t2o sons, and thereupon con-erted
the testate proceedin0s into one o" intestacy.
-Ci-il Case 6o. 4*458 Pedro !alla "iled action "or the partition o" the
estate o" their mother, Paz Escarella. (he brothers a0reed to
compromiseand entered into a project o" partition 2hereby the :5
parcels o" land 2ere amicably di-ided bet2een the t2o o" them. (his
project o" partition 2as appro-ed by Jud0e ?ra0eda.
-3p. Proc. ))*:8 Ele-en years later, Joa7uin Chancoco, PabloLs
brother-in-la2 "iled petition "or the probate o" the same 2ill o"
!osendo !alla on the 0round that the decedent o2ed him P+(. Pablo
"iled a mani"estation statin0 that he had no objections to the probate.
Fis GMotion to %nter-ene as Petitioner "or the Probate o" the 1illG and
the petition "or probate itsel" 2ere 0ranted despite the 2ritten
opposition o" the heirs o" Pedro.
-1hen special administrator (eodorico Almine (PabloLs son-in-la2)
too' possession o" the properties belon0in0 to the estate o"
!osendo, he also too' possession o" the :5 parcels o" land co-ered
by the project o" partition. (he heirs o" Pedro !alla mo-ed to e.clude
these parcels. Jud0e @ntalan 0ranted the motion. Jud0e !eyes
denied Pedro !allaLs M#!.
-&ut in a subse7uent mnibus rder CAu0ust 5, );<;D, Jud0e
@ntalan ruled, inter alia, that the :5 parcels should be included in the
proceedin0s "or the settlement o" the estate o" !osendo !alla and
that said the consolidated 3p Proc 6os. +:> and ))*: should
proceed as probate proceedin0s.
-About t2o years later, the heirs o" Pedro !alla "iled another petition
"or the e.clusion o" the subject parcels o" land, causin0 Jud0e
@ntalan CJuly ):, );9)D to reconsider his earlier mnibus rder,
thereby e.cludin0 the :5 parcels. PabloLs M#!s 2ere denied by
succeedin0 Jud0e !eyes. Fence this special ci-il action "or certiorari.
ISSUES
). 16 the e.trajudicial partition o" the :5 parcels 2ere -oid (ha-in0
been alle0edly made a"ter the "ilin0 o" the petition "or the probate o"
the 2ill and be"ore said 2ill 2as probated)
4. 16 Jud0e @ntalan committed ?A/ in U"lip-"loppin0V (re-ersin0
the mnibus rder t2o years a"ter issuance) as to the e.clusion o"
the :5 parcels o" land
EL! 'n+7r'a&+-
). (he ar0ument is "la2ed and misleadin0. (he partition 2as made in
the ci-il case "or partition o" the estate o" Paz Escarella, 2hich is
distinct "rom, and independent o", the special proceedin0s "or the
probate o" the 2ill o" !osendo !alla.
-(he rule that there can be no -alid partition amon0 the heirs till a"ter
the 2ill has been probated presupposes that the properties to be
partitioned are the same properties embraced in the 2ill. (he rule is
inapplicable 2here there are t2o separate cases (partition and
probate), each in-ol-in0 the estate o" a di""erent person (Paz
Escarella and !osendo !alla) comprisin0 dissimilar properties.
4. 6.
a. (he mnibus rder resol-ed ten di-er0ent issues sprin0in0 "rom
"our separate special proceedin0s pendin0 in C#% Albay. (here are at
least nine speci"ic directi-es contained therein. A distinction must be
made bet2een those directi-es that parta'e o" "inal orders and the
other directi-es that are in the nature o" interlocutory orders.
-%n the case at bar, the part denyin0 the motion "or e.clusion o" the
parcesl o" land 2as interlocutory in character because it did not
decide the action 2ith "inality and le"t substantial proceedin0s still to
be had. (he order o" inclusion o" the subject parcels o" land 2as a
mere incident that arose in the settlement o" the estate o" !osendo
!alla. %t is elementary that interlocutory orders, prior to the rendition
o" the "inal jud0ment, are, at any time, subject to such corrections or
amendments as the court may deem proper.
b. %t is 2orthy to note that the properties in-ol-ed in the present
petition 2ere the subject o" the project o" partition si0ned by both
Pablo and Pedro !alla. 3aid project o" partition 2as appro-ed by the
lo2er court and the brothers recei-ed their respecti-e shares. @pon
their motion Jud0e ?ra0eda declared the partition case closed and
terminated= no appeal 2as made "rom this decision= conse7uently, it
attained "inality.
-Torres v 'ncarnacion, >7 =hil. 8?>8 1here a partition had not only
been appro-ed and thus become a jud0ment o" the court, but
distribution o" the estate in pursuance o" such partition had "ully been
carried out, and the heirs had recei-ed the property assi0ned to
14
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
them, they are precluded "rom subse7uently attac'in0 its -alidity or
any part o" it. 1here a piece o" land has been included in a partition,
and there is no alle0ation that the inclusion 2as e""ected throu0h
improper means or 2ithout the petitioners, 'no2led0e, the partition
barred any "urther liti0ation on said title and operated to brin0 the
property under the control and jurisdiction o" the court "or proper
disposition accordin0 to the tenor o" the partition . . .(hey cannot
attac' the partition collaterally.
c. (hat part o" the mnibus rder settin0 aside the project o"
Partition 2as clearly erroneous. !ealizin0 this and the "act that it 2as
not yet too late "or him to correct his mista'e, Jud0e @ntalan issued
the 7uestioned rder o" July ):, );9). (his is per"ectly -alid.
-(he partition in Ci-Case4*45 is -alid and bindin0 upon Pablo and
Pedro !alla, as 2ell as upon their heirs, especially as this 2as
accompanied by deli-ery o" possession to them o" their respecti-e
shares in the inheritance "rom their mother Paz Escarella. (hey are
duty bound to respect the di-ision a0reed upon by them and
embodied in the document o" partition.
-Pablo !alla could no lon0er 7uestion the e.clusion o" the lands
subject o" the partition "rom the proceedin0s "or the settlement o" the
estate o" !osendo !alla. Could it be that the petitioner,s 'een interest
in includin0 these lands in the estate proceedin0s is directly related
to the "act that his son-in-la2 is the administrator o" the said estate o"
!osendo !allaX
Disposition Petition is dismissed.
SANCE" V CA
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN PE!RO LA=UNA V$
COLE=IO !E SAN JOSE, INC$
%MPE!%A$ J= #eb. 4+, );59
FACTS
- Municipality o" 3an Pedro, Pro-ince o" $a0una, claimed in a petition
"or escheat the Facienda de 3an Pedro (unasan. (he Cole0io de
3an Jose, %nc., appeared and assailed the petition.
-Municipal Council based their petition "or escheat upon the "act that
the temporal properties o" the #athers o" the 3ociety o" Jesus, amon0
them, the Facienda de 3an Pedro (unasan, 2ere con"iscated by
order o" the Jin0 o" 3pain and passed "rom then on to the Cro2n o"
3pain. (hus "ollo2in0 the lo0ic that the Phil. 0o-ernment particularly
the municipality o" 3an Pedro, succeeded the Cro2n o" 3pain.
ISSUE
16 the property may be subject to escheat
EL!
6, it is no lon0er the case o" real property o2ned by a deceased
person 2ho has not le"t any heir or person 2ho may le0ally claim it,
these bein0 the conditions re7uired by section <+* and 2ithout 2hich
a petition "or escheat should not lie.
- #rom the moment the hacienda 2as con"iscated by the Jin0dom o"
3pain, the same ceased to be the property o" the children o" Esteban
!odri0uez de #i0ueroa, the Cole0io de 3an Jose or the Jesuit
#athers, and became the property o" the Common2ealth o" the
Philippines by -irtue o" the trans"er under the (reaty o" Paris, alle0ed
in the petition. %" the municipality o" 3an Pedro belie-es that it has
some other ri0ht to the hacienda, distinct "rom the escheat relied
upon in its petition 2hich 0a-e rise to this proceedin0, it should brin0
the proper action, but it cannot a-ail itsel" success"ully o" the remedy
pro-ided by section <+* o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure.
- Escheat, under sections <+* and <+), is a proceedin0 2hereby the
real and personal property o" a deceased person become the
property o" the 3tate upon his death 2ithout lea-in0 any 2ill or le0al
heirs. %t is not an ordinary action contemplated by section ) o" the
Code o" Ci-il Procedure, but a special proceedin0 in accordance 2ith
the said section and Chapter YYY%Y, Part %%, o" the same Code. (he
proceedin0, as pro-ided by section <+*, should be commenced by
petition and not by complaint.
- %n a special proceedin0 "or escheat under sections <+* and <+) the
petitioner is not the sole and e.clusi-e interested party. Any person
alle0in0 to ha-e a direct ri0ht or interest in the property sou0ht to be
escheated is li'e2ise an interested and necessary party and may
appear and oppose the petition "or escheat. %n the present case the
Cole0io de 3an Jose, %nc., and Carlos Ioun0 appeared alle0in0 to
ha-e a material interest in the Facienda de 3an Pedro (unasan= the
"ormer because it claims to be the e.clusi-e o2ner o" the hacienda,
and the latter because he claims to be the lessee thereo" under a
contract le0ally entered 2ith the "ormer. %n -ie2 o" these alle0ations it
is erroneous to hold that the said parties are 2ithout ri0htG either to
appear in the case or to substantiate their respecti-e alle0ed ri0hts.
(his un"a-orably resol-es the petitioners, "irst assi0nment o" error.
!'(0)('&')n% A""irmed
CIT# OF MANILA V ROMAN CATOLIC
ARC>ISOPOF MANILA
5: PF%$ 9)+
JF636, J= Au0ust 5*, );)<
FACTS
- Action 2as commenced in C#% o" Manila, its purpose 2as to ha-e
declared escheated to the city o" Manila certain property situated in
and around said city= that said property consists o" + parcels o" land
located in the districts o" Malate and Paco, city o" Manila. (he theory
o" the plainti"", City o" Manila, is that one Ana 3armiento (A6A) 2as
the o2ner o" said property and died in the year )::9 2ithout lea-in0
Gheir or person entitled to the same.G
- C#% ruled that the prayer o" the plainti"" should be denied 2ithout
any "indin0 as to costs. #rom that conclusion the plainti"" appealed to
this court and made a number o" assi0nments o" error. City o" Manila
appealed. !oman Catholic Archbishop o" Manila (!CAM) inter-ened
and opposed position o" City o" Manila.
ISSUE
16 C#% erred in denyin0 the prayer o" City o" Manila to ha-e
declared escheated to the latter the property in 7uestion.
EL!
6.
- (he "ollo2in0 "acts 2ere pro-ed by a lar0e preponderance o" the
e-idence8 (hat A6A resided, 2ith her husband, in the city o" Manila
sometime prior to 6o-. )<, )::9= that on said date she made a 2ill=
that she added a codicil to said 2ill= that on May );, )::;, she made
another 2ill= that said 2ill contained pro-isions "or the establishment
o" a GCapellania de Misas=G that the "irst chaplain o" said capellania
should be her nephe2 Pedro del Castillo= that said 2ill contained a
pro-ision "or the administration o" said property in relation 2ith the
said GCapellania de MisasG succeedin0 that o" her nephe2 Pedro del
Castillo= that such subse7uent administration should continue
perpetually= that A6A died in ):<4= that "or more than 4** years the
inter-enor, !CAM, throu0h his -arious a0encies, has administered
said property= that !CAM has ri0ht"ully and le0ally succeeded to the
possession and administration o" said property in accordance 2ith
the terms and pro-isions o" A6ALs 2ill.
- 3ection <+* o" Act 6o. );* pro-ides 2hen property may be
declared escheated8 G2hen a person dies intestate, seized o" real or
personal property lea-in0 no heir or person by la2 entitled to the
same,G that then and in that case such property, under the procedure
pro-ided "or by 3ecs. <+) and <+4, may be declared escheated.
- (he proo" sho2s that A6A did not die intestate. 3he le"t a 2ill. (he
2ill pro-ides "or the administration o" said property by her nephe2 as
2ell as "or the subse7uent administration o" the same. 3he did not
die 2ithout an heir nor 2ithout persons entitled to administer her
estate. %t "urther sho2s that she did not die 2ithout lea-in0 a person
by la2 entitled to inherit her property. (he heir mentioned in said 2ill
e-idently accepted its terms and permitted the property to be
administered in accordance there2ith. And, so "ar as the record
sho2s, it is still bein0 administered in accordance 2ith the terms o"
said 2ill "or the bene"it o" the real bene"iciary as 2as intended by the
ori0inal o2ner
- 3o, the property in 7uestion CA66( be declared escheated as o"
the property o" A6A. %" by any chance the property may be declared
escheated, it must be based upon the "act that persons subse7uent
to A6A died intestate 2ithout lea-in0 heir or person by la2 entitled to
the same.
