Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896 March 29, 197
P!"L"PP"NE COMMERC"#L #N$ "N$USTR"#L %#N&, #d'(n(s)ra)or o* )h+ T+s)a)+
Es)a)+ o* Char,+s N+-)on !od.+s /S0. Proc. No. 1672 o* )h+ Co1r) o* 2(rs)
"ns)anc+ o* ",o(,o3, petitioner,
vs.
T!E !ONOR#%LE 4EN"C"O ESCOL"N, Pr+s(d(n. 51d.+ o* )h+ Co1r) o* 2(rs) "ns)anc+
o* ",o(,o, %ranch "", and #4EL"N# #. M#GNO, respondents.
G.R. Nos. L-27966 7 L-27967 March 29, 197
TEST#TE EST#TE O2 T!E L#TE L"NN"E 5#NE !O$GES /S0. Proc. No. 16073. TEST#TE
EST#TE O2 T!E L#TE C!#RLES NE8TON !O$GES /S0. Proc. No. 16723. P!"L"PP"NE
COMMERC"#L #N$ "N$USTR"#L %#N&,administrator-appellant,
vs.
LOREN9O C#RLES, 5OSE P#%L"CO, #L2RE$O C#TE$R#L, S#L4#$OR GU9M#N,
%ELCES#R C#US"NG, 2LOREN"# %#RR"$O, PUR"2"C#C"ON CORON#$O, GR#C"#NO
LUCERO, #R"TEO T!OM#S 5#M"R, MEL:U"#$ES %#T"S#N#N, PEP"TO ";ULORES,
ESPER"$"ON P#RT"S#L#, 8"N"2RE$O ESP#$#, ROS#R"O #L"NG#S#, #$EL2#
PREM#;LON, S#NT"#GO P#C#ONS"S, and #4EL"N# #. M#GNO, )h+ ,as) as
#d'(n(s)ra)r(< (n S0. Proc. No. 1607, a00+,,++s, 8ESTERN "NST"TUTE O2
TEC!NOLOG;, "NC., movant-appellee.
San Juan, Africa, Gonzales and San Agustin for Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank.
Manglapus a! "#ce, Antonio a! "#ce and $izal $. %uimpo for pri&ate respondents and
appellees A&elina A. Magno, etc., et al.

%#RRE$O, J.:p
Certiorari and prohibition with preliminar in!unction" certiorari to #declare all acts of the
respondent court in the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es )*p. Proc. No. +,-. of the Court
of /irst 0nstance of 0loilo1 subse2uent to the order of 3ecember +4, +56. as null and void for
havin( been issued without !urisdiction#" prohibition to en!oin the respondent court from
allowin(, toleratin(, sanctionin(, or abettin( private respondent Avelina A. Ma(no to perform
or do an acts of administration, such as those enumerated in the petition, and from
e7ercisin( an authorit or power as Re(ular Administratri7 of above-named $estate Estate,
b entertainin( manifestations, motion and pleadin(s 8led b her and actin( on them, and
also to en!oin said court from allowin( said private respondent to interfere, meddle or ta9e
part in an manner in the administration of the $estate Estate of Charles Newton 'od(es
)*p. Proc. No. +:.; of the same court and branch1" with praer for preliminar in!unction,
which was issued b this Court on Au(ust <, +5:. upon a bond of P6,---" the petition bein(
particularl directed a(ainst the orders of the respondent court of =ctober +;, +5:: denin(
+ PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
petitioner>s motion of April ;;, +5:: and its order of &ul +<, +5:. denin( the motion for
reconsideration of said order.
Related to and involvin( basicall the same main issue as the fore(oin( petition, thirt-three
),,1 appeals from di?erent orders of the same respondent court approvin( or otherwise
sanctionin( the acts of administration of the respondent Ma(no on behalf of the testate
Estate of Mrs. 'od(es.
'() *AC'S
=n Ma ;,, +56., %innie &ane 'od(es died in 0loilo Cit leavin( a will e7ecuted on November
;;, +56; pertinentl providin( as follows@
/0R*$@ 0 direct that all m !ust debts and funeral e7penses be 8rst paid out of m estate.
*EC=N3@ 0 (ive, devise and be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m estate,
both personal and real, wherever situated, or located, to m beloved husband, Charles
Newton 'od(es, to have and to hold unto him, m said husband, durin( his natural lifetime.
$'0R3@ 0 desire, direct and provide that m husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, shall have the
ri(ht to mana(e, control, use and en!o said estate durin( his lifetime, and he is hereb
(iven the ri(ht to ma9e an chan(es in the phsical properties of said estate, b sale or an
part thereof which he ma thin9 best, and the purchase of an other or additional propert
as he ma thin9 best" to e7ecute conveances with or without (eneral or special warrant,
convein( in fee simple or for an other term or time, an propert which he ma deem
proper to dispose of" to lease an of the real propert for oil, (as andAor other minerals, and
all such deeds or leases shall pass the absolute fee simple title to the interest so conveed
in such propert as he ma elect to sell. All rents, emoluments and income from said estate
shall belon( to him, and he is further authoriBed to use an part of the principal of said
estate as he ma need or desire. 0t is provided herein, however, that he shall not sell or
otherwise dispose of an of the improved propert now owned b us located at, in or near
the Cit of %ubboc9, $e7as, but he shall have the full ri(ht to lease, mana(e and en!o the
same durin( his lifetime, above provided. 'e shall have the ri(ht to subdivide an farm land
and sell lots therein. and ma sell unimproved town lots.
/=CR$'@ At the death of m said husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, 0 (ive, devise and
be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m estate, both real and personal,
wherever situated or located, to be e2uall divided amon( m brothers and sisters, share
and share ali9e, namel@
Esta 'i(don, Emma 'owell, %eonard 'i(don, Ro 'i(don, *addie Rascoe, Era Roman and
Nimro 'i(don.
/0/$'@ 0n case of the death of an of m brothers andAor sisters named in item /ourth,
above, prior to the death of m husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, then it is m will and
be2uest that the heirs of such deceased brother or sister shall ta9e !ointl the share which
would have (one to such brother or sister had she or he survived.
*0D$'@ 0 nominate and appoint m said husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, to be e7ecutor of
this, m last will and testament, and direct that no bond or other securit be re2uired of him
as such e7ecutor.
; PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
*EEEN$'@ 0t is m will and be2uest that no action be had in the probate court, in the
administration of m estate, other than that necessar to prove and record this will and to
return an inventor and appraisement of m estate and list of claims. )Pp. ;-4, Petition.1
$his will was subse2uentl probated in aforementioned *pecial Proceedin(s No. +,-. of
respondent court on &une ;<, +56., with the widower Charles Newton 'od(es bein(
appointed as E7ecutor, pursuant to the provisions thereof.
Previousl, on Ma ;., +56., the said widower )hereafter to be referred to as 'od(es1 had
been appointed *pecial Administrator, in which capacit he 8led a motion on the same date
as follows@
+$G),' )-.PA$') M"'I", '" A"/ "$ A+'("$I0) P)'I'I",)$ '" C",'I,+) '()
B+SI,)SS I, /(IC( () /AS ),GAG)1 A,1 '" P)$*"$M AC'S /(IC( () (A1 B)),
1"I,G /(I) 1)C)AS)1 /AS I2I,G
Come petitioner in the above-entitled special proceedin(s, thru his undersi(ned attornes,
to the 'on. Court, most respectfull states@
+. F $hat %innie &ane 'od(es died leavin( her last will and testament, a cop of which is
attached to the petition for probate of the same.
;. F $hat in said last will and testament herein petitioner Charles Newton 'od(es is directed
to have the ri(ht to mana(e, control use and en!o the estate of deceased %innie &ane
'od(es, in the same wa, a provision was placed in para(raph two, the followin(@ #0 (ive,
devise and be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m estate, to m beloved
husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, to have and )to1 hold unto him, m said husband, durin(
his natural lifetime.#
,. F $hat durin( the lifetime of %innie &ane 'od(es, herein petitioner was en(a(ed in the
business of buin( and sellin( personal and real properties, and do such acts which
petitioner ma thin9 best.
4. F $hat deceased %innie &ane 'od(es died leavin( no descendants or ascendants, e7cept
brothers and sisters and herein petitioner as e7ecutor survivin( spouse, to inherit the
properties of the decedent.
6. F $hat the present motion is submitted in order not to paralBe the business of petitioner
and the deceased, especiall in the purchase and sale of properties. $hat proper accountin(
will be had also in all these transactions.
G'ERE/=RE, it is most respectfull praed that, petitioner C. N. 'od(es )Charles Newton
'od(es1 be allowed or authoriBed to continue the business in which he was en(a(ed and to
perform acts which he had been doin( while deceased %innie &ane 'od(es was livin(.
Cit of 0loilo, Ma ;., +56.. )Anne7 #3#, Petition.1
which the respondent court immediatel (ranted in the followin( order@
0t appearin( in the ur(ent e3.parte motion 8led b petitioner C. N. 'od(es, that the business
in which said petitioner and the deceased were en(a(ed will be paralBed, unless and until
the E7ecutor is named and appointed b the Court, the said petitioner is allowed or
, PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
authoriBed to continue the business in which he was en(a(ed and to perform acts which he
had been doin( while the deceased was livin(.
*= =R3ERE3.
Cit of 0loilo Ma ;., +56.. )Anne7 #E#, Petition.1
Cnder date of 3ecember ++, +56., 'od(es 8led as such E7ecutor another motion thus@
M=$0=N $= APPR=EE A%% *A%E*, C=NEEHANCE*, %EA*E*, M=R$IAIE* $'A$ $'E
EDECC$=R 'A3 MA3E /CR$'ER AN3 *CB*EJCEN$ $RAN*AC$0=N* G'0C' $'E EDECC$=R
MAH 3= 0N ACC=R3ANCE G0$' $'E %A*$ G0*' =/ $'E 3ECEA*E3 %0NN0E &ANE '=3IE*.
Comes the E7ecutor in the above-entitled proceedin(s, thru his undersi(ned attorne, to the
'on. Court, most respectfull states@
+. F $hat accordin( to the last will and testament of the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es, the
e7ecutor as the survivin( spouse and le(atee named in the will of the deceased" has the
ri(ht to dispose of all the properties left b the deceased, portion of which is 2uoted as
follows@
*econd@ 0 (ive, devise and be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m estate, both
personal and real, wherever situated, or located, to m beloved husband, Charles Newton
'od(es, to have and to hold unto him, m said husband, durin( his natural lifetime.
$hird@ 0 desire, direct and provide that m husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, shall have the
ri(ht to mana(e, control, use and en!o said estate durin( his lifetime, and he is hereb
(iven the ri(ht to ma9e an chan(es in the phsical properties of said estate, 45 sale or an
part thereof which he ma thin9 best, and the purchase of an other or additional propert
as he ma thin9 best" to e3ecute con&e5ances with or without (eneral or special warrant,
convein( in fee simple or for an other term or time, an propert which he ma deem
proper to dispose of" to lease an of the real propert for oil, (as andAor other minerals, and
all such deeds or leases shall pass the absolute fee simple title to the interest so conveed
in such propert as he ma elect to sell. All rents, emoluments and income from said
estate shall 4elong to him, and he is further authoriBed to use an part of the principal of
said estate as he ma need or desire. ...
;. F $hat herein E7ecutor, is not onl part owner of the properties left as con!u(al, but also,
the successor to all the properties left b the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es. $hat durin( the
lifetime of herein E7ecutor, as %e(atee has the ri(ht to sell, conve, lease or dispose of the
properties in the Philippines. $hat inasmuch as C.N. 'od(es was and is en(a(ed in the bu
and sell of real and personal properties, even before the death of %innie &ane 'od(es, a
motion to authoriBe said C.N. 'od(es was 8led in Court, to allow him to continue in the
business of bu and sell, which motion was favorabl (ranted b the 'onorable Court.