!'(0)('&')n Jud0ment o" the lo2er court is A##%!ME/.
LOREN"O V POSA!AS
:> PF%$ 5+5
$A@!E$= June )9, );5<
FACTS
-May 4<, );448 one (homas Fanley died in Aamboan0a,
Aamboan0a, lea-in0 a 2ill and considerable amount o" real and
15
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
personal properties. n June )>, );44, proceedin0s "or the probate
o" his 2ill and the settlement and distribution o" his estate 2ere
be0un in C#%-Aamboan0a. (he 2ill 2as admitted to probate. 3aid 2ill
pro-ides, amon0 other thin0s, as "ollo2s8
>. % direct that any money le"t by me be 0i-en to my nephe2
Matthe2 Fanley.
+. % direct that all real estate o2ned by me at the time o" my death
be not sold or other2ise disposed o" "or a period o" )* years a"ter
my death, and that the same be handled and mana0ed by the
e.ecutors, and proceeds thereo" to be 0i-en to my nephe2,
Matthe2 Fanley, at Castlemore, &alla0haderine, County o"
!osecommon, %reland, and that he be directed that the same be
used only "or the education o" my brother,s children and their
descendants.
:. % direct that )* years a"ter my death, my property be 0i-en to the
abo-e mentioned Matthe2 Fanley to be disposed o" in the 2ay he
thin's most ad-anta0eous.
. . . . . . . . .
9. % state at this time % ha-e one brother li-in0, named Malachi
Fanley, and that my nephe2, Matthe2 Fanley, is a son o" my said
brother, Malachi Fanley.
-C#%-Aamboan0a considered it proper "or the best interests o" the
estate to appoint a trustee to administer the real properties 2hich,
under the 2ill, 2ere to pass to Matthe2 Fanley )* years a"ter. (he 4
e.ecutors named in the 2ill 2as appointed trustee on March 9, );4>.
Moore too' his oath o" o""ice and 0a-e bond on March )*, );4>. +
a1&+- a( &ru(&++ un&', F+7 ;9, 19B;, *.+n .+ r+('5n+- an- &.+
0,a'n&'22 .+r+'n, Pa7,) L)r+nH), *a( a00)'n&+- 'n .'( (&+a-$
-/urin0 the incumbency o" the plainti"" as trustee, de"endant Juan
Posadas, Jr., then the Collector o" %nternal !e-enue, alle0in0 that the
estate le"t by the deceased at the time o" his death consisted o" realty
-alued at P4<,;4* and personalty -alued at P),>:+, and allo2in0 a
deduction o" P>9*.9), assessed a0ainst the estate an inheritance ta.
in the amount o" P),>5>.4> 2hich, to0ether 2ith the penalties "or
deli7uency in payment consistin0 o" a )Q monthly interest "rom July
), );5) to the date o" payment and a surchar0e o" 4+Q on the ta.,
amounted to P4,*+4.<>. n March )+, );54, the de"endant "iled a
motion in the testamentary proceedin0s pendin0 be"ore C#%-
Aamboan0a (3P Proc 6o. 5*4) prayin0 that the trustee, plainti""
herein, be ordered to pay to the 0o-Lt the said sum o" P4,*+4.<>. (he
motion 2as 0ranted. n 3ep )+, );54, the plainti"" paid said amount
under protest, noti"yin0 the de"endant at the same time that unless
the amount 2as promptly re"unded suit 2ould be brou0ht "or its
reco-ery. (he de"endant o-erruled the plainti"",s protest and re"used
to re"und the said amount.
-ct >, );548 plainti"" brou0ht this action in C#%-Aamboan0a "or
re"und o" the P4,*+4.<> and "or collection o" interest thereon at :Q
per annum, computed "rom 3ep )+, );54. /e"endant set up a
counterclaim "or P),);).4< alle0ed to be interest due on the ta. in
7uestion and 2hich 2as not included in the ori0inal assessment. C#%-
Aamboan0a dismissed both complaint and counterclaim. &oth parties
appealed to 3C.
ISSUES
). 1hen does the inheritance ta. accrue and 2hen must it be
satis"iedX
4. 16 the inheritance ta. should be computed on the basis o" the
-alue o" the estate at the time o" the testator,s death
5. 16 it is proper to deduct the compensation due to trustees in
determinin0 the net -alue o" the estate subject to ta.
>. 16 Act 6o. 5:*:, "a-orable to the ta.payer, should be 0i-en
retroacti-e e""ect
+. 16 there has been delin7uency in the payment o" the
inheritance ta.
EL!
). Accrues "rom death= but should ha-e been paid be"ore the deli-ery
o" the properties in 7uestion to P. J. M. Moore as trustee on March
)*, );4>
Reasoning Accrual o" the inheritance ta. is distinct "rom the
obli0ation to pay the same. (he ta. is upon transmission or the
trans"er or de-olution o" property o" a decedent, made e""ecti-e by
his death. %t is in reality an e.cise or pri-ile0e ta. imposed on the
ri0ht to succeed to, recei-e, or ta'e property by or under a 2ill or the
intestacy la2, or deed, 0rant, or 0i"t to become operati-e at or a"ter
death. (he ri0hts to the succession o" a person are transmitted "rom
the moment o" his death. Authentication and probate o" a 2ill as a
necessary condition to e""ect transmission o" property does not a""ect
the 0eneral rule. (he authentication o" a 2ill implies its due e.ecution
but once probated and allo2ed the transmission is e""ecti-e as o" the
death o" the testator. (homas Fanley ha-in0 died on May 4<, );44,
the inheritance ta. accrued as o" the date.
#rom the "act, ho2e-er, that (homas Fanley died on May 4<, );44, it
does not "ollo2 that the obli0ation to pay the ta. arose as o" the date.
(he time "or the payment on inheritance ta. is clearly "i.ed by sec
)+>>(b) o" the !e-ised Admin Code as amended by Act 6o. 5*5), in
relation to sec )+>5 o" the same Code.
4. IE3.
Reasoning Plainti"" introduced e-idence tendin0 to sho2 that in );54
the real properties in 7uestion had a reasonable -alue o" only
P+,<9<. (his amount added to the -alue o" the personal property le"t
by the deceased, 2hich the plainti"" admits is P),>:+, 2ould 0enerate
an inheritance ta. 2hich, e.cludin0 deductions, interest and
surchar0e, 2ould amount only to about P):;.+4.
%" death is the 0eneratin0 source "rom 2hich the po2er o" the estate
to impose inheritance ta.es ta'es its bein0 and i", upon the death o"
the decedent, succession ta'es place and the ri0ht o" the estate to
ta. -ests instantly, the ta. should be measured by the -alue o" the
estate as it stood at the time o" the decedent,s death, re0ardless o"
any subse7uent contin0ency -alue o" any subse7uent increase or
decrease in -alue. G(he ri0ht o" the state to an inheritance ta.
accrues at the moment o" death, and hence is ordinarily measured as
to any bene"iciary by the -alue at that time o" such property as
passes to him.
5. 6.
Reasoning Certain items are re7uired by la2 to be deducted "rom
the appraised 0ross in arri-in0 at the net -alue o" the estate on 2hich
the inheritance ta. is to be computed. %n this case, de"endant and
C#% allo2ed a deduction o" only P>9*.9). (his sum represents
e.penses and disbursements o" the e.ecutors until March )*, );4>,
amon0 2hich 2ere their "ees and the pro-en debts o" the deceased.
Plainti"" contends that the compensation and "ees o" the trustees,
2hich a00re0ate P),)9<.49, should also be deducted under sec
)+5; o" the !e-ised Admin Code 2hich pro-ides, in part, as "ollo2s8
G%n order to determine the net sum 2hich must bear the ta., 2hen an
inheritance is concerned, there shall be deducted, in case o" a
resident, the judicial e.penses o" the testamentary or intestate
proceedin0s.G
- A trustee, no doubt, is entitled to recei-e a "air compensation "or his
ser-ices. &ut "rom this it does not "ollo2 that the compensation due
him may la2"ully be deducted in arri-in0 at the net -alue o" the estate
subject to ta.. (here is no statute in the Philippines 2hich re7uires
trustees, commissions to be deducted in determinin0 the net -alue o"
the estate subject to inheritance ta.. #urthermore, thou0h a
testamentary trust has been created, it does not appear that the
testator intended that the duties o" his e.ecutors and trustees should
be separated. n the contrary, in par + o" his 2ill, the testator
e.pressed the desire that his real estate be handled and mana0ed by
his e.ecutors until the e.piration o" the period o" )* years therein
pro-ided. Judicial e.penses are e.penses o" administration but, the
compensation o" a trustee, earned, not in the administration o" the
estate, but in the mana0ement thereo" "or the bene"it o" the le0atees
or de-ises, does not come properly 2ithin the class or reason "or
e.emptin0 administration e.penses. 3er-ice rendered in that behal"
ha-e no re"erence to closin0 the estate "or the purpose o" a
distribution thereo" to those entitled to it, and are not re7uired or
essential to the per"ection o" the ri0hts o" the heirs or le0atees. (rusts
o" this character are created "or the bene"it o" those to 2hom the
property ultimately passes, are o" -oluntary creation, and intended "or
the preser-ation o" the estate. 6o sound reason is 0i-en to support
the contention that such e.penses should be considered in "i.in0 the
-alue o" the estate "or the purpose o" this ta..
>. 6.
Reasoning /e"endant le-ied and assessed the inheritance ta. due
"rom the estate o" (homas Fanley under sec )+>> o" the !e-ised
Admin Code, as amended by Act 6o. 5:*:. &ut the latter 2ent into
e""ect on Jan ), );5*. %t, there"ore, 2as not the la2 in "orce 2hen the
testator died on May 4<, );44.
- %t is 2ell-settled that inheritance ta.ation is 0o-erned by the statute
in "orce at the time o" the death o" the decedent. (he ta.payer cannot
"oresee and ou0ht not to be re7uired to 0uess the outcome o"
pendin0 measures. " course, a ta. statute may be made retroacti-e
in its operation. $iability "or ta.es under retroacti-e le0islation has
been Gone o" the incidents o" social li"e.G &ut le0islati-e intent that a
ta. statute should operate retroacti-ely should be per"ectly clear. Act
6o. 5:*: itsel" contains no pro-isions indicatin0 le0islati-e intent to
0i-e it retroacti-e e""ect.
+. IE3.
Reasoning (he liability to pay a ta. may arise at a certain time and
the ta. may be paid 2ithin another 0i-en time. (he mere "ailure to
pay one,s ta. does not render one delin7uent until and unless the
entire period has lapsed 2ithin 2hich the ta.payer is authorized by
16
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
la2 to ma'e such payment 2ithout bein0 subjected to the payment o"
penalties "or "ailure to pay his ta.es 2ithin the prescribed period.
%t 2as the duty o" the e.ecutor to pay the inheritance ta. be"ore the
deli-ery o" the decedent,s property to the trustee. /eli-ery to the
trustee 2as deli-ery to the cestui 7ue trust, the bene"iciary in this
case. (he appointment o" Moore as trustee 2as made by the (C in
con"ormity 2ith the 2ishes o" the testator as e.pressed in his 2ill. %t is
true that the 2ord GtrustG is not mentioned or used in the 2ill but the
intention to create one is clear. 6o particular or technical 2ords are
re7uired to create a testamentary trust. (he 2ords GtrustG and
GtrusteeG, thou0h apt "or the purpose, are not necessary. (o create a
trust by 2ill the testator must indicate in the 2ill his intention so to do
by usin0 lan0ua0e su""icient to separate the le0al "rom the e7uitable
estate, and 2ith su""icient certainty desi0nate the bene"iciaries, their
interest in the trust, the purpose or object o" the trust, and the
property or subject matter thereo". 3tated other2ise, there must be a
concurrence o" 5 circumstances8 )) 3u""icient 2ords to raise a trust=
4) a de"inite subject= 5) a certain object= statutes in some jurisdictions
e.pressly or in e""ect so pro-idin0.G (here is no doubt that the
testator intended to create a trust. Fe ordered in his 2ill that certain
o" his properties be 'ept to0ether undisposed durin0 a "i.ed period,
"or a stated purpose. (he probate court certainly e.ercised sound
jud0ment in appointment a trustee to carry into e""ect the pro-isions
o" the 2ill.