,. F $hat since the death of %innie &ane 'od(es, Mr. C.N. 'od(es had been buin( and
sellin( real and personal properties, in accordance with the wishes of the late %innie &ane
'od(es.
4. F $hat the Re(ister of 3eeds for 0loilo, had re2uired of late the herein E7ecutor to have all
the sales, leases, conveances or mort(a(es made b him, approved b the 'on. Court.
4 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
6. F $hat it is respectfull re2uested, all the sales, conveances leases and mort(a(es
e7ecuted b the E7ecutor, be approved b the 'on. Court. and subse2uent sales
conveances, leases and mort(a(es in compliances with the wishes of the late %innie &ane
'od(es, and within the scope of the terms of the last will and testament, also be approved"
:. F $hat the E7ecutor is under obli(ation to submit his earl accounts, and the properties
conveed can also be accounted for, especiall the amounts received.
G'ERE/=RE, it is most respectfull praed that, all the sales, conveances, leases, and
mort(a(es e7ecuted b the E7ecutor, be approved b the 'on. Court, and also the
subse2uent sales, conveances, leases, and mort(a(es in consonance with the wishes of the
deceased contained in her last will and testament, be with authoriBation and approval of the
'on. Court.
Cit of 0loilo, 3ecember ++, +5:..
)Anne7 #I#, Petition.1
which a(ain was promptl (ranted b the respondent court on 3ecember +4, +56. as
follows@
" $ 1 ) $
As praed for b Attorne Iellada, counsel for the E7ecutor for the reasons stated in his
motion dated 3ecember ++, +56., which the Court considers well ta9en all the sales,
conveances, leases and mort(a(es of all properties left b the deceased %innie &ane
'od(es e7ecuted b the E7ecutor Charles N. 'od(es are hereb APPR=EE3. $he said
E7ecutor is further authoriBed to e7ecute subse2uent sales, conveances, leases and
mort(a(es of the properties left b the said deceased %innie &ane 'od(es in consonance
with the wishes conveed in the last will and testament of the latter.
*o ordered.
0loilo Cit. 3ecember +4, +56..
)Anne7 #'#, Petition.1
=n April +4, +565, in submittin( his 8rst statement of account as E7ecutor for approval,
'od(es alle(ed@
Pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of Court, herein e7ecutor of the deceased, renders
the followin( account of his administration coverin( the period from &anuar +, +56< to
3ecember ,+, +56<, which account ma be found in detail in the individual income ta7
return 8led for the estate of deceased %innie &ane 'od(es, to wit@
$hat a certi8ed public accountant has e7amined the statement of net worth of the estate of
%innie &ane 'od(es, the assets and liabilities, as well as the income and e7penses, cop of
which is hereto attached and made inte(ral part of this statement of account as Anne7 #A#.
0N E0EG =/ $'E /=REI=0NI, it is most respectfull praed that, the statement of net worth
of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es, the assets and liabilities, income and e7penses as
shown in the individual income ta7 return for the estate of the deceased and mar9ed as
6 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
Anne7 #A#, be approved b the 'onorable Court, as substantial compliance with the
re2uirements of the Rules of Court.
$hat no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of e7aminin( the herein
accounts be (iven notice, as herein e7ecutor is the onl devisee or le(atee of the deceased,
in accordance with the last will and testament alread probated b the 'onorable court.
Cit of 0loilo April +4, +565.
)Anne7 #0#, Petition.1
$he respondent court approved this statement of account on April ;+, +565 in its order
worded thus@
Cpon petition of Att. Iellada, in representation of the E7ecutor, the statement of net worth
of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es, assets and liabilities, income and e7penses as shown in
the individual income ta7 return for the estate of the deceased and mar9ed as Anne7 #A# is
approved.
*= =R3ERE3.
Cit of 0loilo April ;+, +565.
)Anne7 #&#, Petition.1
'is accounts for the periods &anuar +, +565 to 3ecember ,+, +565 and &anuar +, +5:- to
3ecember ,+, +5:- were submitted li9ewise accompanied b alle(ations identical mutatis
mutandis to those of April +4, +565, 2uoted above" and the respective orders approvin( the
same, dated &ul ,-, +5:- and Ma ;, +5:+, were substantiall identical to the above-2uoted
order of April ;+, +565. 0n connection with the statements of account !ust mentioned, the
followin( assertions related thereto made b respondent-appellee Ma(no in her brief do not
appear from all indications discernible in the record to be disputable@
Cnder date of April +4, +565, C.N. 'od(es 8led his 8rst #Account b the E7ecutor# of the
estate of %innie &ane 'od(es. 0n the #*tatement of Networth of Mr. C.N. 'od(es and the
Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es# as of 3ecember ,+, +56< anne7ed thereto, C.N. 'od(es
reported that the combined con!u(al estate earned a net income of P,;<,4-;.:;, divided
evenl between him and the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es. Pursuant to this, he 8led an
#individual income ta7 return# for calendar ear +56< on the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es
reportin(, under oath, the said estate as havin( earned income of P+:4,;-+.,+, e7actl one-
half of the net income of his combined personal assets and that of the estate of %innie &ane
'od(es. )p. 5+, Appellee>s Brief.1
777 777 777
Cnder date of &ul ;+, +5:-, C.N. 'od(es 8led his second #Annual *tatement of Account b
the E7ecutor# of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es. 0n the #*tatement of Networth of Mr. C.N.
'od(es and the Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es# as of 3ecember ,+, +565 anne7ed thereto,
C.N. 'od(es reported that the combined con!u(al estate earned a net income of
P;.-,:;,.,;, divided evenl between him and the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es. Pursuant to
this, he 8led an #individual income ta7 return# for calendar ear +565 on the estate of %innie
&ane 'od(es reportin(, under oath, the said estate as havin( earned income of P+,6,,++.::,
: PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
e7actl one-half of the net income of his combined personal assets and that of the estate of
%innie &ane 'od(es. )pp. 5+-5;. Appellee>s Brief.1
777 777 777
Cnder date of April ;-, +5:+, C.N. 'od(es 8led his third #Annual *tatement of Account b
the E7ecutor for the Hear +5:-# of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es. 0n the #*tatement of Net
Gorth of Mr. C.N. 'od(es and the Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es# as of 3ecember ,+, +5:-
anne7ed thereto, C.N. 'od(es reported that the combined con!u(al estate earned a net
income of P,+4,<6..54, divided evenl between him and the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es.
Pursuant to this, he 8led an #individual income ta7 return# for calendar ear +5:- on the
estate of %innie &ane 'od(es reportin(, under oath, the said estate as havin( earned income
of P+6.,4;<.5., e7actl one-half of the net income of his combined personal assets and that
of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es. )Pp. 5;-5,, Appellee>s Brief.1
%i9ewise the followin(@
0n the petition for probate that he )'od(es1 8led, he listed the seven brothers and sisters of
%innie &ane as her #heirs# )see p. ;, Ireen R=A1. $he order of the court admittin( the will to
probate unfortunatel omitted one of the heirs, Ro 'i(don )see p. +4, Ireen R=A1.
0mmediatel, C.N. 'od(es 8led a veri8ed motion to have Ro 'i(don>s name included as an
heir, statin( that he wanted to strai(hten the records #in order the heirs of deceased Ro
'i(don ma not thin9 or believe the were omitted, and that the were reall and are
interested in the estate of deceased %innie &ane 'od(es. .
As an e7ecutor, he was bound to 8le ta7 returns for the estate he was administerin( under
American law. 'e did 8le such as estate ta7 return on Au(ust <, +56<. 0n *chedule #M# of
such return, he answered #Hes# to the 2uestion as to whether he was contemplatin(
#renouncin( the will#. =n the 2uestion as to what propert interests passed to him as the
survivin( spouse, he answered@
#None, e7cept for purposes of administerin( the Estate, pain( debts, ta7es and other le(al
char(es. 0t is the intention of the survivin( husband of deceased to distribute the remainin(
propert and interests of the deceased in their Communit estate to the devisees and
le(atees named in the will when the debts, liabilities, ta7es and e7penses of administration
are 8nall determined and paid.#
A(ain, on Au(ust 5, +5:;, barel four months before his death, he e7ecuted an #aKdavit#
wherein he rati8ed and con8rmed all that he stated in *chedule #M# of his estate ta7 returns
as to his havin( renounced what was (iven him b his wife>s will.
1
As appointed e7ecutor, C.N. 'od(es 8led an #0nventor# dated Ma +;, +56<. 'e listed all
the assets of his con!u(al partnership with %innie &ane 'od(es on a separate balance sheet
and then stated e7pressl that her estate which has come into his possession as e7ecutor
was #one-half of all the items# listed in said balance sheet. )Pp. <5-5-, Appellee>s Brief.1
Parentheticall, it ma be stated, at this !uncture, that Ge are ta9in( pains to 2uote wholl
or at least, e7tensivel from some of the pleadin(s and orders whenever Ge feel that it is
necessar to do so for a more comprehensive and clearer view of the important and decisive
issues raised b the parties and a more accurate appraisal of their respective positions in
re(ard thereto.
. PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
$he records of these cases do not show that anthin( else was done in the above-mentioned
*pecial Proceedin(s No. +,-. until 3ecember ;:, +5:;, when on account of the death of
'od(es the da before, the same lawer, Att. %eon P. Iellada, who had been previousl
actin( as counsel for 'od(es in his capacit as E7ecutor of his wife>s estate, and as such had
8led the afore2uoted motions and manifestations, 8led the followin(@
CRIEN$ )-.PA$') M=$0=N /=R $'E APP=0N$MEN$ =/ A
*PEC0A% A3M0N0*$RA$R0D
C=ME* the undersi(ned attorne for the E7ecutor in the above-entitled proceedin(s, to the
'onorable Court, most respectfull states@
+. $hat in accordance with the %ast Gill and $estament of %innie &ane 'od(es )deceased1,
her husband, Charles Newton 'od(es was to act as E7ecutor, and in fact, in an order issued
b this 'on. Court dated &une ;<, +56., the said Charles Newton 'od(es was appointed
E7ecutor and had performed the duties as such.
;. $hat last 3ecember ;;, +5:;, the said Charles Newton 'od(es was stric9en ill, and
brou(ht to the 0loilo Mission 'ospital for treatment, but unfortunatel, he died on 3ecember
;6, +5:;, as shown b a cop of the death certi8cate hereto attached and mar9ed as Anne7
#A#.
,. $hat in accordance with the provisions of the last will and testament of %innie &ane
'od(es, whatever real and personal properties that ma remain at the death of her husband
Charles Newton 'od(es, the said properties shall be e2uall divided amon( their heirs. $hat
there are real and personal properties left b Charles Newton 'od(es, which need to be
administered and ta9en care of.
4. $hat the estate of deceased %innie &ane 'od(es, as well as that of Charles Newton
'od(es, have not as et been determined or ascertained, and there is necessit for the
appointment of a (eneral administrator to li2uidate and distribute the residue of the estate
to the heirs and le(atees of both spouses. $hat in accordance with the provisions of *ection
; of Rule .6 of the Rules of Court, the con!u(al partnership of %innie &ane 'od(es and
Charles Newton 'od(es shall be li2uidated in the testate proceedin(s of the wife.
6. $hat the undersi(ned counsel, has perfect personal 9nowled(e of the e7istence of the last
will and testament of Charles Newton 'od(es, with similar provisions as that contained in
the last will and testament of %innie &ane 'od(es. 'owever, said last will and testament of
Charles Newton 'od(es is 9ept inside the vault or iron safe in his oKce, and will be
presented in due time before this honorable Court.