- Moore became trustee on March )*, );4>. (he mere "act that the
estate o" the deceased 2as placed in trust did not remo-e it "rom the
operation o" our inheritance ta. la2s or e.empt it "rom the payment
o" the inheritance ta.. (he correspondin0 inheritance ta. should ha-e
been paid on or be"ore March )*, );4>, to escape the penalties o"
the la2s. A trustee is but an instrument or a0ent "or the cestui 7ue
trust. 1hen Moore accepted the trust and too' possession o" the
trust estate he thereby admitted that the estate belon0ed not to him
but to his cestui 7ue trust. Fe did not ac7uire any bene"icial interest
in the estate. Fe too' such le0al estate only as the proper e.ecution
o" the trust re7uired and, this estate ceased upon the "ul"illment o" the
testator,s 2ishes. (he estate then -ested absolutely in the
bene"iciary.
- (he hi0hest considerations o" public policy also justi"y this
conclusion. %" payment o" the ta. could be postponed or delayed by
the creation o" a trust o" the type at hand, the result 2ould be plainly
disastrous. (estators may pro-ide, as (homas Fanley has pro-ided,
that their estates be not deli-ered to their bene"iciaries until a"ter the
lapse o" a certain period o" time. %n the case at bar, the period is )*
years. %n other cases, the trust may last "or +* years, or "or a lon0er
period 2hich does not o""end the rule a0ainst perpetuities. (he
collection o" the ta. 2ould then be le"t to the 2ill o" a pri-ate
indi-idual.
- (he estate 2hich plainti"" represents has been delin7uent in the
payment o" inheritance ta. and, there"ore, liable "or the payment o"
interest and surchar0e pro-ided by la2 in such cases.
?rand total o" P5,:5>.>5= plainti"" already paid P4,*+4.<>= only
P),+9).:; is le0ally due "rom the estate= this last sum is P5;*.>4
more than the amount demanded by the de"endant in his
counterclaim= as de"endant cannot be 0i-en more than 2hat he
claims, plainti"" is liable only in the sum o" P),);).4<.
Disposition (he jud0ment o" the lo2er court is accordin0ly modi"ied,
2ith costs a0ainst the plainti"" in both instances.
MARTINE" 3$ =RANO
>4 PF%$ 5+
3(!EE(= Au0ust )>, );4:
FACTS
- Estanislao !eyes 2as appointed recei-er and entered into
possession o" property consistin0 the estate o" a certain Martinez in
);4). (he property did not produce enou0h income to meet the
e.penses and pay the sums due the holder o" "irst mort0a0e, El
Fo0ar #ilipino. 3o, he recommended to the court that the property be
sold. Jud0e Paredes made an order authorizin0 the recei-er to sell
the land at an upset price o" P59,***. %n );44, Jud0e &orbon
rene2ed this authority t2ice, both 2ith the upset price o" P5+,***.
- Estanislao 2as unable to "ind a purchaser, and he himsel" came
"or2ard 2ith an o""er to ta'e the property at P5+,)59.>;, it bein0
understood that he 2ould assume all obli0ations encumberin0 the
property, the amount o" 2hich 2as to be deducted "rom the amount
o" his bid. Jud0e &orbon authorized the cler' o" the court to e.ecute
a deed trans"errin0 the property to !eyes. (he Martinez heirs
opposed the sale. Clemencia ?raPo also opposed because o" the
inclusion o" 5 parcels o" property 2hich belon0ed to her, and she
success"ully prosecuted an appeal to the 3C. (he 3C ruled "or the
e.clusion o" ?raPoLs land. (here 2as no consideration o" the -alidity
o" the sale there bein0 no appeal by the Martinez heirs a0ainst the
sale as a 2hole.
- Jud0e Paredes, ho2e-er, decreed a resolution o" the sale "or non-
per"ormance o" the conditions o" the sale (purchase price should
ha-e been deposited "irst 2ith the cler' o" court). !eyes, attorneys
attempted to appeal the order as it a""ected both the Martinez heirs
and ?raPo. 6o notice o" the intention to appeal, ho2e-er, 2as ser-ed
upon the Martinez heirs, 2ith the result that 2hen the bill o"
e.ceptions came to the 3C, a motion 2as made by the Martinez
heirs to ha-e the appeal dismissed. @pon this the attorneys "or
!eyes replied that the appeal in-ol-ed only the 5 parcels o" land
2hich had in a pre-ious decision been declared by this court to
belon0 to ?raPo. @pon this assurance, the 3C denied the motion o"
the Martinez heirs to dismiss the appeal. %t 2ill be seen there"ore that
the order o" Jud0e Paredes nulli"yin0 and resol-in0 the sale o" the
recei-ership property to !eyes, 2as ne-er e""ectually appealed "rom,
and has ac7uired the character o" a "inal and irrepealable order.
- 6ot2ithstandin0 the declaration o" nullity made by Jud0e Paredes
and the obser-ation o" the 3C that !eyes could no lon0er be treated
in any other character than that o" recei-er, he has continuously
pretended to be the o2ner o" the property by -irtue o" the purchase
and he has re"used to submit any account o" his recei-ership in the
subse7uent years. %n -ie2 o" this attitude, a number o" motions 2ere
made by ad-erse parties see'in0 to brin0 him to account and to ha-e
him remo-ed 2ith the result that, in );4+, Jud0e Paredes re-o'ed
the appointment o" Estanislao !eyes as recei-er 2ithout prejudice to
the renderin0 o" an account 2ithin )+ days "rom the noti"ication.
- !eyes contended that he has made e.penditures necessary to the
care and conser-ation o" the property o-er and abo-e the proceeds
obtained "rom the coconuts produced by the land and that the lo2er
court had no po2er to turn him out at least as lon0 as the
e.penditures made by him ha-e not been reimbursed.
ISSUES
). 16 the lo2er court has the po2er to remo-e a recei-er.
4. 16 !eyes is entitled to reimbursement.
EL!
). IE3.
Reasoning (here cannot be the sli0htest doubt o" the po2er o" the
lo2er court to remo-e a recei-er and terminate a recei-ership under
section )9* o" the Code o" Ci-il Procedure= and in -ie2 o" the attitude
o" the appellant, the impropriety o" his lon0er remainin0 in o""ice is
apparent.
4. IE3.
Reasoning %" upon the prompt submission and e.amination o" the
recei-er,s accounts, it should be "ound that he has actually paid out
"or the conser-ation and protection o" the property subject o" the
recei-ership more than he has recei-ed by 2ay o" income, or should
ha-e recei-ed in the e.ercise o" reasonable dili0ence, such balance
in his "a-or should be reco0nized as a la2"ul claim constitutin0 a lien
on the property.
- (he order appealed "rom 2ill there"ore be a""irmed 2ith the
modi"ication that !eyes is 0i-en >* days "rom the date o" the return
o" this record to the lo2er court 2ithin 2hich to submit his accounts
as recei-er, upon the "ilin0 o" 2hich the ad-erse parties 2ill be
noti"ied in order that they may contro-ert the same i" they see "it= and
the case is remanded "or "urther proceedin0s.
Disposition rder modi"ied.
SALTI=A !E ROMERO 3 CA 9ROMERO<
5); 3C!A )9*
?6AA?A-!EIE3= 6o-ember 4+, );;;
NATURE
Petition "or !e-ie2 on Certiorari o" the decision o" the CA
FACTS
- Eu0enio !omero bou0ht "rom spouses Celedonio Jau0 and 3o"ia
Macan the latter,s Gri0hts, interest, participation, o2nership and
possessionG o" )4 hectares o" public land. 1hen Eu0enio applied "or
a homestead patent "or said land, the same 2as disappro-ed by the
&ureau o" $ands because !omero already had applied "or a
homestead patent "or 4> hectares and 2as dis7uali"ied "rom o2nin0
the additional )4 hectares.
17
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
- Eu0enio placed the application in the name o" his eldest son,
Euti7uio, alle0edly in trust "or all the children o" Eu0enio. 1hen
Euti7uio 0ot married and had children, the application 2as
trans"erred in the name o" $utero, the second son o" Eu0enio. 1hen
$utero in turn 0ot married, he relin7uished the application in "a-or o"
his youn0er brother !icardo.
- Eu0enio died. Fis 2ido2 (eodora caused the land in 7uestion to be
subdi-ided amon0 : (out o" ;) o" her children, includin0 $utero. (he
other 5 children recei-ed shares in other properties.
- $utero claims that a policeman pic'ed him up and brou0ht him to
the o""ice o" Mayor Pablito Abra0an 2here he "ound his mother and 5
sisters ?loriosa, Presentacion and $ucita and the respecti-e
husbands o" the latter t2o. At the o""ice, he 2as presented 5 a""ida-its
"or his si0nature, to the e""ect that he sold 5 hectares each out o" the
)4 hectares o" land to his sister ?loriosa and his t2o brothers-in-la2
"or a consideration o" P5' each.
- $utero told the mayor that he 2as not sellin0 the land and that he
could not do so because the +-year period had not yet elapsed but
the mayor told him to just si0n the a""ida-its because a"ter + years his
sisters 2ill 0et the land and pay "or them and that i" they 2ould not
pay, the mayor 2ill ta'e steps to return the land personally to him.
$utero stated that he has not been paid "or the land by his sisters.
- $utero claimed that as early as );>*-);>) he had already been in
occupancy o" the )4 hectares. (itle to the property had been issued
to him as early as April 4:, );:<, a"ter the homestead patent 2as
issued in his "a-or on April <, );:<. Fis 5 sisters occupied portions o"
the property only in );:;, a"ter he 2as "orced to si0n the a""ida-its by
Mayor Abra0an.
- !(C ruled "or $utero. CA a""irmed
ISSUE
16 $utero ac7uired the lot in trust "or the bene"it o" the heirs o"
Eu0enio
EL!
6.
- GA trust is the le0al relationship bet2een a person ha-in0 an
e7uitable o2nership in property and another person o2nin0 the le0al
title to such property, the e7uitable o2nership o" the "ormer entitlin0
him to per"ormance o" certain duties and the e.ercise o" certain
po2ers by the latter.G (rust relations bet2een parties may be e.press
or implied. E.press trusts are those 2hich are created by the direct
and positi-e acts o" the parties, by some 2ritin0 or deed, or 2ill, or by
2ords e-idencin0 an intention to create a trust. %mplied trusts are
those 2hich 2ithout bein0 e.press, are deducible "rom the nature o"
the transaction as matters o" intent, or 2hich are superinduced on the
transaction by operation o" la2 as a matter o" e7uity, independently
o" the particular intention o" the parties. %mplied trusts may either be
resultin0 or constructi-e trusts, both comin0 into by operation o" la2.
- !esultin0 trusts are based on the e7uitable doctrine that -aluable
consideration and not le0al title determines the e7uitable title or
interest and are presumed al2ays to ha-e been contemplated by the
parties. (hey arise "rom the nature or circumstances o" the
consideration in-ol-ed in a transaction 2hereby one person thereby
becomes in-ested 2ith le0al title but is obli0ated in e7uity to hold his
le0al title "or the bene"it o" another. n the other hand, constructi-e
trusts are created by the construction o" e7uity in order to satis"y the
demands o" justice and pre-ent unjust enrichment. (hey arise
contrary to intention a0ainst one 2ho, by "raud, duress or abuse o"
con"idence, obtains or hold the le0al ri0ht to property, 2hich he ou0ht
not, in e7uity and 0ood conscience, to hold.
- Fo2e-er, it has been held that a trust 2ill not be created 2hen, "or
the purpose o" e-adin0 the la2 prohibitin0 one "rom ta'in0 or holdin0
real property, he ta'es a con-eyance thereo" in the name o" a third
person.
- Petitioners did not present any e-idence to pro-e the e.istence o"
the trust. (hey merely alle0ed that $@(E!, throu0h "raudulent
means, had the title o" the land issued in his name contrary to the
alle0ed a0reement bet2een the "amily that $@(E! 2ould merely
hold the lot in trust "or the bene"it o" E@?E6%,s heirs. (he alle0ed
a0reement 2as not pro-en and e-en assumin0 that the petitioners
duly pro-ed the e.istence o" the trust, said trust 2ould be o" doubt"ul
-alidity considerin0 that it 2ould promote a direct -iolation o" the
pro-isions o" the Public $and Act as re0ards the ac7uisition o" a
homestead patent. A homestead applicant is re7uired by la2 to
occupy and culti-ate the land "or his o2n bene"it, and not "or the
bene"it o" someone else.
- #urthermore, under 3ec )4 o" (he Public $and Act (CA )>)), a
person is allo2ed to enter a homestead not e.ceedin0 4> hectares.
%n the present case, it is not disputed that E@?E6% already applied
"or a homestead patent "or 4> hectares o" land and 2as dis7uali"ied
"rom applyin0 "or an additional )4 hectares. %" 2e uphold the theory o"
the petitioners and rule that a trust in "act e.isted, 2e 2ould be
abettin0 a circum-ention o" the statutory prohibitions stated under the
Public $and Act.
- As "or the alle0ed sale o" 5 portions o" the lot, the three
con-eyances are -oid. CA )>) prohibits the alienation o" a
homestead 2ithin + years "rom the issuance o" the patent and 0rant
under 3ection ))9.
Dispositive Petition is hereby /E6%E/.
EIRS OF LOREN"O #AP V$ CA 9RAMON L
>ENJAMIN #AP<
5)4 3C!A :*5
Au0 )<, );;;
FACTS
- Chua Mia had 5 sons8 $orenzo, &enjamin and !amon Iap.
- !amon purchased parcel o" land "r 6ery sps. $ot 2as re0istered in
name o" !amon. Fe declared the prop "or ta. and pd real estate ta..
- !amon constructed apartment. )M+ o" the cost 2as de"rayed by
!amon. (he rest 2as shouldered by Chua Mia. (he impro-ement
2as declared "or real estate ta. in the name o" $orenzo, as the old
2oman 2anted.
- $orenzo died. Fis heirs resided permanently in Manila. !amon
allo2ed them to use ) unit o" the apartment bld0.
- !amon sold the land and his share in the apartment to &enjamin.
- Petitioners ad-ised !amon and &enjamin o" their claim o"
o2nership o-er the prop.
- !espondents "iled action in !(C "or 7uietin0 o" title.
- Petitioners8 6ery sps o""ered to sell the land to $orenzo but since
$orenzo and his 2i"e 2ere at that time Chinese citizens, they
re7uested !amon to allo2 them to use his name. %t 2as a0reed that
!amon 2ill ha-e the prop until $orenzo ac7uires Phil citizenship.
3hould $orenzo predecease, lot 2ould be trans"erred to $orenzoLs
heirs.
- (C and CA ruled in "a-or o" respondents.
ISSUE
16 the heirs o" $orenzo ha-e any ri0ht o-er the apartment bld0 N
the lot
EL!
6
- (rust
a. E.press Z created by direct N positi-e acts o" parties, by 2ritin0 M
deed, or 2ill, or by 2ords e-incin0 an intent to create trust
b. %mplied Z deducible "r nature o" transaction as matters o" intent or
independently o" intent, as bein0 superinduced on transaction by
operation o" la2 basically by reason o" e7uity= implied trust may be
[ resultin08 arises by implication o" la2 N presumed to ha-e
been contemplated by the parties, the intent as to 2Mc can be
"ound in the nature o" transaction thou0h not e.pressed in a
deed M instrument= based on e7uitable doctrine that itLs the
more -aluable consideration than the le0al title that determines
e7uitable interest in the prop
[ constructi-e8 not created by any 2ord, e.pressly or
impliedly, e-incin0 intent to create a trust, but one that arises in
order to satis"y demands o" justice= doesnLt come about by
a0reement or intent but by operation o" la2 construed a0ainst
one 2ho by "raud, duress or abuse o" con"idence, obtains le0al
ri0ht 2Mc he ou0ht not to hold
- %mplied trust may be established by parol e-idence. E.press trust
canLt. (o establish implied trust by parol e-idence, proo" shld be as
"ully con-incin0 as i" acts are pro-en by authentic document.
@ 'vidence submitted by petitioners is utterly #anting. (self@serving
testimony of #ife of ,orenzo). /he admitted that their biz #as razed
by fire, and this put to doubt the claim that ,orenzo had the means to
purchase the land. &n the other hand, amon Aap #as an
accountant #B means to buy the prop.
- A trust or pro-ision in the trust is in-alid i" en"orcement is a0ainst the
la2 e-en thou0h its per"ormance doesnLt in-ol-e commission o" a
criminal M tortuous act.
- The trust agreement bet#een amon C ,orenzo #ould9ve been in
contravention of the 67DE *onsti. (re ac"uisition or holding lands of
public domain in =hils)
VILLAVICENCIO V LU?>AN
18
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
VELASCO V CA
ILUSORIO V >IL!NER
TIJIN= V CA
AN=ELES 3$ !IRECTOR OF NE@ >ILI>I! PRISONS
?.!. 6o. ))<+:9
O%(@?= January >, );;+
FACTS
- %n People -. An0eles, 3C a""irmed the trial court,s decision
con-ictin0 accused !olando An0eles y &ombita o" o""ense o" sellin0
shabu, punishable under the /an0erous /ru0s Act o" );<4 and
sentencin0 him to su""er the penalty o" li"e imprisonment and to pay a
"ine o" P4*,***.**.
- An0eles has no2 lod0ed 2ith us this petition "or habeas corpus,
in-o'in0 (a) !A <:+;, 2hich has reduced the penalties prescribed
under the ori0inal pro-isions o" the /an0erous /ru0s Act, and (b) the
recent rulin0 o" this Court in People -s. Martin 3imon y 3un0a, 2hich
has con"irmed the retroacti-e application o" the abo-e-numbered
amendatory la2.
ISSUES
). 16 the penalties o" An0eles should be reduced.
4. 16 the petition "or habeas corpus should be 0ranted.
EL!
). IE3. Con"ormably 2ith the second para0raph o" 3ection 4* o" !A
:>4+, as amended by 3ection )< o" !A <:+; and as construed and
applied in People -. 3imon, the ne2ly prescribed penalty "or his
o""ense 2ould no2 only be prision correccional. Applyin0 the
%ndeterminate 3entence $a2, the ran0e o" indeterminate penalty on
petitioner, modi"ied accordin0ly, should thereby be "rom si. months o"
arresto mayor as minimum to si. years o" prision correccional as
ma.imum.
4. 6W &@(W
- An0eles has only ser-ed the minimum o" his sentence= ho2e-er, he
may, i" 7uali"ied, be released on parole pursuant to 3ection + o" the
%ndeterminate 3entence $a2.
- 1hile the instant petition "or habeas corpus should be /%3M%33E/
"or its prematurity, the Court, nonetheless, e.presses its concern
o-er the pli0ht o" persons con-icted "or dru0-related o""enses prior to
the enactment and e""ecti-ity o" !A <:+; 2ho could be entitled to
parole "or ha-in0 ser-ed their minimum sentences, or 2ho, indeed,
may be due "or release "rom con"inement a"ter ha-in0 ser-ed their
ma.imum sentences con"ormably 2ith the applicable penalties ne2ly
prescribed by !A <:+; and our decision, construin0 this la2, in the
3imon case. A2are o" the need to ha-e this matter attended to 2ith
0reat dispatch, the Court sees it "it to ta'e the opportunity, by 2ay o"
e.traordinary measures, to pronounce thusly8
2ll courts of competent !urisdiction may entertain petitions for habeas
corpus to consider the release of prisoners convicted for violation of
the -angerous -rugs 2ct #ho have served the maximum of the
applicable penalties ne#ly prescribed by 2. ?8E7. )n this regard,
the formalities re"uired for petitions for habeas corpus shall be
construed liberally, and such petitions, although deficient in form (e.g.
in letter@petition forms), may be entertained so long as they are
sufficient in substance. )n the negative, the courts to #hich the
petitions are filed may refer the matter to the *ommission on .uman
ights or to the =ublic 2ttorneyFs &ffice for possible assistance to the
prisoners concerned.
FELIPE V !IRECTOR OF PRISONS
4> PF%$ )4)
CA!36$ January )9, );)5
FACTS
- Application "or a 2rit o" habeas corpus and "or dischar0e "rom
custody o" the /irector o" Prisons, "iled on behal" o" Adriano (rono
#elipe and Aniceto (rono #elipe, prisoners in &ilibid, by -irtue o"
commitments in due dated March )*, );)), issued by C#% &ulacan
upon a sentence condemnin0 them 4 years )) months and )* days
o" prision correccional. An alle0ed ille0ality o" the detention o" these
prisoners is 0rounded upon the "indin0 out that the -ictim in the
abduction o" a -ir0in 2ith her consent (rapto de una doncella con su
anuencia) is in truth o-er )9 years o" a0e.
ISSUE
16 2rit o" habeas corpus should be 0ranted 0i-en that there 2as
an erroneous alle0ation as to the a0e o" the -ictim
EL!
6
Ratio 1rit o" habeas corpus is not a remedy pro-ided "or the
correction o" "actual errors. Courts cannot, in habeas corpus
proceedin0s, re-ie2 the record in a criminal case a"ter jud0ment o"
con-iction has been rendered, and the de"endants ha-e entered on
the e.ecution o" the sentence imposed, to ascertain 2hether the
"acts "ound by the trial 2ere in accordance 2ith the e-idence
discloses by the record, or in order to pass upon the correctness o"
the conclusions o" la2 by the trial court based on the "acts thus
"ound. @nder the statute, a commitment in due "rom based on a "inal
jud0ment con-ictin0 and sentencin0 a de"endant in a criminal case is
conclusi-e e-idence o" the le0ality o" his detention under such
commitment, unless it appears that the court 2hich pronounced the
jud0ment 2as 2ithout jurisdiction or e.ceeded its jurisdiction in
imposin0 the penalty. Mere errors o" la2 or o" "act, 2hich did not
ha-e the e""ect o" depri-in0 the trial court o" its jurisdiction o-er the
cause and the person o" the de"endant, i" corrected at all, must be
corrected on appeal in the "orm and manner prescribed by la2.
Reasoning
- (hrou0hout the entire course o" those proceedin0s in the trial court,
that court had jurisdiction o" both o" the persons o" the accused and
o" the crime 2ith 2hich they 2ere char0ed, and it did not and could
not lose that jurisdiction as a conse7uence o" mista'e or error
committed by the trial jud0e in his "indin0 o" "act as to the a0e o" the
2oman, or in his conclusions o" la2 as to bearin0 o" the 2oman,s a0e
upon the 7uestion o" the 0uilt or innocence o" the accused o" the
crime 2ith 2hich they 2ere char0ed. Fo2e-er, both in the court
belo2 and in this court on appeal, the point passed sub silentio, and
the attention o" neither court 2as in-ited or directed to the 7uestion
raised re0ardin0 the -ictimLs a0e.
Disposition Application "or the 2rit must be denied
LUCIEN TRAN VAN N=IA V$ LI@A=
)<+ 3C!A 5)9 M ?.!. 6o. <9+;:
#E!6A6, C.J.8 July )5, );9;
FACTS
- Oan 60hia is a #rench national 2ith temporary address in 3ta. Ana,
Manila ori0inally admitted here 6o-ember ), );9) as a temporary
-isitor, but became an immi0rant on 6o-ember ):, );9> based on
his representation that he is "inancially capable and 2ill in-est in the
Philippines. Fo2e-er he has en0a0ed only in #rench tutorin0 and
practice o" acupressure.
- n May 49, );9<, C%/ Commissioner !amon J. $i2a0 recei-ed a
s2orn complaint "rom a certain Oan 60iaLs landlord /ionisio ?.
Cabrera, Jr., accusin0 petitioner o" bein0 an undesirable alien "or
Gcommittin0 acts inimical to public sa"ety and pro0ress.G
- Actin0 thereon, $i2a0 issued on June ), );9< a mission order to a
team o" se-en (<) C%/ a0ents "or them Gto locate and brin0 subject to
%ntelli0ence /i-ision "or proper dispositionG and Gsubmit report.G
- n June 4, );9<, the C%/ a0ents 2ent to petitioner,s residence him
to the C%/ head7uarters "or -eri"ication o" his status but petitioner
loc'ed themsel-es inside their bedroom and re"used to tal' to the
a0ents.
- (he immi0ration a0ents then sou0ht the assistance o" members o"
the 1estern Police /istrict. 1ith police help, he 2as subdued and
immediately ta'en to the C%/ %ntelli0ence ""ice.
- A 2arrant o" arrest 2as issued by respondent Commissioner on
June 4, );9< but there is nothin0 in the records to con-ince this
Court that said 2arrant 2as ser-ed on petitioner prior to his
apprehension. 3aid 2arrant 2as based on the "ollo2in0 acts and
circumstances8
- but he made no in-estments but en0a0ed in tutorin0 in
#rench and practice o" acupressure
- he 2il"ully re"used to reco0nize the authority o"
immi0ration a0ents 2ho 2ere sent to in-ite him to C%/
"or -eri"ication o" his status and physically resisted bein0
19
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
ta'en in by the a0ents resultin0 in physical injuries to
himsel" and the a0ents=
- he has thereby made himsel" an undesirable alien
subject to deportation.