:. $hat in the meantime, it is imperative and indispensable that, an Administratri7 be
appointed for the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and a *pecial Administratri7 for the estate of
Charles Newton 'od(es, to perform the duties re2uired b law, to administer, collect, and
ta9e char(e of the (oods, chattels, ri(hts, credits, and estate of both spouses, Charles
Newton 'od(es and %innie &ane 'od(es, as provided for in *ection + and ;, Rule <+ of the
Rules of Court.
.. $hat there is dela in (rantin( letters testamentar or of administration, because the last
will and testament of deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, is still 9ept in his safe or vault, and
in the meantime, unless an administratri7 )and,1 at the same time, a *pecial Administratri7
is appointed, the estate of both spouses are in dan(er of bein( lost, dama(ed or (o to
waste.
< PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
<. $hat the most trusted emploee of both spouses %innie &ane 'od(es and C.N. 'od(es,
who had been emploed for around thirt ),-1 ears, in the person of Miss Avelina Ma(no,
)should1 be appointed Administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and at the same
time *pecial Administratri7 of the estate of Charles Newton 'od(es. $hat the said Miss
Avelina Ma(no is of le(al a(e, a resident of the Philippines, the most 8t, competent,
trustworth and well-2uali8ed person to serve the duties of Administratri7 and *pecial
Administratri7 and is willin( to act as such.
5. $hat Miss Avelina Ma(no is also willin( to 8le bond in such sum which the 'on. Court
believes reasonable.
G'ERE/=RE, in view of all the fore(oin(, it is most respectfull praed that, Miss AEE%0NA A.
MAIN= be immediatel appointed Administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and as
*pecial Administratri7 of the estate of Charles Newton 'od(es, with powers and duties
provided for b law. $hat the 'onorable Court 87 the reasonable bond of P+,---.-- to be
8led b Avelina A. Ma(no.
)Anne7 #=#, Petition.1
which respondent court readil acted on in its order of even date thus@ .
/or the reasons alle(ed in the Cr(ent )3.parte Motion 8led b counsel for the E7ecutor dated
3ecember ;6, +5:;, which the Court 8nds meritorious, Miss AEE%0NA A. MAIN=, is hereb
appointed Administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and as *pecial Administratri7 of
the estate of Charles Newton 'od(es, in the latter case, because the last will of said Charles
Newton 'od(es is still 9ept in his vault or iron safe and that the real and personal properties
of both spouses ma be lost, dama(ed or (o to waste, unless a *pecial Administratri7 is
appointed.
Miss Avelina A. Ma(no is re2uired to 8le bond in the sum of /0EE $'=C*AN3 PE*=*
)P6,---.--1, and after havin( done so, let letters of Administration be issued to her.# )Anne7
#P#, Petition.1
=n 3ecember ;5, +5:;, however, upon ur(ent e3.parte petition of respondent Ma(no
herself, thru Att. Iellada, 'arold, R. 3avies, #a representative of the heirs of deceased
Charles Newton 'od(es )who had1 arrived from the Cnited *tates of America to help in the
administration of the estate of said deceased# was appointed as Co-*pecial Administrator of
the estate of 'od(es, )pp. ;5-,,, Hellow - Record on Appeal1 onl to be replaced as such co-
special administrator on &anuar ;;, +5:, b &oe 'od(es, who, accordin( to the motion of
the same attorne, is #the nephew of the deceased )who had1 arrived from the Cnited *tates
with instructions from the other heirs of the deceased to administer the properties or estate
of Charles Newton 'od(es in the Philippines, )Pp. 4.-6-, id.1
Meanwhile, under date of &anuar 5, +5:,, the same Att. Iellada 8led in *pecial
Proceedin(s +:.; a petition for the probate of the will of 'od(es,
2
with a praer for the
issuance of letters of administration to the same &oe 'od(es, albeit the motion was followed
on /ebruar ;;, +5:, b a separate one as9in( that Att. /ernando Mirasol be appointed as
his co-administrator. =n the same date this latter motion was 8led, the court issued the
correspondin( order of probate and letters of administration to &oe 'od(es and Att. Mirasol,
as praed for.
At this !uncture, a(ain, it ma also be e7plained that !ust as, in her will, Mrs. 'od(es
be2ueathed her whole estate to her husband #to have and to hold unto him, m said
5 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
husband, durin( his natural lifetime#, she, at the same time or in li9e manner, provided that
#at the death of m said husband F 0 (ive devise and be2ueath all of the rest, residue and
remainder of m estate, both real and personal, wherever situated or located, to be e2uall
divided amon( m brothers and sisters, share and share ali9e F#. Accordin(l, it became
incumbent upon 'od(es, as e7ecutor of his wife>s will, to dul li2uidate the con!u(al
partnership, half of which constituted her estate, in order that upon the eventualit of his
death, #the rest, residue and remainder# thereof could be determined and correspondin(l
distributed or divided amon( her brothers and sisters. And it was precisel because no such
li2uidation was done, furthermore, there is the issue of whether the distribution of her estate
should be (overned b the laws of the Philippines or those of $e7as, of which *tate she was a
national, and, what is more, as alread stated, 'od(es made oKcial and sworn statements
or manifestations indicatin( that as far as he was concerned no #propert interests passed
to him as survivin( spouse F #e7cept for purposes of administerin( the estate, pain(
debts, ta7es and other le(al char(es# and it was the intention of the survivin( husband of
the deceased to distribute the remainin( propert and interests of the deceased in their
Communit Estate to the devisees and le(atees named in the will when the debts, liabilities,
ta7es and e7penses of administration are 8nall determined and paid#, that the incidents
and controversies now before Cs for resolution arose. As ma be observed, the situation that
ensued upon the death of 'od(es became rather unusual and so, 2uite understandabl, the
lower court>s actuations presentl under review are apparentl wantin( in consistenc and
seemin(l lac9 proper orientation.
$hus, Ge cannot discern clearl from the record before Cs the precise perspective from
which the trial court proceeded in issuin( its 2uestioned orders. And, re(retabl, none of the
len(th briefs submitted b the parties is of valuable assistance in clearin( up the matter.
$o be(in with, Ge (ather from the two records on appeal 8led b petitioner, as appellant in
the appealed cases, one with (reen cover and the other with a ellow cover, that at the
outset, a sort of modus operandi had been a(reed upon b the parties under which the
respective administrators of the two estates were supposed to act con!ointl, but since no
cop of the said a(reement can be found in the record before Cs, Ge have no wa of
9nowin( when e7actl such a(reement was entered into and under what speci8c terms. And
while reference is made to said modus operandi in the order of *eptember ++, +5:4, on
pa(es ;-6-;-: of the Ireen Record on Appeal, readin( thus@
$he present incident is to hear the side of administratri7, Miss Avelina A. Ma(no, in answer
to the char(es contained in the motion 8led b Att. Cesar $irol on *eptember ,, +5:4. 0n
answer to the said char(es, Miss Avelina A. Ma(no, throu(h her counsel, Att. RiBal Juimpo,
8led a written manifestation.
After readin( the manifestation here of Att. Juimpo, for and in behalf of the administratri7,
Miss Avelina A. Ma(no, the Court 8nds that everthin( that happened before *eptember ,,
+5:4, which was resolved on *eptember <, +5:4, to the satisfaction of parties, was simpl
due to a misunderstandin( between the representative of the Philippine Commercial and
0ndustrial Ban9 and Miss Ma(no and in order to restore the harmonious relations between
the parties, the Court ordered the parties to remain in status 6uo as to their modus operandi
before *eptember +, +5:4, until after the Court can have a meetin( with all the parties and
their counsels on =ctober ,, as formerl a(reed upon between counsels, Atts. =Baeta,
Iibbs and =Baeta, Atts. $irol and $irol and Att. RiBal Juimpo.
0n the meantime, the praers of Att. Juimpo as stated in his manifestation shall not be
resolved b this Court until =ctober ,, +5:4.
*= =R3ERE3.
+- PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
there is nothin( in the record indicatin( whatever happened to it afterwards, e7cept that
a(ain, reference thereto was made in the appealed order of =ctober ;., +5:6, on pa(es
;5;-;56 of the Ireen Record on Appeal, as follows@
=n record is an ur(ent motion to allow PC0B to open all doors and loc9s in the 'od(es =Kce
at ;-:-;-< Iuanco *treet, 0loilo Cit, to ta9e immediate and e7clusive possession thereof
and to place its own loc9s and 9es for securit purposes of the PC0B dated =ctober ;., +5:6
thru Att. Cesar $irol. 0t is alle(ed in said ur(ent motion that Administratri7 Ma(no of the
testate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es refused to open the 'od(es =Kce at ;-:-;-< Iuanco
*treet, 0loilo Cit where PC0B holds oKce and therefore PC0B is su?erin( (reat moral dama(e
and pre!udice as a result of said act. 0t is praed that an order be issued authoriBin( it )PC0B1
to open all doors and loc9s in the said oKce, to ta9e immediate and e7clusive possession
thereof and place thereon its own loc9s and 9es for securit purposes" instructin( the cler9
of court or an available deput to witness and supervise the openin( of all doors and loc9s
and ta9in( possession of the PC0B.
A written opposition has been 8led b Administratri7 Ma(no of even date )=ct. ;.1 thru
counsel RiBal Juimpo statin( therein that she was compelled to close the oKce for the
reason that the PC0B failed to compl with the order of this Court si(ned b &ud(e Anacleto 0.
Bellosillo dated *eptember ++, +5:4 to the e?ect that both estates should remain in status
6uo to their modus operandi as of *eptember +, +5:4.
$o arrive at a happ solution of the dispute and in order not to interrupt the operation of the
oKce of both estates, the Court aside from the reasons stated in the ur(ent motion and
opposition heard the verbal ar(uments of Att. Cesar $irol for the PC0B and Att. RiBal
Juimpo for Administrati7 Ma(no.
After due consideration, the Court hereb orders Ma(no to open all doors and loc9s in the
'od(es =Kce at ;-:-;-< Iuanco *treet, 0loilo Cit in the presence of the PC0B or its dul
authoriBed representative and deput cler9 of court Albis of this branch not later than .@,-
tomorrow mornin( =ctober ;<, +5:6 in order that the oKce of said estates could operate for
business.
Pursuant to the order of this Court thru &ud(e Bellosillo dated *eptember ++, +5:4, it is
hereb ordered@
)a1 $hat all cash collections should be deposited in the !oint account of the estates of %innie
&ane 'od(es and estates of C.N. 'od(es"
)b1 $hat whatever cash collections that had been deposited in the account of either of the
estates should be withdrawn and since then deposited in the !oint account of the estate of
%innie &ane 'od(es and the estate of C.N. 'od(es"
)c1 $hat the PC0B should countersi(n the chec9 in the amount of P;6- in favor of
Administratri7 Avelina A. Ma(no as her compensation as administratri7 of the %innie &ane
'od(es estate char(eable to the testate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es onl"
)d1 $hat Administratri7 Ma(no is hereb directed to allow the PC0B to inspect whatever
records, documents and papers she ma have in her possession in the same manner that
Administrator PC0B is also directed to allow Administratri7 Ma(no to inspect whatever
records, documents and papers it ma have in its possession"
++ PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
)e1 $hat the accountant of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es shall have access to all records
of the transactions of both estates for the protection of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es" and
in li9e manner the accountant or an authoriBed representative of the estate of C.N. 'od(es
shall have access to the records of transactions of the %innie &ane 'od(es estate for the
protection of the estate of C.N. 'od(es.
=nce the estates> oKce shall have been opened b Administratri7 Ma(no in the presence of
the PC0B or its dul authoriBed representative and deput cler9 Albis or his dul authoriBed
representative, both estates or an of the estates should not close it without previous
consent and authorit from this court.
*= =R3ERE3.
As ma be noted, in this order, the respondent court re2uired that all collections from the
properties in the name of 'od(es should be deposited in a !oint account of the two estates,
which indicates that seemin(l the so-calledmodus operandi was no lon(er operative, but
a(ain there is nothin( to show when this situation started.
%i9ewise, in para(raph , of the petitioner>s motion of *eptember +4, +5:4, on pa(es +<<-
;-+ of the Ireen Record on Appeal, )also found on pp. <,-5+ of the Hellow Record on Appeal1
it is alle(ed that@
,. =n &anuar ;4, +5:4 virtuall all of the heirs of C.N. 'od(es, &oe 'od(es and /ernando P.
Mirasol actin( as the two co-administrators of the estate of C.N. 'od(es, Avelina A. Ma(no
actin( as the administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and Messrs. Gilliam Brown
and Ardell Houn( actin( for all of the 'i(don famil who claim to be the sole bene8ciaries of
the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and various le(al counsel representin( the aforementioned
parties entered into an amicable a(reement, which was approved b this 'onorable Court,
wherein the parties thereto a(reed that certain sums of mone were to be paid in settlement
of di?erent claims a(ainst the two estates and that the assets )to the e7tent the e7isted1 of
both estates would be administered !ointl b the PC0B as administrator of the estate of C.N.
'od(es and Avelina A. Ma(no as administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es, sub!ect,
however, to the aforesaid =ctober 6, +5:, Motion, namel, the PC0B>s claim to e7clusive
possession and ownership of one hundred percent )+--L1 )or, in the alternative, sevent-
8ve percent ).6L1 of all assets owned b C.N. 'od(es or %innie &ane 'od(es situated in the
Philippines. =n /ebruar +, +5:4 )pp. 5,4-5,6, C/0 Rec., *.P. No. +:.;1 this 'onorable Court
amended its order of &anuar ;4, +5:4 but in no wa chan(ed its reco(nition of the afore-
described basic demand b the PC0B as administrator of the estate of C.N. 'od(es to one
hundred percent )+--L1 of the assets claimed b both estates.
but no cop of the mentioned a(reement of !oint administration of the two estates e7ists in
the record, and so, Ge are not informed as to what e7actl are the terms of the same which
could be relevant in the resolution of the issues herein.
=n the other hand, the appealed order of November ,, +5:6, on pa(es ,+,-,;- of the Ireen
Record on Appeal, authoriBed pament b respondent Ma(no of, inter alia, her own fees as
administratri7, the attorne>s fees of her lawers, etc., as follows@
Administratri7 Ma(no thru Atts. Raul *. Man(lapus and RiBal. R. Juimpo 8led a
Manifestation and Cr(ent Motion dated &une +-, +5:4 as9in( for the approval of the
A(reement dated &une :, +5:4 which A(reement is for the purpose of retainin( their services
to protect and defend the interest of the said Administratri7 in these proceedin(s and the
same has been si(ned b and bears the e7press conformit of the attorne-in-fact of the late
+; PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
%innie &ane 'od(es, Mr. &ames %. *ullivan. 0t is further praed that the Administratri7 of the
$estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es be directed to pa the retailers fee of said lawers, said
fees made char(eable as e7penses for the administration of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es
)pp. +:4+-+:4;, Eol. E, *p. +,-.1.
An opposition has been 8led b the Administrator PC0B thru Att. 'erminio =Baeta dated &ul
++, +5:4, on the (round that pament of the retainers fee of Atts. Man(lapus and Juimpo
as praed for in said Manifestation and Cr(ent Motion is pre!udicial to the +--L claim of the
estate of C. N. 'od(es" emploment of Atts. Man(lapus and Juimpo is premature andAor
unnecessar" Atts. Juimpo and Man(lapus are representin( conMictin( interests and the
estate of %innie &ane 'od(es should be closed and terminated )pp. +:.5-+:<4, Eol, E, *p.
+,-.1.
Att. %eon P. Iellada 8led a memorandum dated &ul ;<, +5:4 as9in( that the Manifestation
and Cr(ent Motion 8led b Atts. Man(lapus and Juimpo be denied because no evidence
has been presented in support thereof. Att. Man(lapus 8led a repl to the opposition of
counsel for the Administrator of the C. N. 'od(es estate wherein it is claimed that e7penses
of administration include reasonable counsel or attorne>s fees for services to the e7ecutor
or administrator. As a matter of fact the fee a(reement dated /ebruar ;., +5:4 between
the PC0B and the law 8rm of =Baeta, Iibbs N =Baeta as its counsel )Pp. +;<--+;<4, Eol. E,
*p. +,-.1 which stipulates the fees for said law 8rm has been approved b the Court in its
order dated March ,+, +5:4. 0f pament of the fees of the lawers for the administratri7 of
the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es will cause pre!udice to the estate of C. N. 'od(es, in li9e
manner the ver a(reement which provides for the pament of attorne>s fees to the
counsel for the PC0B will also be pre!udicial to the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es )pp. +<-+-
+<+4, Eol. E, *p. +,-.1.
Att. 'erminio =Baeta 8led a re!oinder dated Au(ust +-, +5:4 to the repl to the opposition
to the Manifestation and Cr(ent Motion alle(in( principall that the estates of %innie &ane
'od(es and C. N. 'od(es are not similarl situated for the reason that C. N. 'od(es is an
heir of %innie &ane 'od(es whereas the latter is not an heir of the former for the reason that
%innie &ane 'od(es predeceased C. N. 'od(es )pp. +<,5-+<4<, Eol. E, *p. +,-.1" that Atts.
Man(lapus and Juimpo formall entered their appearance in behalf of Administratri7 of the
estate of %innie &ane 'od(es on &une +-, +5:4 )pp. +:,5-+:4-, Eol. E, *p. +,-.1.
Att. Man(lapus 8led a manifestation dated 3ecember +<, +5:4 statin( therein that &ud(e
Bellosillo issued an order re2uirin( the parties to submit memorandum in support of their
respective contentions. 0t is praed in this manifestation that the Manifestation and Cr(ent
Motion dated &une +-, +5:4 be resolved )pp. :4,6-:4,5, Eol. E00, *p. +,-.1.
Att. Roman Mabanta, &r. for the PC0B 8led a counter- manifestation dated &anuar 6, +5:6
as9in( that after the consideration b the court of all alle(ations and ar(uments and
pleadin(s of the PC0B in connection therewith )+1 said manifestation and ur(ent motion of
Atts. Man(lapus and Juimpo be denied )pp. :44;-:46,, Eol. E00, *p. +,-.1. &ud(e Juerubin
issued an order dated &anuar 4, +5:6 approvin( the motion dated &une +-, +5:4 of the
attornes for the administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and a(reement anne7ed
to said motion. $he said order further states@ #$he Administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane
'od(es is authoriBed to issue or si(n whatever chec9 or chec9s ma be necessar for the
above purpose and the administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es is ordered to countersi(n
the same. )pp. :6+<-:6;,, Eol E00, *p. +,-.1.
Att. Roman Mabanta, &r. for the PC0B 8led a manifestation and motion dated &anuar +,,
+5:6 as9in( that the order of &anuar 4, +5:6 which was issued b &ud(e Juerubin be
declared null and void and to en!oin the cler9 of court and the administratri7 and
+, PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
administrator in these special proceedin(s from all proceedin(s and action to enforce or
compl with the provision of the aforesaid order of &anuar 4, +5:6. 0n support of said
manifestation and motion it is alle(ed that the order of &anuar 4, +5:6 is null and void
because the said order was never delivered to the deput cler9 Albis of Branch E )the sala of
&ud(e Juerubin1 and the alle(ed order was found in the drawer of the late &ud(e Juerubin in
his oKce when said drawer was opened on &anuar +,, +5:6 after the death of &ud(e
Juerubin b Perfecto Juerubin, &r., the son of the !ud(e and in the presence of E7ecutive
&ud(e Rovira and deput cler9 Albis )*ec. +, Rule ,:, New Civil Code1 )Pp. ::---::-:, Eol.
E000, *p. +,-.1.
Att. Roman Mabanta, &r. for the PC0B 8led a motion for reconsideration dated /ebruar ;,,
+5:6 as9in( that the order dated &anuar 4, +5:4 be reversed on the (round that@
+. Attornes retained must render services to the estate not to the personal heir"
;. 0f services are rendered to both, fees should be pro-rated between them"
,. Attornes retained should not represent conMictin( interests" to the pre!udice of the other
heirs not represented b said attornes"
4. /ees must be commensurate to the actual services rendered to the estate"
6. $here must be assets in the estate to pa for said fees )Pp. ::;6-::,:, Eol. E000, *p.
+,-.1.
Att. Juimpo for Administratri7 Ma(no of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es 8led a motion to
submit dated &ul +6, +5:6 as9in( that the manifestation and ur(ent motion dated &une +-,
+5:4 8led b Atts. Man(lapus and Juimpo and other incidents directl appertainin( thereto
be considered submitted for consideration and approval )pp. :.65-:.:6, Eol. E000, *p. +,-.1.
Considerin( the ar(uments and reasons in support to the pleadin(s of both the
Administratri7 and the PC0B, and of Att. Iellada, hereinbefore mentioned, the Court
believes that the order of &anuar 4, +5:6 is null and void for the reason that the said order
has not been 8led with deput cler9 Albis of this court )Branch E1 durin( the lifetime of &ud(e
Juerubin who si(ned the said order. 'owever, the said manifestation and ur(ent motion
dated &une +-, +5:4 is bein( treated and considered in this instant order. 0t is worth to note
that in the motion dated &anuar ;4, +5:4 )Pp. ++45- ++:,, Eol. E, *p. +,-.1 which has been
8led b Att. Iellada and his associates and Att. Iibbs and other lawers in addition to the
stipulated fees for actual services rendered. 'owever, the fee a(reement dated /ebruar ;.,
+5:4, between the Administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es and Att. Iibbs which
provides for retainer fee of P4,--- monthl in addition to speci8c fees for actual
appearances, reimbursement for e7penditures and contin(ent fees has also been approved
b the Court and said lawers have alread been paid. )pp. +;.,-+;.5, Eol. E, *p. Proc. +,-.
pp. +,.;-+,.,, Eol. E, *p. Proc. +,-.1.
G'ERE/=RE, the order dated &anuar 4, +5:6 is hereb declared null and void.
$he manifestation and motion dated &une +-, +5:4 which was 8led b the attornes for the
administratri7 of the testate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es is (ranted and the a(reement
anne7ed thereto is hereb approved.
$he administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es is hereb directed to be needed to
implement the approval of the a(reement anne7ed to the motion and the administrator of
+4 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
the estate of C. N. 'od(es is directed to countersi(n the said chec9 or chec9s as the case
ma be.
*= =R3ERE3.
thereb implin( somehow that the court assumed the e7istence of independent but
simultaneous administrations.
Be that as it ma, a(ain, it appears that on Au(ust :, +5:6, the court, actin( on a motion of
petitioner for the approval of deeds of sale e7ecuted b it as administrator of the estate of
'od(es, issued the followin( order, also on appeal herein@
Actin( upon the motion for approval of deeds of sale for re(istered land of the PC0B,
Administrator of the $estate Estate of C. N. 'od(es in *p. Proc. +:.; )Eol. E00, pp. ;;44-
;;461, dated &ul +:, +5:6, 8led b Att. Cesar $. $irol in representation of the law 8rms of
=Baeta, Iibbs and =Baeta and $irol and $irol and the opposition thereto of Att. RiBal R.
Juimpo )Eol. E000, pp. :<++-:<+,1 dated &ul ;;, +5:6 and considerin( the alle(ations and
reasons therein stated, the court believes that the deeds of sale should be si(ned !ointl b
the PC0B, Administrator of the $estate Estate of C. N. 'od(es and Avelina A. Ma(no,
Administratri7 of the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and to this e?ect the PC0B should
ta9e the necessar steps so that Administratri7 Avelina A. Ma(no could si(n the deeds of
sale.