- &ecause o" injuries he sustained he 2as trans"erred "rom his
detention cell at the immi0ration o""ice to the P?F "or treatment
- n June )*, );9<, petitioner,s counsel "iled the instant petition "or
habeas corpus to a-ert the Gthreatened remo-alG o" petitioner "rom
P?F and to 7uestion the -alidity o" his detention by respondent
Commissioner
ISSUES
) 16 arrest and detention o" petitioner by the %mmi0ration
Commissioner preparatory to deportation proceedin0s 2as -alid
4 16 1rit may be properly 0ranted
EL!
) 6.
- (he particular circumstances obtainin0 in the case at bar ha-e
seriously placed on doubt the le0ality and propriety o" petitioner,s
apprehension by respondent Commissioner. Ferein petitioner 2as
Gin-itedG by a combined team o" C%/ a0ents and police o""icers at his
apartment unit on the stren0th o" a mission order issued by the
Commissioner on %mmi0ration based on a s2orn complaint o" a
sin0le indi-idual. (he essential re7uisite o" probable cause 2as
conspicuously absent.
% For nli&e in t"e Harvey !ase w"ere t"e
warrantless !aptre of two sspe!ted alien
pedop"iles was based on probable !ase
as!ertained only after !lose srveillan!e for a t"ree%
'ont" period dring w"i!" t"eir a!tivities were
'onitored(
@ =recedent of .arvey vs. -efensor@/antiago does not apply
@ The re"uirement of probable cause to be determined
by a Judge, does not extend to deportation
proceedings.F (1orano vs. :ivo, supra, citing Tiu *hun
.ai vs. *ommissioner, infra). There need be no
FtruncatedF recourse to both !udicial and administrative
#arrants in a single deportation proceeding.
@ 4hat is essential is that there should be a specific
charge against the alien intended to be arrested and
deported, that a fair hearing be conducted (/ection D?
GcH #ith the assistance of counsel, if desired, and that the
charge be substantiated by competent evidence.
4 6.
/ T.+ 5+n+ra, ru,+ 'n a nu67+r )2 1a(+( '( &.a& &.+ r+,+a(+,
*.+&.+r 0+r6an+n& )r &+60)rary, )2 a -+&a'n+- 0+r()n r+n-+r(
&.+ 0+&'&')n 2)r .a7+a( 1)r0u( 6))& an- a1a-+6'1, un,+(( &.+r+
ar+ r+(&ra'n&( a&&a1.+- &) .'( r+,+a(+ *.'1. 0r+1,u-+( 2r++-)6
)2 a1&')n, 'n *.'1. 1a(+ &.+ C)ur& 1an (&',, 'nCu'r+ 'n&) &.+
na&ur+ )2 .'( 'n3),un&ary r+(&ra'n& un-+r &.+ V',,a3'1+n1') 3($
LuA7an ru,+$
- 1here a person continues to be unla2"ully denied one or more o"
his constitutional "reedoms, 2here there is present a denial o" due
process, 2here the restraints are not merely in-oluntary but appear
to be unnecessary, and 2here a depri-ation o" "reedom ori0inally
-alid has, in the li0ht o" subse7uent de-elopments, become arbitrary,
the person concerned or those applyin0 in his behal" may still a-ail
themsel-es o" the pri-ile0e o" the 2rit.
- Certain e-ents ha-e super-ened to render his petition moot and
academic or to other2ise cure 2hate-er de"ect there 2as at the
inception o" his arrest.
- #irstly, petitioner is no lon0er under con"inement and released upon
the postin0 and appro-al o" a personal bailbond on June );,);9< in
the amount o" P4*,***.** durin0 the pendency o" the administrati-e
proceedin0s by the C%/ or until "urther orders o" the Court.
- Petitioner $ucien (ran Oan 60hia is not similarly restrained, as in
the case o" Enrile - Moncupa 2here ri0hts to tra-el and "reedom o"
e.pression 2ere restricted. (he only condition in his bailbond is that
ordinarily "ound in any other analo0ous underta'in0, 2hich is Gto
appear and ans2er the complaint . . .= 2ill at all times hold
himsel" ... amenable to the orders and processes o" the Court= and
a"ter con-iction, he 2ill surrender himsel" ... in e.ecution o" such
jud0ment ... .G
- 3econdly, records sho2 that "ormal deportation proceedin0s ha-e
been initiated a0ainst petitioner be"ore the &oard o" 3pecial %n7uiry o"
the C%/. (he restraint (i" any) a0ainst petitioner,s person has
there"ore become le0al. (he 2rit o" habeas corpus has ser-ed its
purpose.
/isposition8 (he petition is /%3M%33E/.
ILA=AN V ENRILE
?! <*<>9
ME$E6C%-FE!!E!A= ctober 4), );9+
NATURE Appeal "rom order o" C#% &ataan
FACTS
May )*, );9+ Z Atty. $aurente %la0an 2as arrested in /a-ao City by
PC-%6P and detained in Camp Catitipan alle0edly on basis o" a
Mission rder issued by the Ministry o" 6atLl /e"ense. 1hen he 2as
-isited by Atty. Antonio Arellano, he 2as also arrested.
May )5 ZAtty. Marcos !isonar 2as also be arrested
A petition "or habeas corpus is "iled in 3C shortly a"ter on the basis o"
ille0ality and -iolation o" the Constitution, since arrests canLt be made
based on Mission rders.
May ): Z 3C issues 2rit, re7uires a return, and sets hearin0 on May
45. %n their return, respondents contended that the detained attys
2ere arrested based on a Pre-enti-e /etention Action (P/A) issued
by the Pres., that the 1rit o" FC is suspended as to them by Proc.
4*>+-A, and that pursuant to ?arcia-Padilla -s Enrile, the Courts lac'
authority to in7uire into the cause and -alidity o" detention o"
prisoners held pursuant to the suspension. Also, they e.pounded on
the state o" rebellion in /a-ao City on the basis o" seized sub-ersi-e
documents, implyin0 that the detainees played acti-e roles in
or0anizin0 mass actions o" CPP and the 6atLl /emocratic #ront
May 45 Z/etained attys recounted circumstances o" their arrest and
detention. !espondents presented e-idence o" sub-ersi-e acti-ities
in /a-ao, but "ailed to lin' these to the attys. (hus, 3C ordered the
temporary release o" detainees on the reco0nizance o" the
petitionerLs lead counsels ("ormer 3C CJ Concepcion and J&$
!eyes). 3C also 0a-e petitioners )* days to "ile a tra-erse to the
return o" the 1rit and the respondents )* days to reply thereto
May 4> Z petitioners "iled a Mani"estationMMotion statin0 that the
detainees had not been released yet and prayed their release
May 4< Z respondents "iled ur0ent M#! o" the order o" release,
reiteratin0 that the suspension o" the 1rit o" FC has the e""ect o"
oustin0 the Court o" its jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the
detainees 2ere arrested not on the basis o" their \la2yerin0L but "or
speci"ic acts o" rebellion and economic sabota0e and their leadership
in the CPP, e-en to the e.tent o" usin0 their pro"ession as la2yers as
co-er-up "or their acti-ities in "urtherance o" CPP objecti-es= and that
they 2ere in-ol-ed in the 1el0an0 &ayan, 2hich demands "or the
armed o-erthro2 o" the 0o-ernment. Also, 2hile there is a Court
rder directin0 release, they, too, are under orders, pursuant to the
P/A, to hold in custody the detainees until ordered released by the
President, and that the P/A, 2hen issued, constitutes authority to
pre-enti-ely detain them "or a period not e.ceedin0 )year.
May 49 Z respondents "iled an @r0ent Mani"estationMMotion statin0
that an %n"ormation "or !ebellion 2as "iled on May 4<, );9+ a0ainst
the detainees be"ore !(C-/a-ao= that a 1arrant o" Arrest had been
issued a0ainst them= and prayin0 "or dismissal o" this Petition "or
ha-in0 been rendered moot and academic.
May 5* - petitioners "iled an pposition to the @r0ent MotionM
Mani"estation contendin0 that since the detainees 2ere not 0i-en the
bene"it o" a prelim in-esti0ation, they 2ere denied their ri0ht to due
process= thus, the %n"ormation "or !ebellion is -oid. !espondents
reiterated prayer "or dismissal based on mootness
ISSUE
). 16 the Petition should be dismissed "or mootness
EL!
). IE3
Ratio (he petition has been rendered moot and academic by the
"ilin0 o" an %n"ormation a0ainst them "or !ebellion, a capital o""ense,
be"ore the !(C and the issuance o" a 1arrant o" Arrest a0ainst them.
(he "unction o" the special proceedin0 o" .* is to in7uire into the
le0ality o" one,s detention. 6o2 that the detained attys, incarceration
is by -irtue o" a judicial order in relation to criminal cases
subse7uently "iled a0ainst them be"ore the !(C, the remedy o" .*
no lon0er lies. (he 1rit had ser-ed its purpose.
20
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
Reasoning. !ule )*4.>8 4hen #rit not allo#ed or discharge
authorized.-%" it appears the person alle0ed to be restrained o" his
liberty is in the custody o" an o""icer under process issued by a court
or jud0e or by -irtue o" a jud0ment, or order o" a court o" record, and
that the court or jud0e had jurisdiction to issue the process, render
the jud0ment, or ma'e the order, the 2rit shall not be allo2ed= or i"
the jurisdiction appears a"ter the 2rit is allo2ed, the person shall not
be dischar0ed by reason o" any in"ormality or de"ect in the process,
jud0ment or order. 6or shall anythin0 in this rule be held to authorize
to dischar0e o" a person char0ed 2ith or con-icted o" an o""ense in
the Philippines, or o" a person su""erin0 imprisonment under la2"ul
jud0ment
- %" the detainees 7uestion their detention because o" improper arrest,
or that no P% has been conducted, the remedy is not a petition "or a
1rit o" FC but a Motion be"ore the !(C to 7uash the 1arrant o"
Arrest andMor the %n"ormation on 0rounds pro-ided by the !ules or to
as' "or an in-esti0ation o" the case.
@ .* 2ould not lie a"ter the 1arrant o" commitment 2as issued by the
Court on the basis o" the %n"ormation "iled a0ainst the accused. !ule
)*4.)>8 %" it appears that the prisoner 2as la2"ully committed, and is plainly
and speci"ically char0ed in the 2arrant o" commitment 2ith an o""ense
punishable by death, he shall not be released, dischar0ed, or bailed. %" he is
la2"ully imprisoned or restrained on a char0e o" ha-in0 committed an o""ense
not so punishable, he may be recommitted to imprisonment or admitted to bail
in the discretion o" the court or jud0eW (rebellion is a capital o""ense)
-petitioners ar0ue that the absence o" a P% renders the %n"ormation "or
!ebellion "iled a0ainst them -oid and the !(C could not ha-e
ac7uired jurisdiction o-er them, and thus, they are entitled to release.
!espondents on the other hand contend that a -alid 2arrantless
arrest ma'es a P% unnecessary (!ule))4.<8 1hen a person is la2"ully
arrested 2ithout a 2arrant "or an o""ense co0nizable by the !(C the complaint
or in"ormation may be "iled by the o""ended party, peace o""icer or "iscal 2ithout
preliminary in-esti0ation ha-in0 been "irst conducted on the basis o" the
a""ida-it o" the o""ended party or arrested o""icer or person ...)
-(he ri0ht to a P%, bein0 2ai-able, does not ar0ue a0ainst the -alidity
o" the proceedin0s, the most that could ha-e been done bein0 to
remand the case in order that such in-esti0ation could be conducted.
Absence o" preliminary in-esti0ation does not 0o to the jurisdiction o"
the court but merely to the re0ularity o" the proceedin0s.
-(he %olasco case, 2hich petitioners in-o'e, 2herein 3C ordered the
release o" 4 o" the accused, is not on all "ours 2ith this case as, in
that case, the accused 2ere char0ed only 2ith %lle0al Possession o"
3ub-ersi-e documents (punishable by prision correccional), and (C
had 0ranted bail= 2hereas in this case, petitioners are char0ed 2ith
the capital o""ense o" !ebellion, and !(C has not allo2ed bail.
Disposition Petition "or FC dismissed "or ha-in0 become moot and
academic.