*= =R3ERE3. )p. ;4<, Ireen Record on Appeal.1
Notabl this order re2uired that even the deeds e7ecuted b petitioner, as administrator of
the Estate of 'od(es, involvin( properties re(istered in his name, should be co-si(ned b
respondent Ma(no.
6
And this was not an isolated instance.
0n her brief as appellee, respondent Ma(no states@
After the lower court had authoriBed appellee Avelina A. Ma(no to e7ecute 8nal deeds of sale
pursuant to contracts to sell e7ecuted b C. N. 'od(es on /ebruar ;-, +5:, )pp. 46-4:,
Ireen R=A1, motions for the approval of 8nal deeds of sale )si(ned b appellee Avelina A.
Ma(no and the administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es, 8rst &oe 'od(es, then Att.
/ernando Mirasol and later the appellant1 were approved b the lower court upon petition of
appellee Ma(no>s counsel, Att. %eon P. Iellada, on the basis of section < of Rule <5 of the
Revised Rules of Court. *ubse2uentl, the appellant, after it had ta9en over the bul9 of the
assets of the two estates, started presentin( these motions itself. $he 8rst such attempt was
a #Motion for Approval of 3eeds of *ale for Re(istered %and and Cancellations of Mort(a(es#
dated &ul ;+, +5:4 8led b Att. Cesar $. $irol, counsel for the appellant, thereto anne7in(
two );1 8nal deeds of sale and two );1 cancellations of mort(a(es si(ned b appellee Avelina
A. Ma(no and 3. R. Paulino, Assistant Eice-President and Mana(er of the appellant )C/0
Record, *p. Proc. No. +,-., Eol. E, pp. +:54-+.-+1. $his motion was approved b the lower
court on &ul ;., +5:4. 0t was followed b another motion dated Au(ust 4, +5:4 for the
approval of one 8nal deed of sale a(ain si(ned b appellee Avelina A. Ma(no and 3. R.
Paulino )C/0 Record, *p. Proc. No. +,-.. Eol. E, pp. +<;6-+<;<1, which was a(ain approved
b the lower court on Au(ust ., +5:4. $he (ates havin( been opened, a Mood ensued@ the
appellant subse2uentl 8led similar motions for the approval of a multitude of deeds of sales
and cancellations of mort(a(es si(ned b both the appellee Avelina A. Ma(no and the
appellant.
+6 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
A random chec9 of the records of *pecial Proceedin( No. +,-. alone will show Att. Cesar $.
$irol as havin( presented for court approval deeds of sale of real properties si(ned b both
appellee Avelina A. Ma(no and 3. R. Paulino in the followin( numbers@ )a1 motion dated
*eptember ;+, +5:4 F : deeds of sale" )b1 motion dated November 4, +5:4 F + deed of
sale" )c1 motion dated 3ecember +, +5:4 F 4 deeds of sale" )d1 motion dated /ebruar ,,
+5:6 F < deeds of sale" )f1 motion dated Ma ., +5:6 F 5 deeds of sale. 0n view of the ver
e7tensive landholdin(s of the 'od(es spouses and the man motions 8led concernin( deeds
of sale of real properties e7ecuted b C. N. 'od(es the lower court has had to constitute
special separate e7pedientes in *pecial Proceedin(s Nos. +,-. and +:.; to include mere
motions for the approval of deeds of sale of the con!u(al properties of the 'od(es spouses.
As an e7ample, from amon( the ver man, under date of /ebruar ,, +5:6, Att. Cesar $.
$irol, as counsel for the appellant, 8led #Motion for Approval of 3eeds of *ale for Re(istered
%and and Cancellations of Mort(a(es# )C/0 Record, *p. Proc. No. +,-., Eol. E000, pp. :6.--
:65:1 the alle(ations of which read@
#+. 0n his lifetime, the late C. N. 'od(es e7ecuted #Contracts to *ell# real propert, and the
prospective buers under said contracts have alread paid the price and complied with the
terms and conditions thereof"
#;. 0n the course of administration of both estates, mort(a(e debtors have alread paid their
debts secured b chattel mort(a(es in favor of the late C. N. 'od(es, and are now entitled
to release therefrom"
#,. $here are attached hereto documents e7ecuted !ointl b the Administratri7 in *p. Proc.
No. +,-. and the Administrator in *p. Proc. No. +:.;, consistin( of deeds of sale in favor F
/ernando Cano, Bacolod Cit, =cc. Ne(ros
/e Ma(banua, 0loilo Cit
Policarpio M. Pareno, %a PaB, 0loilo Cit
Rosario $. %ibre, &aro, 0loilo Cit
/ederico B. $orres, 0loilo Cit
Renaldo $. %ata2uin, %a PaB, 0loilo Cit
Anatolio $. Eira, 0loilo Cit
Ben!amin Rolando, &aro, 0loilo Cit
and cancellations of mort(a(es in favor of F
Pablo ManBano, =ton, 0loilo
Ricardo M. 3iana, 3ao, *an &ose, Anti2ue
*implicio $in(son, 0loilo Cit
Amado Ma(banua, Pototan, 0loilo
Roselia M. Baes, Bolo, Ro7as Cit
Gilliam Baani, RiBal EstanBuela, 0loilo Cit
Elpidio Eillarete, Molo, 0loilo Cit
Norma $. RuiB, &aro, 0loilo Cit
#4. $hat the approval of the aforesaid documents will not reduce the assets of the estates so
as to prevent an creditor from receivin( his full debt or diminish his dividend.#
And the praer of this motion is indeed ver revealin(@
+: PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
#G'ERE/=RE, it is respectfull praed that, under Rule <5, *ection < of the Rules of Court,
this honorable court approve the aforesaid deeds of sale and cancellations of mort(a(es.#
)Pp. ++,-++., Appellee>s Brief.1
None of these assertions is denied in Petitioner>s repl brief.
/urther indicatin( lac9 of concrete perspective or orientation on the part of the respondent
court and its hesitanc to clear up matters promptl, in its other appealed order of
November ;,, +5:6, on pa(es ,,4-,,6 of the Ireen Record on Appeal, said respondent
court allowed the movant Ricardo *alas, President of appellee Gestern 0nstitute of
$echnolo( )successor of Pana Educational 0nstitutions, 0nc.1, one of the parties with whom
'od(es had contracts that are in 2uestion in the appeals herein, to pa petitioner, as
Administrator of the estate of 'od(es andAor respondent Ma(no, as Administrator of the
estate of Mrs. 'od(es, thus@
Considerin( that in both cases there is as et no !udicial declaration of heirs nor distribution
of properties to whomsoever are entitled thereto, the Court believes that pament to both
the administrator of the testate estate of C. N. 'od(es and the administratri7 of the testate
estate of %innie &ane 'od(es or to either one of the two estates is proper and le(al.
G'ERE/=RE, movant Ricardo $. *alas can pa to both estates or either of them.
*= =R3ERE3.
)Pp. ,,4-,,6, Ireen Record on Appeal.1
=n the other hand, as stated earlier, there were instances when respondent Ma(no was
(iven authorit to act alone. /or instance, in the other appealed order of 3ecember +5,
+5:4, on pa(e ;;+ of the Ireen Record on Appeal, the respondent court approved paments
made b her of overtime pa to some emploees of the court who had helped in (atherin(
and preparin( copies of parts of the records in both estates as follows@
Considerin( that the e7penses sub!ect of the motion to approve pament of overtime pa
dated 3ecember +-, +5:4, are reasonable and are believed b this Court to be a proper
char(e of administration char(eable to the testate estate of the late %innie &ane 'od(es, the
said e7penses are hereb APPR=EE3 and to be char(ed a(ainst the testate estate of the
late %innie &ane 'od(es. $he administrator of the testate estate of the late Charles Newton
'od(es is hereb ordered to countersi(n the chec9 or chec9s necessar to pa the said
overtime pa as shown b the bills mar9ed Anne7 #A#, #B# and #C# of the motion.
*= =R3ERE3.
)Pp. ;;+-;;;, Ireen Record on Appeal.1
%i9ewise, the respondent court approved deeds of sale e7ecuted b respondent Ma(no
alone, as Administratri7 of the estate of Mrs. 'od(es, coverin( properties in the name of
'od(es, pursuant to #contracts to sell# e7ecuted b 'od(es, irrespective of whether the
were e7ecuted b him before or after the death of his wife. $he orders of this nature which
are also on appeal herein are the followin(@
+. =rder of March ,-, +5::, on p. +,. of the Ireen Record on Appeal, approvin( the deed of
sale e7ecuted b respondent Ma(no in favor of appellee %orenBo Carles on /ebruar ;4,
+. PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
+5::, pursuant to a #contract to sell# si(ned b 'od(es on &une +., +56<, after the death of
his wife, which contract petitioner claims was cancelled b it for failure of Carles to pa the
installments due on &anuar ., +5:6.
;. =rder of April 6, +5::, on pp. +,5-+4-, id., approvin( the deed of sale e7ecuted b
respondent Ma(no in favor of appellee *alvador IuBman on /ebruar ;<, +5:: pursuant to a
#contract to sell# si(ned b 'od(es on *eptember +,, +5:-, after the death of his wife,
which contract petitioner claims it cancelled on March ,, +5:6 in view of failure of said
appellee to pa the installments on time.
,. =rder of April ;-, +5::, on pp. +:.-+:<, id., approvin( the deed of sale e7ecuted b
respondent Ma(no in favor of appellee Puri8cacion Coronado on March ;<, +5:: pursuant to
a #contract to sell# si(ned b 'od(es on Au(ust +4, +5:+, after the death of his wife.
4. =rder of April ;-, +5::, on pp. +:<-+:5, id., approvin( the deed of sale e7ecuted b
respondent Ma(no in favor of appellee /lorenia Barrido on March ;<, +5::, pursuant to a
#contract to sell# si(ned b 'od(es on /ebruar ;+, +56<, after the death of his wife.
6. =rder of &une ., +5::, on pp. +<4-+<6, id., approvin( the deed of sale e7ecuted b
respondent Ma(no in favor of appellee BelceBar Causin( on Ma ;, +5::, pursuant to a
#contract to sell# si(ned b 'od(es on /ebruar +-, +565, after the death of his wife.
:. =rder of &une ;+, +5::, on pp. ;++-;+;, id., approvin( the deed of sale e7ecuted b
respondent Ma(no in favor of appellee Artheo $homas &amir on &une ,, +5::, pursuant to a
#contract to sell# si(ned b 'od(es on Ma ;:, +5:+, after the death of his wife.
.. =rder of &une ;+, +5::, on pp. ;+;-;+,, id., approvin( the deed of sale e7ecuted b
respondent Ma(no in favor of appellees Iraciano %ucero and Mel2uiades Batisanan on &une
: and &une ,, +5::, respectivel, pursuant to #contracts to sell# si(ned b 'od(es on &une 5,
+565 and November ;., +5:+, respectivel, after the death of his wife.
<. =rder of 3ecember ;, +5::, on pp. ,-,-,-4, id., approvin( the deed of sale e7ecuted b
respondent Ma(no in favor of appellees Espiridion Partisala, Ginifredo Espada and Rosario
Alin(asa on *eptember :, +5::, Au(ust +., +5:: and Au(ust ,, +5::, respectivel, pursuant
to #contracts to sell# si(ned b 'od(es on April ;-, +5:-, April +<, +5:- and Au(ust ;6,
+56<, respectivel, that is, after the death of his wife.
5. =rder of April 6, +5::, on pp. +,.-+,<, id., approvin( the deed of sale e7ecuted b
respondent Ma(no in favor of appellee Alfredo Catedral on March ;, +5::, pursuant to a
#contract to sell# si(ned b 'od(es on Ma ;5, +564, before the death of his wife, which
contract petitioner claims it had cancelled on /ebruar +:, +5:: for failure of appellee
Catedral to pa the installments due on time.
+-. =rder of April 6, +5::, on pp. +,<-+,5, id., approvin( the deed of sale e7ecuted b
respondent Ma(no in favor of appellee &ose Pablico on March ., +5::, pursuant to a
#contract to sell# si(ned b 'od(es on March ., +56-, after the death of his wife, which
contract petitioner claims it had cancelled on &une ;5, +5:-, for failure of appellee Pablico to
pa the installments due on time.
++. =rder of 3ecember ;, +5::, on pp. ,-,-,-4, id., insofar as it approved the deed of sale
e7ecuted b respondent Ma(no in favor of appellee Pepito 0ulores on *eptember :, +5::,
pursuant to a #contract to sell# si(ned b 'od(es on /ebruar 6, +56+, before the death of
his wife.
+< PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
+;. =rder of &anuar ,, +5:., on pp. ,,6-,,:, id., approvin( three deeds of sale e7ecuted b
respondent Ma(no, one in favor of appellees *antia(o Pacaonsis and two in favor of appellee
Adelfa Premalon on 3ecember 6, +5:: and November ,, +5::, respectivel, pursuant to
separate #promises to sell# si(ned respectivel b 'od(es on Ma ;:, +566 and &anuar ,-,
+564, before the death of his wife, and =ctober ,+, +565, after her death.
0n li9e manner, there were also instances when respondent court approved deeds of sale
e7ecuted b petitioner alone and without the concurrence of respondent Ma(no, and such
approvals have not been the sub!ect of an appeal. No less than petitioner points this out on
pa(es +45-+6- of its brief as appellant thus@
$he points of fact and law pertainin( to the two abovecited assi(nments of error have
alread been discussed previousl. 0n the 8rst abovecited error, the order alluded to was
(eneral, and as alread e7plained before, it was, as admitted b the lower court itself,
superseded b the particular orders approvin( speci8c 8nal deeds of sale e7ecuted b the
appellee, Avelina A. Ma(no, which are sub!ect of this appeal, as well as the particular orders
approvin( speci8c 8nal deeds of sale e7ecuted b the appellant, Philippine Commercial and
0ndustrial Ban9, which were never appealed b the appellee, Avelina A. Ma(no, nor b an
part for that matter, and which are now therefore 8nal.
Now, simultaneousl with the fore(oin( incidents, others of more fundamental and all
embracin( si(ni8cance developed. =n =ctober 6, +5:,, over the si(nature of Att. Allison &.
Iibbs in representation of the law 8rm of =Baeta, Iibbs N =Baeta, as counsel for the co-
administrators &oe 'od(es and /ernando P. Mirasol, the followin( self-e7planator motion
was 8led@
+$G),' M"'I", *"$ A, ACC"+,'I,G A,1 1)I2)$7 '" A1MI,IS'$A'I", "* '() )S'A')
"* C. ,. ("1G)S "* A "* '() ASS)'S "* '() C",J+GA PA$',)$S(IP "* '()
1)C)AS)1 I,,I) JA,) ("1G)S A,1 C ,. ("1G)S )-IS'I,G AS "* MA7 89, :;<= P+S A
'() $),'S, )M"+M),'S A,1 I,C"M) '()$)*$"M.
C=ME* N=G the co-administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es, &oe 'od(es, throu(h his
undersi(ned attornes in the above-entitled proceedin(s, and to this 'onorable Court
respectfull alle(es@
)+1 =n Ma ;,, +56. %innie &ane 'od(es died in 0loilo Cit.
);1 =n &une ;<, +56. this 'onorable Court admitted to probate the %ast Gill and $estament
of the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es e7ecuted November ;;, +56; and appointed C. N.
'od(es as E7ecutor of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es )pp. ;4-;6, Rec. *p. Proc. +,-.1.
),1 =n &ul +, +56. this 'onorable Court issued %etters $estamentar to C. N. 'od(es in the
Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es )p. ,-, Rec. *p. Proc. +,-.1.
)41 =n 3ecember +4, +56. this 'onorable Court, on the basis of the followin( alle(ations in
a Motion dated 3ecember ++, +56. 8led b %eon P. Iellada as attorne for the e7ecutor C.
N. 'od(es@
#$hat herein E7ecutor, )is1 not onl part owner of the properties left as con!u(al, but also,the
successor to all the properties left 45 the deceased innie Jane (odges.#
)p. 44, Rec. *p. Proc. +,-." emphasis supplied.1
+5 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
issued the followin( order@
#As praed for b Attorne Iellada, counsel for the E7ecutor, for the reasons stated in his
motion dated 1ecem4er ::, :;<= !hich the court considers !ell taken, all the sales,
conveances, leases and mort(a(es of all properties left b the deceased %innie &ane
'od(es are hereb APPR=EE3. $he said e7ecutor is further authoriBed to e7ecute
subse2uent sales, conveances, leases and mort(a(es of the properties left b the said
deceased %innie &ane 'od(es in consonance !ith the !ishes contained in the last !ill and
testament of the latter.#
)p. 4:, Rec. *p. Proc. +,-." emphasis supplied.1
)61 =n April ;+, +565 this 'onorable Court approved the inventor and accountin( submitted
b C. N. 'od(es throu(h his counsel %eon P. Iellada on April +4, +565 wherein he alle(ed
amon( other thin(s
#$hat no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of e7aminin( the herein
account, be (iven notice, as herein e3ecutor is the onl5 de&isee or legatee of the deceased,
in accordance !ith the last !ill and testament alread5 pro4ated 45 the (onora4le Court.#
)pp. ..-.<, Rec. *p. Proc. +,-." emphasis supplied.1.
):1 =n &ul ,-, +5:- this 'onorable Court approved the #Annual *tatement of Account#
submitted b C. N. 'od(es throu(h his counsel %eon P. Iellada on &ul ;+, +5:- wherein he
alle(ed amon( other thin(s@
#$hat no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of e7aminin( the herein
account, be (iven notice as herein e3ecutor is the onl5 de&isee or legatee of the deceased
innie Jane (odges, in accordance with the last will and testament of the deceased, alread
probated b this 'onorable Court.#
)pp. <+-<;. Rec. *p. Proc. +,-." emphasis supplied.1
).1 =n Ma ;, +5:+ this 'onorable court approved the #Annual *tatement of Account B $he
E7ecutor for the Hear +5:-# submitted throu(h %eon P. Iellada on April ;-, +5:+ wherein he
alle(ed@
$hat no person interested in the Philippines be (iven notice, of the time and place of
e7aminin( the herein account, as herein )3ecutor is the onl5 de&isee or legatee of the
deceased innie Jane (odges, in accordance !ith the last !ill and testament of the
deceased, alread5 pro4ated 45 this (onora4le Court.
)pp. 5--5+. Rec. *p. Proc. +,-." emphasis supplied.1
)<1 =n 3ecember ;6, +5:;, C.N. 'od(es died.
)51 =n 3ecember ;6, +5:;, on the Cr(ent )3.parte Motion of %eon P. Iellada 8led onl in
*pecial Proceedin( No. +,-., this 'onorable Court appointed Avelina A. Ma(no
#Administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and as *pecial Administratri7 of the
estate of Charles Newton 'od(es, in the latter case, because the last will of said Charles
Newton 'od(es is still 9ept in his vault or iron safe and that the real and personal properties
;- PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
of both spouses ma be lost, dama(ed or (o to waste, unless a *pecial Administratri7 is
appointed.#
)p. +--. Rec. *p. Proc. +,-.1
)+-1 =n 3ecember ;:, +5:; %etters of Administration were issued to Avelina Ma(no pursuant
to this 'onorable Court>s aforesaid =rder of 3ecember ;6, +5:;
#Gith full authorit to ta9e possession of all the propert of said deceased in an province or
provinces in which it ma be situated and to perform all other acts necessar for the
preservation of said propert, said Administratri7 andAor *pecial Administratri7 havin( 8led a
bond satisfactor to the Court.#
)p. +-;, Rec. *p. Proc. +,-.1
)++1 =n &anuar ;;, +5:, this 'onorable Court on petition of %eon P. Iellada of &anuar ;+,
+5:, issued %etters of Administration to@
)a1 Avelina A. Ma(no as Administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es"
)b1 Avelina A. Ma(no as *pecial Administratri7 of the Estate of Charles Newton 'od(es" and
)c1 &oe 'od(es as Co-*pecial Administrator of the Estate of Charles Newton 'od(es.
)p. 4,, Rec. *p. Proc. +,-.1
)+;1 =n /ebruar ;-, +5:, this 'onorable Court on the basis of a motion 8led b %eon P.
Iellada as le(al counsel on /ebruar +:, +5:, for Avelina A. Ma(no actin( as Administratri7
of the Estate of Charles Newton 'od(es )pp. ++4-++:, *p. Proc. +,-.1 issued the followin(
order@
#... se autoriBa a a2uella )Avelina A. Ma(no1 a 8rmar escrituras de venta de8nitiva de
propiedades cubiertas por contratos para vender, 8rmados, en vida, por el 8nado Charles
Newton 'od(es, cada veB 2ue el precio estipulado en cada contrato este totalmente
pa(ado. *e autoriBa i(ualmente a la misma a 8rmar escrituras de cancelacion de hipoteca
tanto de bienes reales como personales cada veB 2ue la consideracion de cada hipoteca
este totalmente pa(ada.
#Cada una de dichas escrituras 2ue se otor(uen debe ser sometida para la aprobacion de
este &uB(ado.#
)p. ++., *p. Proc. +,-.1.
OPar + )c1, Repl to Motion /or Removal of &oe 'od(esP
)+,1 =n *eptember l:, +5:, %eon P. Iellada, actin( as attorne for Avelina A. Ma(no as
Administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es, alle(es@
,. F $hat since &anuar, +5:,, both estates of %innie &ane 'od(es and Charles Newton
'od(es have been receivin( in full, paments for those #contracts to sell# entered into b C.
;+ PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
N. 'od(es durin( his lifetime, and the purchasers have been demandin( the e7ecution of
de8nite deeds of sale in their favor.
4. F $hat hereto attached are thirteen )+,1 copies deeds of sale e7ecuted b the
Administratri7 and b the co-administrator )/ernando P. Mirasol1 of the estate of %innie &ane
'od(es and Charles Newton 'od(es respectivel, in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the respective #contracts to sell# e7ecuted b the parties thereto.#
)+41 $he properties involved in the aforesaid motion of *eptember +:, +5:, are all
re(istered in the name of the deceased C. N. 'od(es.
)+61 Avelina A. Ma(no, it is alle(ed on information and belief, has been advertisin( in the
newspaper in 0loilo thusl@
/or *ale
$estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and Charles Newton 'od(es.
All Real Estate or Personal Propert will be sold on /irst Come /irst *erved Basis.
Avelina A. Ma(no
Administratri7
)+:1 Avelina A. Ma(no, it is alle(ed on information and belief, has paid and still is pain(
sums of mone to sundr persons.
)+.1 &oe 'od(es throu(h the undersi(ned attornes manifested durin( the hearin(s before
this 'onorable Court on *eptember 6 and :, +5:, that the estate of C. N. 'od(es was
claimin( all of the assets belon(in( to the deceased spouses %innie &ane 'od(es and C. N.
'od(es situated in Philippines because of the aforesaid election b C. N. 'od(es wherein he
claimed and too9 possession as sole owner of all of said assets durin( the administration of
the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es on the (round that he was the sole devisee and le(atee
under her %ast Gill and $estament.