SEPARATE OPINIONS 9n)& r+a,,y r+,a&+- &) &.+ &)0'1<
MELENCIO/ERRERA, concurrin0
-it must be noted that in the 1arrant o" Arrest, Uno bailV has been
indicated. 6either 2as bail recommended by the City #iscal. Also,
pursuant to P/)95>, e-en as amended by P/);<>, the crime o"
!ebellion is still punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
- Considerin0, there"ore, that the detained attys are not entitled to
bail as a matter o" ri0ht be"ore the prosecution is heard on its
e-idence, and obser-in0 "ealty to the Constitutional mandate that Uall
persons, e.cept those char0ed 2ith capital o""enses, 2hen e-idence
o" 0uilt is stron0, shall be"ore con-iction, be bailable by su""icient
suretiesV (3ec)9, Art.%O, );<5 Consti), the !(C, should be directed to
determine 2hether the e-idence o" 0uilt a0ainst the detained attys is
stron0
- %ndi-iduals a0ainst 2hom P/A,s ha-e been issued should be
"urnished 2ith the ori0inal, or duplicate ori0inal, or certi"ied true copy
issued by the o""icial ha-in0 o""icial custody o" the P/A, at the time o"
apprehension. Pursuant to the %!! o" P/)9<<, the P/A,s should also
be en"orced 2ithin 4> hours in the Metro Manila area or 2ithin >9
hours outside Metro Manila, upon receipt by the unit concerned. %n
this case, althou0h the record does not sho2 such date o" receipt,
the "act is that the P/A 2as issued on January 4+, );9+ but the
detained attys 2ere arrested only on May )* and )5, );9+. (he >-
month 0ap can 0i-e room "or doubt as to its authenticity and 2hether,
in "act, the detained attys posed Uany appreciable dan0er to national
security and public order.V
- paramount consideration should be that the Uri0ht o" the people to
be secure in their persons ... a0ainst unreasonable searches and
seizures o" 2hate-er nature and "or any purpose shall not be
-iolatedV (3ec5, Art.%O, );<5 Consti). @ntil the issue o" the -alidity o"
the P/A is "inally resol-ed, P/A,s applied "or on the basis o"
militancy alone in national security cases, o" insu""icient sur-eillance,
or unsupported deductions and in"erences, contra-ene the
Constitutional mandate that Uno 2arrant o" arrest shall issue e.cept
upon probable cause to be determined by the Jud0e, or such other
responsible o""icer as may be authorized by la2, a"ter e.amination
under oath or a""irmation o" the complainant and the 2itnesses he
may produce.V Adherence to Constitutional mandates could ease the
current discontent and 0ro2in0 insur0ency 0rippin0 the nation today.
(he objecti-e should be to "i0ht "or the hearts and minds o" the
people by obser-in0 the rule o" la2.
TEEAN?EE) dissenting
- A"ter this Court issued its near-unanimous !esolution o" May 45,
);9+, orderin0 the immediate release o" the 5 detainees on the
reco0nizance o" their principal counsel, retired CJ Concepcion, and
retired Justice J&$ !eyes, 2hich release it had expressly ordered to
be Gimmediately executoryG, this Court has no2 re"used to en"orce its
o2n release order. !epeated motions "or en"orcement o" this Court,s
Uimmediately e.ecutoryV order o" release as a0ainst respondents,
Ubrazen disrespect and contemptous disre0ardV thereo" 2ere "iled in
-ain. %t has instead dismissed the petition "or FC "or ha-in0 become
moot and academic, because o" the arbitrary filing of precipitate,
vindictive and oppressive char0es a0ainst them "or the capital crime
of rebellion #ithout hearing or =) and in gross violation o" their right
and rudimentary re"uirements of due process and fair play.
- (he camp commander at Camp &a0on0 /i2a did not honor the
Court,s release order, sayin0 that Git had to be -eri"ied "rom hi0her
authorities.G 4ithout a#aiting this *ourtFs action on their 10,
respondents someho2 0ot the 0iscal of -avao to precipitately file on
1ay 2?, 67>E, #ithout any =), an in"ormation a0ainst the 5 detainees
"or the capital crime o" rebellion 2ith !(C-/a-ao. (he said trial court
grossly disregarding the de"erence that all in"erior courts should
accord this Court as the hi0hest court o" the land (since the military,s
e7ually 0ross disre0ard o" this Court,s 1ay 2Drd order "or the release
o" detainees 2as a matter o" public notice, ha-in0 been prominently
reported in all national ne2spapers) !ust as precipitately issued a
#arrant of arrest #ith no bail a0ainst the detainees. !espondents
then "iled on 1ay 2> their @r0ent Mani"estationMMotion, 2ith copies o"
the in"ormation and 2arrant o" arrest, prayin0 "or dismissal o" the FC
petition at bar on the 0round that it has become moot and academic.
- the sacred constitutional rights CandD the right to due process 2hich
is fundamental fairness ha-e been grossly denied the detainees. (his
Court,s Gimmediately executoryG release order o" May 45rd should be
"orth2ith honored and complied 2ith. #ar "rom ha-in0 rendered the
petition as moot and academic, all the railroaded proceedings and
orders char0in0 the detainees 2ith instant rebellion in gross
disregard of the pendency of this case and o" the assurance given in
open court that the petitioners@la#yers 2ould be entitled to a hearing
and a =) in obedience to the constitutional mandate that Uno person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property #ithout due process of
la#V and Uno person shall be held to ans2er "or a criminal o""ense
2ithout due process o" la2,V should be declared null and -oid. (hey
2ere patently -oid, ha-in0 been issued 2ithout jurisdiction under the
2ell-settled rule that Ua violation of a constitutional right divests the
court of !urisdictionI and as a conse"uence its !udgment Gor orderH is
null and void and confers no rights.V At the -ery least, all proceedin0s
in the instant rebellion case be"ore the !(C should be suspended
and enjoined until the detainees are 0ranted their ri0ht to a P% and
opportunity to con"ront their accusers and dispro-e the char0es=
mean2hile, it is but part o" due process that they be set free as
ordered by the *ourt and be enabled to prepare their defense. (he
petition "or a 2rit o" FC to set them at liberty should accordin0ly be
0ranted for the ff reasons and considerations8
6. ;asic ight to -ue =rocess. (his plainly means that 0enerally no
person may be held to ans2er "or a criminal o""ense 2ithout a P%. (he
ri0ht to a P% is statutorily 0ranted "or serious o""enses and to deny it
-iolates the ri0ht to due process 0uaranteed by the Constitution.
2. =etitioners@la#yers denied due process. (he blitz'rie0 "ilin0 o"
precipitate, -indicti-e and oppressi-e char0es a0ainst detainees "or
the capital crime o" rebellion 2ithout hearin0 and P% depri-ed them
their ri0ht to due process and the rudimentary re7uirements o" "air
play. As emphasized in ?alman -s. Pamaran, Udue process ... is
responsi-eness to the supremacy o" reason, obedience to the
dictates o" justice. 6e0ati-ely put, arbitrariness is ruled out and
un"airness a-oided.V
D. ight to =). May 45rd hearin0 brou0ht out the importance o" P% to
pre-ent hasty and baseless prosecution, since respondents could not
cite concrete e-idence o" speci"ic criminal acts committed by
detainees. (he 2hole point is that petitioners, la2yers ha-e s7uarely
sho2n that they ha-e been denied their ri0ht to P% and to sho2 the
utter "alsity o" the char0e o" instant rebellion a0ainst them. %t is this
Court 2hich must 0rant petitioners this ri0ht, and uphold their ri0ht to
due process.
21
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
J. =rofessional #itnesses of military not checked out. As admitted by
the 3tate attys, there are so many pro"essional 2itnesses presented
by the military in such cases, 2hose statements should not be
Us2allo2ed hoo', line and sin'er.V (he e.-parte a""ida-its o" the
alle0ed surrendered 6PAs could be chec'ed out as a0ainst their
bac'0round and an independent in-esti0ation only in a P%. 3uch
a""ida-its and statements ha-e been "ound to be completely
2orthless in other cases.
E. =rotective mantle of this *ourt. (he unla2"ul arrest and detention
o" the petitioners-la2yers has completely uprooted their li-es. (his
Court must e.tend them its protecti-e mantle as o""icers o" the
courts, because o" the stron0 indications o" Uominous trendsV "or
la2yers G2ho are en0a0ed in pro bono publico 2or' 2ho ha-e
incurred the ire o" the military,V such as in the case o" Abra, 2here
there are no more la2yers handlin0 sub-ersion cases because the
only t2o human ri0hts la2yers handlin0 such cases ha-e been
char0ed 2ith sub-ersion and loc'ed up in the stoc'ade.
8. =eopleFs right of assembly and petition the government for redress
of grievances. Mass demonstrations popularly termed as 2el0an0
bayan constitute a le0itimate e.ercise o" these basic constitutional
ri0hts. The military must overcome their allergy if not aversion to
such #elgas.
<. =reservation of liberties and motives. ?ood "aith must be
presumed as 2ell on the part o" respondents as o" petitioners-
la2yers. (he 0ood moti-e but misplaced o-erzealousness o" the
military, may be noted, obsessed as they are 2ith 'eepin0 peace and
order. U(he Moti-es o" these men are o"ten commendable. 1hat 2e
must remember, ho2e-er, is that preservation of liberties does not
depend on motives. 2 suppression of liberty has the same effect
#hether the suppressor be a reformer or an outla#. The only
protection against misguided zeal is constant alertness o" the
in"ractions o" the 0uarantees o" liberty contained in our Constitution.V
(he record o" the May 45rd hearin0 hi0hli0hts the imperati-e
importance o" the injunction that no matter ho2 2orthy the moti-e
may be, the authorities, ci-ilian or military, should not suppress the
people,s liberties, and push the a00rie-ed citizen in despair to2ards
the 6PA or the communists= and respect their constitutional ri0hts as
other2ise there 2ould be no di""erence as a0ainst the outla2s or
rebels. (he record underscores the utter lac' o" e-idence to support
the unla2"ul arrest and detention o" the three petitioners-la2yers.
9. ;asic concepts and principles of freedom.
()) %n a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity
and #orth of the human personality is the central core as 2ell as the
cardinal article of faith of our civilization. (he inviolable character of
man as an individual must be Fprotected to the lar0est possible e.tent
in his thou0hts and in his belie"s as the citadel o" his person.
(4) (he ;ill of ights is desi0ned to preserve the )deals of liberty,
e"uality and security against the assaults of opportunism, the
expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments,
and the scorn and derision of those #ho have no patience #ith
general principles.
(5) (he freedoms of expression and of assembly as #ell as the right
to petition are included among the immunities reserved by the
sovereign people
(>) (he ri0hts o" "ree e.pression, "ree assembly and petition, are not
only civil rights but also political rights essential to manFs en!oyment
of his life, to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment.
(he citizen is accorded these ri0hts so that he can appeal to the
appropriate governmental officers or agencies for redress and
protection as #ell as for the imposition of the la#ful sanctions on
erring public officers and employees.
(+) 1hile the &ill o" !i0hts also protects property ri0hts, the primacy
o" human ri0hts o-er property ri0hts is reco0nized. Property and
property ri0hts can be lost thru prescription= but human rights are
imprescriptible. %" human ri0hts are e.tin0uished by the passa0e o"
time, then the ;ill of ights is a useless attempt to limit the po#er of
government and ceases to be an efficacious shield against the
tyranny of officials, of ma!orities, of the influential and po#erful and of
oligarchs political economic or other#ise.
7. The express teaching of the /alonga case. (he e.press teachin0
on "reedom o" e.pression, based on numerous precedents, o" this
Court,s unanimous decision ()) members 2ith 5 abstentions) in the
case o" /alonga vs. =aKo should dispel the apparent misconception
on the part of the military, as #ell as certain government prosecutors,
that militant protests and demonstrations are seditious and
subversive of the government. 0reedom of expression is a FpreferredF
right and therefore stands on a higher level than substantive
economic or other liberties,$ that Lthis must be so because freedom
of thought and speech is the indispensable condition of nearly every
other form of freedom. =rotection is especially mandated for political
discussions. =olitical discussion is essential to the ascertainment of
political truth. )t cannot be the basis of criminal indictments
)*. =eaceful and violent #elgas. Fad the military and the police
adhered to the basic democratic concepts and principles and
reco0nized the people,s constitutional ri0ht o" assembly, protest and
petition "or redress o" 0rie-ances and accordin0ly e.ercise
"orbearance and understandin0, then the #elgas 2ill not and cannot
erupt in -iolence.
)). The /tale =-2. %2ill not deal here 2ith the serious 7uestion
raised by petitioners as to the -alidity o" the P/A issued by the
President under date o" January 4+, );9+ "or the arrest and detention
o" the three petitioners-la2yers "or ha-in0 Gcommitted sub-ersion
andMor acts inimical to public sa"ety, national security and public
order.G (his 7uestion is better resol-ed in the separate case. 3u""ice it
to state that the P/A a0ainst petitioners 2as already inoperative and
stale. %t 2as issued on January 2E, 67>E. As respondent 0eneral
himsel" states in the return, the military did not see any need to
enforce it until after almost Jmonths later on May )* to )5 o" this
year. 1hat is incomprehensible is that no copy certi"ied or plain o"
the P/A could be sho2n to petitioners upon their arrest, contrary to
e.istin0 rules and instructions.
&e that as it may, the =-2 should be held to be inoperative and
ineffectual. (he "acts sho2 that the President 2as misled into
precipitately issuin0 the same8
A. ;y the =residentFs o#n statement, he had declared that Ghe 2ould
issue the contro-ersial P/A orders only 2hen natLl security 2ould
re7uire it and that there is no present need "or him to do it.G
!espondent ,s o2n admission that there 2as no need to ser-e it until
a"ter almost >months later sho2s that there 2as no necessity for the
peremptory issuance o" the P/A last January 4+th.
&. (he issuance o" the P/A a0ainst the detainees clearly do not "all
2ithin the 4 e.ceptions to the 0eneral rule pro-ided in P/)9<<, that
all cases in-ol-in0 national security o""enses Gshall be re"erred to the
pro-incial or city "iscal or to the proper court "or P% in accordance 2ith
e.istin0 la2s.V
62. *ivilian /upremacy. Art %%, sec.9 o" our Consti states that GCi-ilian
authority is at all times supreme o-er the military.V &ut the military
here dra00ed its "eet and re"used to honor this Court,s Gimmediately
e.ecutoryG release order o" May 45rd. (his Court,s decisions and
orders "orm part o" the la2 o" the land %t is a sad day "or ci-ilian
supremacy 2hen the military do not "eel bound by the -erdict o" the
courts and 2ould place themsel-es abo-e the courts and re7uire as
a condition "or e.ecutin0 its jud0ment that they be Umorally
con-incedV by the jud0ment rendered.
(o allo2 such usurpation and deni0ration o" the Court,s judicial
re-ie2 po2er is to sub-ert, i" not destroy, the Constitution and !ule o"
$a2. (he sur-i-al o" a democratic society rests on !ule o" $a2, 2hich
depends on the e.istence o" an independent judiciary.
6D. The /upreme *ourt as guardian and final arbiter of the
*onstitution. (he judiciary is entrusted by the Constitution 2ith the
a2esome po2er and tas' o" determinin0 disputes bet2een liti0ants
in-ol-in0 li"e, liberty and "ortune and protectin0 the citizen a0ainst
arbitrary or oppressi-e action o" the 3tate. (he Courts are called
upon Gto protect the citizen a0ainst -iolation o" his constitutional or
le0al ri0hts or misuse or abuse o" po2er by the 3tate or its o""icers.
(he judiciary Cassisted by the barD stands bet2een the citizen and the
3tate as a bul2ar' a0ainst e.ecuti-e e.cesses and misuse or abuse
o" po2er by the e.ecuti-e as also trans0ression o" its constitutional
limitations by the le0islature.G (he Constitution is basically a charter
o" limitations o" 0o-Ll po2er and ordains the 2ea'est department, the
3upreme Court, as the 0uardian and "inal arbiter o" the Constitution.
6J. 'rroneous premises of the ma!ority decision.
A. (he majority decision holds that the 2rit o" FC has ser-ed its
purpose because o" the 2arrant o" arrest issued by the !(C. (his is
based on an erroneous premise that the T* had !urisdiction to
issue the #arrant of arrest, and that the denial of a =) of detainees
#as a mere informality or defect. (he trial court 2as totally de-oid o"
jurisdiction to issue a 2arrant o" arrest because o" the 0ross denial o"
their ri0ht to due process.
&. (he majority holds that "ilin0 o" the in"ormation 2ithout P% "alls
2ithin the e.ceptions o" the !ules. A0ain, this is erroneous. The
petitioners are not persons Mla#fully arrested #ithout a #arrant.9 (he
"iscal could not rely on the stale and inoperati-e P/A o" Jan. 4+,
);9+. ther2ise, the rules 2ould be rendered nu0atory, i" all that 2as
needed 2as to 0et a P/A and then ser-e it at one,s 2him and
caprice 2hen the -ery issuance o" the P/A is premised on its
imperati-e ur0ency and necessity as declared by the President
himsel".
C. (he majority decision,s rationale that the %olasco case in-o'ed by
petitioners is not applicable here since the !(C had 0ranted bail to
%olasco "or non-capital o""enses, 2hereas in this case petitioners are
char0ed 2ith the capital o""ense o" rebellion and the !(C has not
22
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
allo2ed bail. (his is erroneous. (he instant in"ormation "or rebellion is
null and -oid "or denial o" due process. 1hat remains is the P/A, just
li'e in the %olasco case. (here, the trial court 0ranted bail. Fere, it is
this Court that has 0ranted bail in the "orm o" its May 45rd
Uimmediately e.ecutoryV release order. %t certainly 2ould be judicial
anathema that this Court ordered compliance 2ith the bail order o"
the !(C in the %olasco case and yet feel impotent to enforce its o#n
Mimmediately executoryM release order o" the detainees upon their
counsel,s reco0nizance.
/. (o re"uire the citizen at every step to assert his rights and to go to
court is to render illusory his rights. Fere, the "launtin0 and disre0ard
o" the Court,s immediately e.ecutory May 45rd release order by not
releasin0 the petitioners-la2yers 2ould render illusory petitioners,
ri0ht to due process and P%.
6E. /ame standard in 5alman case of not !eopardizing accusedFs
constitutional rights should be applied. %n the case o" ?alman -s.
Pamaran, the majority held that Gthe only 2ay to cure the la2 o" its
unconstitutional e""ects is to construe it in the manner as i"
%MM@6%(I had in ,"act been o""ered Cby the prosecutionD. (he same
standard and concern o" not placin0 the accused Uin jeopardy o" their
constitutional ri0htsV throu0h denial o" due process and their ri0ht to
P% should be applied here.
68. LThe preservation of freedom, like its perfection is a never@ending
struggle.$ &ut 2hen "ree men shir' "rom their duties to society, as
2ell as to themsel-es, they imperil their o2n liberty. 1hen the
citizens o" a democracy allo2 themsel-es to be lulled into
indi""erence, they seal their o2n doom.
6?. There has never been a case as transcendental as this one. 1e
ha-e tried and bolstered to be a democratic society 2hich is based
and predicated upon "reedom o" speech. &ut to bolster up the
"reedom o" speech, 2e,-e established the ri0ht o" e-ery person
accused and e-en detained to counsel. 6o2, any (act) tendin0 to
impair the disposition o" la2yers to represent the accused, is
dero0atory to the democratic system, and there"ore, dero0atory to
human ri0hts.
)9. =etitionersFappeal for liberty should be heeded. %" a person is
unla2"ully depri-ed o" his liberty, he can a-ail himsel" o" the 0reat 2rit
o" liberty, the pri-ile0e o" the 2rit o" FC "or the purpose o" re0ainin0
"reedom in the shortest time possible.
%n its early years o" practice, the pri-ile0e o" the 2rit o" habeas corpus
2as a puny and una-ailin0 remedy as a0ainst the 'in0. #or jud0es
2ere under the in"luence o" the cro2n and re"used to issue the 2rit
"or people 2ho 2ere detained on suspicion o" disloyalty to the "ormer
but a0ainst 2hom there 2as no concrete e-idence, and the people
continued Uto lan0uish in e.tended detention.V 3ince then, the
pri-ile0e o" the 2rit o" habeas corpus has become the "undamental
instrument a0ainst arbitrary and la2less state action.
(he suspension o" the pri-ile0e o" the 2rit o" habeas corpus carries
2ith it the dero0ation o" the people,s "reedoms and liberties.
(here"ore, the pro-isions must be strictly construed and cannot be
allo2ed to e.tend to situations not e.plicitly allo2ed by the
Constitution.
% -ote to 0rant the petition "or habeas corpus and to set the
petitioners immediately at liberty. Petitioners must be 0ranted their
constitutional ri0ht to due process and the ri0ht to P%. (he railroaded
ex@parte proceedin0s and orders in the instant rebellion case should
be declared null and -oid "or lac' o" jurisdiction in ha-in0 depri-ed
petitioners o" their sacred constitutional ri0ht to due process.
CONCEPCION, JR$, *() dissentin08
- % dissent. (he petition is not moot and academic.
- Petitioners should be set "ree immediately because they 2ere
arrested unla2"ully, and the in"ormation "iled a0ainst them dismissed
"or bein0 null and -oid. Fo2e-er, the authorities may, i" they choose
to do so, "ile a case a0ainst petitioners. (he "iscal should conduct a
P% as re7uired by la2. %" he "inds the e.istence o" a prima facie case,
then he should "ile the necessary in"ormation. A"ter the court issues a
2arrant o" arrest a0ainst petitioners, only then may they be placed in
custody. (hey ha-e a ri0ht to a P%, and in"rin0ement o" this is a denial
o" due process.
- PetitionersL arrest does not "all under any o" the instances
enumerated "or a -alid 2arrantless arrest. (heir arrest 2ithout a
2arrant is there"ore patently and undeniably ille0al. (he unla2"ul
arrest o" petitioners cannot 0i-e rise to a -alid in"ormation. (he
%n"ormation is and must remain null and -oid.
- %t is the responsibility o" the judiciary to de"ine and maintain the
delicate balance bet2een indi-idual "reedom and the security o" the
3tate. %n the "ul"illment o" this mission, acti-e participation and
assistance o" dedicated human ri0hts la2yers are indispensable. At a
time 2hen the A#P has to play a salient role in our a""airs o"
0o-ernment in -ie2 o" a rebellion in our midst, there is all the more a
0reater need "or la2yers to de"end the ri0hts o" indi-iduals a0ainst
actual or possible abuses o" a0ents o" the 3tate.
- 1e must stren0then and solidi"y the !ule o" $a2. %t is the only 2ay
to the sur-i-al o" democracy in our land.
=ata!o J., concur (to *oncepcion)
A>A! SANTOS, *() dissentin0 8
- (he majority opinion appeals to the mind "or it appears to be
lo0ically constructed. %t leans hea-ily on the letter o" the la2. @pon
the other hand the dissentin0 opinion o" Justice (eehan'ee 2hich is
his article o" "aith appeals both to the mind and the heart "or it is
based not only on la2 but on e7uity also. (eehan'ee,s opinion better
ser-es the ends o" justice and % 0ladly subscribe to it. % also subscribe
to Concepcion,s separate opinion
IN TE MATTER OF TE PETITION FOR A>EAS
CORPUS OF RO>ERTO UMIL ET AL$ -s.
FI!EL V$ RAMOS, MAJ$ =EN$ RENATO !E VILLA,
>RI=$ =EN$ RAMON MONTANO, >RI=$ =EN$
ALEIAN!ER A=UIRRE
?.!. 6o. 9)+:< July ;, );;*
)9< 3C!A 5))
PE! C@!%AM
NATURE
Petitions "or habeas corpus
COMMON FACTUAL !ROP
(his consolidated case o" 9 petitions "or habeas corpus assails the
-alidity o" the 2arrantless arrests and searches made by the military
on the petitioners. (he arrests relied on the Ucon"idential in"ormationV
that the authorities recei-ed. E.cept "or one case 2here incitin0 to
sedition 2as char0ed, the rest 2ere char0ed 2ith sub-ersion "or
bein0 a member o" the 6e2 PeopleLs Army and rebellion "or acts
purportedly done in pursuit o" sub-ersi-e objecti-es.
(%ote( There are uni"ue facts for each of the > cases, please refer to
the originals. This is merely a digest after all)
ISSUE
16 the 2rit o" habeas corpus may be issued "or these cases
EL!
Ra&') Fabeas corpus shall not issue 2here the persons concerned
are le0ally detained.
- %t is to be noted that, in all the petitions here considered, criminal
char0es ha-e been "iled in the proper courts a0ainst the petitioners.