)+<1 Avelina A. Ma(no has submitted no inventor and accountin( of her administration as
Administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and *pecial Administratri7 of the estate of
C. N. 'od(es. 'owever, from manifestations made b Avelina A. Ma(no and her le(al
counsel, %eon P. Iellada, there is no 2uestion she will claim that at least 8ft per cent )6-L1
of the con!u(al assets of the deceased spouses and the rents, emoluments and income
therefrom belon( to the 'i(don famil who are named in para(raphs /ourth and /ifth of the
Gill of %innie &ane 'od(es )p. 6, Rec. *p. Proc. +,-.1.
G'ERE/=RE, premises considered, movant respectfull pras that this 'onorable Court,
after due hearin(, order@
)+1 Avelina A. Ma(no to submit an inventor and accountin( of all of the funds, properties
and assets of an character belon(in( to the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es and C. N. 'od(es
which have come into her possession, with full details of what she has done with them"
);1 Avelina A. Ma(no to turn over and deliver to the Administrator of the estate of C. N.
'od(es all of the funds, properties and assets of an character remainin( in her possession"
;; PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
),1 Pendin( this 'onorable Court>s ad!udication of the aforesaid issues, Avelina A. Ma(no to
stop, unless she 8rst secures the conformit of &oe 'od(es )or his dul authoriBed
representative, such as the undersi(ned attornes1 as the Co-administrator and attorne-in-
fact of a ma!orit of the bene8ciaries of the estate of C. N. 'od(es@
)a1 Advertisin( the sale and the sale of the properties of the estates@
)b1 Emploin( personnel and pain( them an compensation.
)41 *uch other relief as this 'onorable Court ma deem !ust and e2uitable in the premises.
)Anne7 #$#, Petition.1
Almost a ear thereafter, or on *eptember +4, +5:4, after the co-administrators &oe 'od(es
and /ernando P. Mirasol were replaced b herein petitioner Philippine Commercial and
0ndustrial Ban9 as sole administrator, pursuant to an a(reement of all the heirs of 'od(es
approved b the court, and because the above motion of =ctober 6, +5:, had not et been
heard due to the absence from the countr of Att. Iibbs, petitioner 8led the followin(@
MA,I*)S'A'I", A,1 M"'I",, I,C+1I,G M"'I", '" S)' *"$ ()A$I,G A,1 $)S"2)
>+$G),' M"'I", *"$ A, ACC"+,'I,G A,1 1)I2)$7 '" A1MI,IS'$A'"$S "* '()
)S'A') "* C. ,. ("1G)S "* A '() ASS)'S "* '() C",J+GA PA$',)$S(IP "* '()
1)C)AS)1 I,,I) JA,) ("1G)S A,1 C. ,. ("1G)S )-IS'I,G AS "* MA7 89, :;<= P+S
A "* '() $),'S, )M"+M),'S A,1 I,C"M) '()$)*$"M "* "C'"B)$ <, :;?9.
C=ME* N=G Philippine Commercial and 0ndustrial Ban9 )hereinafter referred to as PC0B1, the
administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es, deceased, in *pecial Proceedin(s No. +:.;,
throu(h its undersi(ned counsel, and to this 'onorable Court respectfull alle(es that@
+. =n =ctober 6, +5:,, &oe 'od(es actin( as the co-administrator of the estate of C. N.
'od(es 8led, throu(h the undersi(ned attornes, an #Cr(ent Motion /or An Accountin( and
3eliver $o Administrator of the Estate of C. N. 'od(es of all =f $he Assets =f $he Con!u(al
Partnership of $he 3eceased %innie &ane 'od(es and C. N. 'od(es E7istin( as =f Ma, ;,,
+56. Plus All =f $he Rents, Emoluments and 0ncome $herefrom# )pp. 6,:-64;, C/0 Rec. *. P.
No. +:.;1.
;. =n &anuar ;4, +5:4 this 'onorable Court, on the basis of an amicable a(reement entered
into on &anuar ;,, +5:4 b the two co-administrators of the estate of C. N. 'od(es and
virtuall all of the heirs of C. N. 'od(es )p. 5+;, C/0 Rec., *. P. No. +:.;1, resolved the
dispute over who should act as administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es b appointin( the
PC0B as administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es )pp. 5-6-5-:, C/0 Rec. *. P. No. +:.;1
and issuin( letters of administration to the PC0B.
,. =n &anuar ;4, +5:4 virtuall all of the heirs of C. N. 'od(es, &oe 'od(es and /ernando P.
Mirasol actin( as the two co-administrators of the estate of C. N. 'od(es, Avelina A. Ma(no
actin( as the administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es, and Messrs. Gilliam Brown
and Ardel Houn( Actin( for all of the 'i(don famil who claim to be the sole bene8ciaries of
the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and various le(al counsel representin( the aforenamed
parties entered into an amicable a(reement, which was approved b this 'onorable Court,
wherein the parties thereto a(reed that certain sums of mone were to be paid in settlement
of di?erent claims a(ainst the two estates and that the assets @to the e3tent the5 e3istedAof
4oth estates !ould 4e administrated Bointl5 45 the PCIB as administrator of the estate of C.
,. (odges and A&elina A. Magno as administratri3 of the estate of innie Jane (odges,
sub!ect, however, to the aforesaid =ctober 6, +5:, Motion, namel, the PC0B>s claim to
;, PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
e7clusive possession and ownership of one-hundred percent )+--+.,1 )or, in the alternative,
sevent-8ve percent O.6LP of all assets owned b C. N. 'od(es or %innie &ane 'od(es
situated in the Philippines. =n /ebruar +, +5:4 )pp. 5,4-5,6, C/0 Rec., *. P. No. +:.;1 this
'onorable Court amended its order of &anuar ;4, +5:4 but in no wa chan(es its
reco(nition of the aforedescribed basic demand b the PC0B as administrator of the estate of
C. N. 'od(es to one hundred percent )+--L1 of the assets claimed b both estates.
4. =n /ebruar +6, +5:4 the PC0B 8led a #Motion to Resolve# the aforesaid Motion of =ctober
6, +5:,. $his 'onorable Court set for hearin( on &une ++, +5:4 the Motion of =ctober 6,
+5:,.
6. =n &une ++, +5:4, because the undersi(ned Allison &. Iibbs was absent in the Cnited
*tates, this 'onorable Court ordered the inde8nite postponement of the hearin( of the
Motion of =ctober 6, +5:,.
:. *ince its appointment as administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es the PC0B has not
been able to properl carr out its duties and obli(ations as administrator of the estate of C.
N. 'od(es because of the followin( acts, amon( others, of Avelina A. Ma(no and those who
claim to act for her as administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es@
)a1 Avelina A. Ma(no ille(all acts as if she is in e7clusive control of all of the assets in the
Philippines of both estates includin( those claimed b the estate of C. N. 'od(es as
evidenced in part b her loc9in( the premises at ;-:-;-< Iuanco *treet, 0loilo Cit on
Au(ust ,+, +5:4 and refusin( to reopen same until ordered to do so b this 'onorable Court
on *eptember ., +5:4.
)b1 Avelina A. Ma(no ille(all acts as thou(h she alone ma decide how the assets of the
estate of C.N. 'od(es should be administered, who the PC0B shall emplo and how much
the ma be paid as evidenced in part b her refusal to si(n chec9s issued b the PC0B
paable to the undersi(ned counsel pursuant to their fee a(reement approved b this
'onorable Court in its order dated March ,+, +5:4.
)c1 Avelina A. Ma(no ille(all (ives access to and turns over possession of the records and
assets of the estate of C.N. 'od(es to the attorne-in-fact of the 'i(don /amil, Mr. &ames %.
*ullivan, as evidenced in part b the cashin( of his personal chec9s.
)d1 Avelina A. Ma(no ille(all refuses to e7ecute chec9s prepared b the PC0B drawn to pa
e7penses of the estate of C. N. 'od(es as evidenced in part b the chec9 drawn to
reimburse the PC0B>s advance of P4<,446.6- to pa the +5:4 income ta7es reported due and
paable b the estate of C.N. 'od(es.
.. Cnder and pursuant to the orders of this 'onorable Court, particularl those of &anuar ;4
and /ebruar +, +5:4, and the mandate contained in its %etters of Administration issued on
&anuar ;4, +5:4 to the PC0B, it has
#full authorit to ta9e possession of all the propert of the deceased C. N. 'od(es
#and to perform all other acts necessar for the preservation of said propert.# )p. 5+4, C/0
Rec., *.P. No. +:.;.1
<. As administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es, the PC0B claims the ri(ht to the immediate
e7clusive possession and control of all of the properties, accounts receivables, court cases,
ban9 accounts and other assets, includin( the documentar records evidencin( same, which
;4 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
e7isted in the Philippines on the date of C. N. 'od(es> death, 3ecember ;6, +5:;, and were
in his possession and re(istered in his name alone. $he PC0B 9nows of no assets in the
Philippines re(istered in the name of %innie &ane 'od(es, the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es,
or, C. N. 'od(es, E7ecutor of the Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es on 3ecember ;6, +5:;. All of
the assets of which the PC0B has 9nowled(e are either re(istered in the name of C. N.
'od(es, alone or were derived therefrom since his death on 3ecember ;6, +5:;.
5. $he PC0B as the current administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es, deceased, succeeded
to all of the ri(hts of the previousl dul appointed administrators of the estate of C. N.
'od(es, to wit@
)a1 =n 3ecember ;6, +5:;, date of C. N. 'od(es> death, this 'onorable Court appointed Miss
Avelina A. Ma(no simultaneousl as@
)i1 Administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es )p. +-;, C/0 Rec., *.P. No. +,-.1 to
replace the deceased C. N. 'od(es who on Ma ;<, +56. was appointed *pecial
Administrator )p. +,. C/0 Rec. *.P. No. +,-.1 and on &ul +, +56. E7ecutor of the estate of
%innie &ane 'od(es )p. ,-, C/0 Rec., *. P. No. +,-.1.
)ii1 Special Administratri3 of the estate of C. ,. (odges )p. +-;, C/0 Rec., *.P. No. +,-.1.
)b1 =n 3ecember ;5, +5:; this 'onorable Court appointed 'arold Q. 3avies as co-special
administrator of the estate of C.N. 'od(es alon( with Avelina A. Ma(no )pp. +-<-+++, C/0
Rec., *. P. No. +,-.1.
)c1 =n &anuar ;;, +5:,, with the conformit of Avelina A. Ma(no, 'arold Q. 3avies resi(ned
in favor of &oe 'od(es )pp. ,6-,:, C/0 Rec., *.P. No. +:.;1 who thereupon was appointed on
&anuar ;;, +5:, b this 'onorable Court as special co-administrator of the estate of C.N.
'od(es )pp. ,<-4- N 4,, C/0 Rec. *.P. No. +:.;1 alon( with Miss Ma(no who at that time was
still actin( as special co-administratri7 of the estate of C. N. 'od(es.
)d1 =n /ebruar ;;, +5:,, without ob!ection on the part of Avelina A. Ma(no, this 'onorable
Court appointed &oe 'od(es and /ernando P. Mirasol as co-administrators of the estate of
C.N. 'od(es )pp. .:-.<, <+ N <6, C/0 Rec., *.P. No. +:.;1.
+-. Miss Avelina A. Ma(no, pursuant to the orders of this 'onorable Court of 3ecember ;6,
+5:;, too9 possession of all Philippine Assets now claimed b the two estates. %e(all, Miss
Ma(no could ta9e possession of the assets re(istered in the name of C. N. 'od(es alone onl
in her capacit as *pecial Administratri7 of the Estate of C.N. 'od(es. Gith the appointment
b this 'onorable Court on /ebruar ;;, +5:, of &oe 'od(es and /ernando P. Mirasol as the
co-administrators of the estate of C.N. 'od(es, the le(all were entitled to ta9e over from
Miss Ma(no the full and e7clusive possession of all of the assets of the estate of C.N.