T.+ ru,+ '(, &.a& '2 a 0+r()n a,,+5+- &) 7+ r+(&ra'n+- )2 .'( ,'7+r&y
'( 'n &.+ 1u(&)-y )2 an )22'1+r un-+r 0r)1+(( '((u+- 7y a 1)ur&
4u-5+, an- &.a& &.+ 1)ur& )r 4u-5+ .a- 4ur'(-'1&')n &) '((u+ &.+
0r)1+(( )r 6aA+ &.+ )r-+r, )2 if s!" person is !"arged before
any !ort, &.+ *r'& )2 "abeas !orps *',, n)& 7+ a,,)*+-$ 3ection
>, !ule )*4, !ules o" Court, as amended is 7uite e.plicit in pro-idin0
that8
3ec. >. 4hen #rit is allo#ed or discharge authorized. %" it appears
that the person alle0ed to be restrained o" his liberty is in the custody
o" an o""icer under process issued by a court or jud0e or by -irtue o"
a jud0ment or order o" a court o" record, and that the court or jud0e
had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the jud0ment, or ma'e
the order, the 2rit shall not be allo2ed= or i" the jurisdiction appears
a"ter the 2rit is allo2ed, the person shall not be dischar0ed by reason
o" any in"ormality or de"ect in the process, jud0ment, or order. Nor
s"all anyt"ing in t"is rle be "eld to at"orize t"e dis!"arge of
a person !"arged wit" a !onvi!ted of an offense in t"e
P"ilippines )r )2 a 0+r()n (u22+r'n5 '60r'()n6+n& un-+r ,a*2u,
4u-56+n&$ 9+60.a('( (u00,'+-<
- At this point, 2e re"er to petitioner,s plea "or the Court o" re-e.amine
and, therea"ter, abandon its pronouncement in )lagan vs. 'nrile, that
a 2rit o" habeas corpus is no lon0er a-ailable a"ter an in"ormation is
"iled a0ainst the person detained and a 2arrant o" arrest or an order
o" commitment, is issued by the court 2here said in"ormation has
been "iled.
- 1e "ind, ho2e-er, no compellin0 reason to abandon the said
doctrine. %t is based upon e.press pro-ision o" the !ules o" Court and
the e.i0encies ser-ed by the la2. (he "ears e.pressed by the
petitioners are not really unremediable. As the Court sees it, re-
23
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
e.amination or reappraisal, 2ith a -ie2 to its abandonment, o" the
%la0an case doctrine is not the ans2er. (he ans2er and the better
practice 2ould be, not to limit the "unction o" the habeas corpus to a
mere in7uiry as to 2hether or not the court 2hich issued the process,
jud0ment or order o" commitment or be"ore 2hom the detained
person is char0ed, had jurisdiction or not to issue the process,
jud0ment or order or to ta'e co0nizance o" the case, but rather, as
the Court itsel" states in 1orales, Jr. vs. 'nrile,
1:
Gin all petitions "or
habeas corpus the court must in7uire into e-ery phase and aspect o"
petitioner,s detention-"rom the moment petition #as taken into
custody up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of the
petition=G and Gonly after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself
that the due process clause of our *onstitution has in fact been
satisfied.G (his is e.actly 2hat the Court has done in the petitions at
bar. (his is 2hat should hence"orth be done in all "uture cases o"
habeas corpus. %n 3hort, all cases in-ol-in0 depri-ation o" indi-idual
liberty should be promptly brou0ht to the courts "or their immediate
scrutiny and disposition.
R+a()n'n5 a( a00,'+- &) +a1. (0+1'2'1 1a(+
1$ U6', 3($ Ra6)(
- As to olando -ural, it clearly appears that he 2as not arrested
2hile in the act o" shootin0 the t2o (4) CAPCM soldiers
a"orementioned. 6or 2as he arrested just a"ter the commission o" the
said o""ense "or his arrest came a day after the said shootin0
incident. 3eemin0ly, his arrest 2ithout 2arrant is unjusti"ied.
- Fo2e-er, !olando /ural 2as arrested "or bein0 a member o" the
6e2 Peoples Army (6PA), an outla2ed sub-ersi-e or0anization.
3ub-ersion bein0 a continuing offense , the arrest o" !olando /ural
2ithout 2arrant is justi"ied as it can be said that he 2as committin0
an o""ense 2hen arrested. (he crimes o" rebellion, sub-ersion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or
o""enses committed in "urtherance thereo" or in connection there2ith
constitute direct assaults a0ainst the 3tate and are in the nature o"
continuing crimes . As stated by the Court in an earlier case8
/ Fr)6 &.+ 2a1&( a( a7)3+/narra&+-, &.+ 1,a'6 )2 &.+ 0+&'&')n+r(
&.a& &.+y *+r+ 'n'&'a,,y arr+(&+- ',,+5a,,y '(, &.+r+2)r+, *'&.)u&
7a('( 'n ,a* an- 'n 2a1&. (he crimes o" insurrection or rebellion,
sub-ersion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and other
crimes and o""enses committed in the "urtherance, on the occasion
thereo", or incident thereto, or in connection there2ith under
Presidential Proclamation 6o. 4*>+, are all in the nature o"
continuin0 o""enses 2hich set them apart "rom the common o""enses,
aside "rom their essentially in-ol-in0 a massi-e conspiracy o"
nation2ide ma0nitude. Clearly then, the arrest o" the herein
detainees 2as 2ell 2ithin the bounds o" the la2 and e.istin0
jurisprudence in our jurisdiction.
;$ R)Cu+ 3($ !+ V',,a
- %n ?.!. 6os. 9>+9)-94 (!o7ue -s. /e Oilla), the arrest o" 2melia
o"ue and 4ilfredo ;uenaobra, 2ithout 2arrant, is also justi"ied.
1hen apprehended at the house o" !enato Constantino in Mari'ina
Fei0hts, Mari'ina, Metro Manila, 1il"redo &uenaobra admitted that
he 2as an 6PA courier and he had 2ith him letters to !enato
Constantino and other members o" the rebel 0roup. Amelia !o7ue,
upon the other hand, 2as a member o" the 6ational @nited #ront
Commission, in char0e o" "inance, and admitted o2nership o"
sub-ersi-e documents "ound in the house o" her sister in Caloocan
City. 3he 2as also in possession o" ammunition and a "ra0mentation
0renade "or 2hich she had no permit or authority to possess.
- 1hen con"ronted, !enato Constatino could not produce any permit
or authority to possess the "irearms, ammunition, radio and other
communications e7uipment. Fence, he 2as brou0ht to the C%3
Fead7uarters "or in-esti0ation. 1hen 7uestioned, he re"used to 0i-e
a 2ritten statement, althou0h he admitted that he 2as a sta"" member
o" the e.ecuti-e committee o" the 6@#C and a ran'in0 member o"
the %nternational /epartment o" the Communist Party o" the
Philippines (CPP).
At about 98** o,cloc' in the e-enin0 o" the same day ()4 Au0ust
);99), 1il"redo &uenaobra arri-ed at the house o" !enato
Constantino in the Oillaluz Compound. 1hen accosted, he readily
admitted to the military a0ents that he is a re0ular member o" the
CPPM6PA and that he 2ent to the place to deli-er letters to GJa
Mon0G, re"errin0 to !enato Constatino, and other members o" the
rebel 0roup. n "urther 7uestionin0, he also admitted that he is
'no2n as GJa MillerG and that he 2as "rom &aran0ay 3an Pedro,
$opez, Buezon. Amon0 the items ta'en "rom him 2ere the "ollo2in08
()) Fand2ritten letter addressed to GJa &in0 N Co. "rom A N Co.G
dated Au0ust )), );99=
(4) Fand2ritten letter addressed to G!/ "rom O%C (3chell datre)G
dated Au0ust )), );99=
(5) Fand2ritten letter addressed to G3uzieG "rom GOicG, dated Au0ust
)), );99.
B$ An)nu+3) 3($ Ra6)(
- %n ?.!. 6os. 9>+95-9> (Anonue-o -s. !amos), the arrest o"
-omingo 2nonuevo and amon *asiple, 2ithout 2arrant, is also
justi"ied under the rules. &oth are admittedly members o" the
standin0 committee o" the 6@#C and, 2hen apprehended in the
house o" !enato Constatino, they had a ba0 containin0 sub-ersi-e
materials, and both carried "irearms and ammunition "or 2hich they
had no license to possess or carry.
4$ O1aya 3($ A5u'rr+
- %n ?.!. 6o. 95):4 (caya -s. A0uirre), the arrest 2ithout 2arrant,
o" :icky &caya is justi"ied under the !ules, since she had 2ith her
unlicensed ammunition 2hen she 2as arrested. (he record o" this
case sho2s that on )4 May );99, a0ents o" the PC %ntelli0ence and
%n-esti0ation o" the !izal PC-%6P Command, armed 2ith a search
2arrant issued by Jud0e Eutropio Mi0rino o" the !e0ional (rial Court
o" Pasi0, Metro Manila, conducted a search o" a house located at
&loc' );, Phase %%, Mari'ina ?reen Fei0hts, Mari'ina, Metro Manila,
belie-ed to be occupied by &enito (iamson, head o" the CPP-6PA. %n
the course o" the search, Oic'y caya arri-ed in a car dri-en by
/anny !i-era. 3ub-ersi-e documents and se-eral rounds o"
ammunition "or a .>+ cal. pistol 2ere "ound in the car o" Oic'y caya.
As a result, Oic'y caya and /anny !i-era 2ere brou0ht to the PC
Fead7uarters "or in-esti0ation.
:$ E(0'r'&u 3($ L'6
- /eo0racias Espiritu throu0h tri-media 2as heard ur0in0 all dri-ers
and operators to 0o on nation2ide stri'e on 6o-ember 45, );99, to
"orce the 0o-ernment to 0i-e into their demands to lo2er the prices o"
spare parts, commodities, 2ater and the immediate release "rom
detention o" the president o" the P%3(6 (Pina0-isan0 3amahan n0
(super perators 6ation2ide). #urther, 2e heard /eo0racias Espiritu
ta'in0 the place o" P%3(6 president Medardo !oda and also
announced the "ormation o" the Alliance /ri-ers Association to 0o on
nation2ide stri'e on 6o-ember 45, );99.
8
- Policemen 2aited "or petitioner outside the 6ational Pres Club in
order to in-esti0ate him, but he 0a-e the la2men the slip.
9
Fe 2as
ne.t seen at about +8** o,cloc' that a"ternoon at a 0atherin0 o"
dri-ers and symphatizers at the corner o" Ma0saysay &l-d. and
Oalencia 3treet, 3ta. Mesa, Manila 2here he 2as heard to say8
;ukas tuloy ang #elga natin, sumagot na ang *ebu at ;icol na
kasali sila, at hindi tayo titigil hanggang hindi binibigay ng gobyerno
ni *ory ang gusto nating pagbaba ng halaga ng spare parts, bilihin at
and pagpapalaya sa ating pinuno na si Na oda hanggang sa
magkagulo na.
+
- (he police "inally cau0ht up 2ith the petitioner on 45 6o-ember
);99. Fe 2as in-ited "or 7uestionin0 and brou0ht to police
head7uarters a"ter 2hich an %n"ormation "or -iolation o" Art. )>4 o" the
!e-ised Penal Code 2as "iled a0ainst him be"ore the !e0ional (rial
Court o" Manila.
11
6$ NaHar+n) 3($ S&a&')n C)66an-+r
- %n ?.!. 6o. 9:554 (6azareno -s. 3tation Commander), 2e also "ind
no merit in the submission o" %arciso %azareno that he 2as ille0ally
arrested and is unla2"ully detained. (he record o" this case sho2s
that at about 985* o,cloc' in the mornin0 o" )> /ecember );99, one
!omulo &unye %% 2as 'illed by a 0roup o" men near the corner o" (.
Molina and Mendiola 3treets in Alaban0, Muntin0lupa, Metro Manila.
ne o" the suspects in the 'illin0 2as !amil !e0al 2ho 2as arrested
by the police on 49 /ecember );99. @pon 7uestionin0, !e0al
pointed to 6arciso 6azareno as on o" his companions in the 'illin0 o"
the said !omulo &unye %%. %n -ie2 thereo", the police o""icers, 2ithout
2arrant, pic'ed up 6arciso 6azareno and brou0ht him to the police
head7uarters "or 7uestionin0. b-iously, the e-idence o" petitioner,s
0uilt is stron0 because on 5 January );9;, an in"ormation char0in0
6arciso 6azareno, !amil !e0ala, and t2o (4) others, 2ith the 'illin0
o" !omulo &unye %% 2as "iled 2ith the !e0ional (rial Court o" Ma'ati,
Metro Manila. (he case is doc'eted therein as Criminal Case 6o.
<5).
VELASCO V CA
3@P!A
AN=ELES 3$ !IRECTOR OF NE@ >ILI>I! PRISONS
24
SPECPRO DIGESTS RDS. 3 & 4 A2010 PROF. LEO BATTAD
3@P!A
MONCUPA V ENRILE
25