'od(es. Gith the appointment on &anuar ;4, +5:4 of the PC0B as the sole administrator of
the estate of C.N. 'od(es in substitution of &oe 'od(es and /ernando P. Mirasol, the PC0B
le(all became the onl part entitled to the sole and e7clusive possession of all of the
assets of the estate of C. N. 'od(es.
++. $he PC0B>s predecessors submitted their accountin( and this 'onorable Court approved
same, to wit@
)a1 $he accountin( of 'arold Q. 3avies dated &anuar +<, +5:, )pp. +:-,,, C/0 Rec. *.P. No.
+:.;1" which shows or its face the@
;6 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
)i1 Conformit of Avelina A. Ma(no actin( as #Administratri7 of the Estate of %innie &ane
'od(es and *pecial Administratri7 of the Estate of C. N. 'od(es#"
)ii1 Conformit of %eslie Echols, a $e7as lawer actin( for the heirs of C.N. 'od(es" and
)iii1 Conformit of Gilliam Brown, a $e7as lawer actin( for the 'i(don famil who claim to be
the onl heirs of %innie &ane 'od(es )pp. +<, ;6-,,, C/0 Rec., *. P. No. +:.;1.
Note@ $his accountin( was approved b this 'onorable Court on &anuar ;;, +5:, )p. ,4, C/0
Rec., *. P. No. +:.;1.
)b1 $he accountin( of &oe 'od(es and /ernando P. Mirasol as of &anuar ;,, +5:4, 8led
/ebruar ;4, +5:4 )pp. 55--+---, C/0 Rec. *.P. No. +:.; and pp. +<-:-+<4<, C/0 Rec. *.P. No.
+,-.1.
Note@ $his accountin( was approved b this 'onorable Court on March ,, +5:4.
)c1 $he PC0B and its undersi(ned lawers are aware of no report or accountin( submitted b
Avelina A. Ma(no of her acts as administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es or special
administratri7 of the estate of C.N. 'od(es, unless it is the accountin( of 'arold Q. 3avies as
special co-administrator of the estate of C.N. 'od(es dated &anuar +<, +5:, to which Miss
Ma(no manifested her conformit )supra1.
+;. 0n the aforesaid a(reement of &anuar ;4, +5:4, Miss Avelina A. Ma(no a(reed to receive
P+-,---.--
#for her services as administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es#
and in addition she a(reed to be emploed, startin( /ebruar +, +5:4, at
#a monthl salar of P6--.-- for her services as an emploee of both estates.#
;4 ems.
+,. Cnder the aforesaid a(reement of &anuar ;4, +5:4 and the orders of this 'onorable
Court of same date, the PC0B as administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es is entitled to the
e7clusive possession of all records, properties and assets in the name of C. N. 'od(es as of
the date of his death on 3ecember ;6, +5:; which were in the possession of the deceased
C. N. 'od(es on that date and which then passed to the possession of Miss Ma(no in her
capacit as *pecial Co-Administratri7 of the estate of C. N. 'od(es or the possession of &oe
'od(es or /ernando P. Mirasol as co-administrators of the estate of C. N. 'od(es.
+4. Because of Miss Ma(no>s refusal to compl with the reasonable re2uest of PC0B
concernin( the assets of the estate of C. N. 'od(es, the PC0B dismissed Miss Ma(no as an
emploee of the estate of C. N. 'od(es e?ective Au(ust ,+, +5:4. =n *eptember +, +5:4
Miss Ma(no loc9ed the premises at ;-:-;-< Iuanco *treet and denied the PC0B access
thereto. Cpon the Cr(ent Motion of the PC0B dated *eptember ,, +5:4, this 'onorable Court
on *eptember ., +5:4 ordered Miss Ma(no to reopen the aforesaid premises at ;-:-;-<
Iuanco *treet and permit the PC0B access thereto no later than *eptember <, +5:4.
+6. $he PC0B pursuant to the aforesaid orders of this 'onorable Court is a(ain in phsical
possession of all of the assets of the estate of C. N. 'od(es. 'owever, the PC0B is not in
;: PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
e7clusive control of the aforesaid records, properties and assets because Miss Ma(no
continues to assert the claims hereinabove outlined in para(raph :, continues to use her
own loc9s to the doors of the aforesaid premises at ;-:-;-< Iuanco *treet, 0loilo Cit and
continues to den the PC0B its ri(ht to 9now the combinations to the doors of the vault and
safes situated within the premises at ;-:-;-< Iuanco *treet despite the fact that said
combinations were 9nown to onl C. N. 'od(es durin( his lifetime.
+:. $he Philippine estate and inheritance ta7es assessed the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es
were assessed and paid on the basis that C. N. 'od(es is the sole bene8ciar of the assets
of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es situated in the Philippines. Avelina A. Ma(no and her
le(al counsel at no time have 2uestioned the validit of the aforesaid assessment and the
pament of the correspondin( Philippine death ta7es.
+.. Nothin( further remains to be done in the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es e7cept to resolve
the aforesaid Motion of =ctober 6, +5:, and (rant the PC0B the e7clusive possession and
control of all of the records, properties and assets of the estate of C. N. 'od(es.
+<. *uch assets as ma have e7isted of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es were ordered b
this 'onorable Court in special Proceedin(s No. +,-. to be turned over and delivered to C.
N. 'od(es alone. 'e in fact too9 possession of them before his death and asserted and
e7ercised the ri(ht of e7clusive ownership over the said assets as the sole bene8ciar of the
estate of %innie &ane 'od(es.
G'ERE/=RE, premises considered, the PC0B respectfull petitions that this 'onorable court@
)+1 *et the Motion of =ctober 6, +5:, for hearin( at the earliest possible date with notice to
all interested parties"
);1 =rder Avelina A. Ma(no to submit an inventor and accountin( as Administratri7 of the
Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and Co-Administratri7 of the Estate of C. N. 'od(es of all of the
funds, properties and assets of an character belon(in( to the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es
and C. N. 'od(es which have come into her possession, with full details of what she has
done with them"
),1 =rder Avelina A. Ma(no to turn over and deliver to the PC0B as administrator of the estate
of C. N. 'od(es all of the funds, properties and assets of an character remainin( in her
possession"
)41 Pendin( this 'onorable Court>s ad!udication of the aforesaid issues, order Avelina A.
Ma(no and her representatives to stop interferrin( with the administration of the estate of C.
N. 'od(es b the PC0B and its dul authoriBed representatives"
)61 En!oin Avelina A. Ma(no from wor9in( in the premises at ;-:-;-< Iuanco *treet, 0loilo
Cit as an emploee of the estate of C. N. 'od(es and approve her dismissal as such b the
PC0B e?ective Au(ust ,+, +5:4"
):1 En!oin &ames %. *ullivan, Attornes Man(lapus and Juimpo and others alle(edl
representin( Miss Ma(no from enterin( the premises at ;-:-;-< Iuanco *treet, 0loilo Cit or
an other properties of C. N. 'od(es without the e7press permission of the PC0B"
).1 =rder such other relief as this 'onorable Court 8nds !ust and e2uitable in the premises.
)Anne7 #C# Petition.1
;. PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
=n &anuar <, +5:6, petitioner also 8led a motion for #=Kcial 3eclaration of 'eirs of %innie
&ane 'od(es Estate# alle(in(@
C=ME* N=G Philippine Commercial and 0ndustrial Ban9 )hereinafter referred to as PC0B1, as
administrator of the estate of the late C. N. 'od(es, throu(h the undersi(ned counsel, and
to this 'onorable Court respectfull alle(es that@
+. 3urin( their marria(e, spouses Charles Newton 'od(es and %innie &ane 'od(es, American
citiBens ori(inall from the *tate of $e7as, C.*.A., ac2uired and accumulated considerable
assets and properties in the Philippines and in the *tates of $e7as and =9lahoma, Cnited
*tates of America. All said properties constituted their con!u(al estate.
;. Althou(h $e7as was the domicile of ori(in of the 'od(es spouses, this 'onorable Court, in
its orders dated March ,+ and 3ecember +;, +5:4 )C/0 Record, *p. Proc. No. +,-., pp. ----"
*p. Proc. No. +:.;, p. ----1, conclusivel found and cate(oricall ruled that said spouses had
lived and wor9ed for more than 6- ears in 0loilo Cit and had, therefore, ac2uired a domicile
of choice in said cit, which the retained until the time of their respective deaths.
,. =n November ;;, +56;, %innie &ane 'od(es e7ecuted in the Cit of 0loilo her %ast Gill and
$estament, a cop of which is hereto attached as Anne3 >A>. $he be2uests in said will
pertinent to the present issue are the second, third, and fourth provisions, which we 2uote in
full hereunder.
*EC=N3@ 0 (ive, devise and be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m estate,
both personal and real, wherever situated, or located, to m husband, Charles Newton
'od(es, to have and to hold unto him, m said husband durin( his natural lifetime.
$'0R3@ 0 desire, direct and provide that m husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, shall have the
ri(ht to mana(e, control, use and en!o said estate durin( his lifetime, and he is hereb
(iven the ri(ht to ma9e an chan(es in the phsical properties of said estate b sale of an
part thereof which he thin9 best, and the purchase of an other or additional propert as he
ma thin9 best" to e7ecute conveances with or without (eneral or special warrant,
convein( in fee simple or for an other term or time, an propert which he ma deem
proper to dispose of" to lease an of the real propert for oil, (as andAor other minerals, and
all such deeds or leases shall pass the absolute fee simple title to the interest so conveed
in such propert as he ma elect to sell. All rents, emoluments and income from said estate
shall belon( to him, and he is further authoriBed to use an part of the principal of said
estate as he ma need or desire. 0t is provided herein, however, that he shall not sell or
otherwise dispose of an of the improved propert now owned b us located at, in or near
the Cit of %ubboc9, $e7as, but he shall have the full ri(ht to lease, mana(e and en!o the
same durin( his lifetime, as above provided. 'e shall have the ri(ht to sub-divide an
farmland and sell lots therein, and ma sell unimproved town lots.
/=CR$'@ At the death of m said husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, 0 (ive, devise and
be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m estate both real and personal,
wherever situated or located, to be e2uall divided amon( m brothers and sisters, share
and share ali9e, namel@
#Esta 'i(don, Emma 'owell, %eonard 'i(don, Ro 'i(don, *adie Rascoe, Era Boman and
Nimra 'i(don.#
4. =n November +4, +56,, C. N. 'od(es e7ecuted in the Cit of 0loilo his %ast Gill and
$estament, a cop of which is hereto attached as Anne3 >B >. 0n said Gill, C. N. 'od(es
;< PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
desi(nated his wife, %innie &ane 'od(es, as his bene8ciar usin( the identical lan(ua(e she
used in the second and third provisos of her Gill, supra.
6. =n Ma ;,, +56. %innie &ane 'od(es died in 0loilo Cit, predeceasin( her husband b more
than 8ve )61 ears. At the time of her death, she had no forced or compulsor heir, e7cept
her husband, C. N. 'od(es. *he was survived also b various brothers and sisters mentioned
in her Gill )supra1, which, for convenience, we shall refer to as the '0I3=N*.
:. =n &une ;<, +56., this 'onorable Court admitted to probate the %ast Gill and $estament
of the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es )Anne7 #A#1, and appointed C. N. 'od(es as e7ecutor of
her estate without bond. )C/0 Record, *p. Proc. No. +,-., pp. ;4-;61. =n &ul +, +56., this
'onorable Court issued letters testamentar to C. N. 'od(es in the estate of %innie &ane
'od(es. )C/0 Record, *p. Proc. No. +,-., p. ,-.1
.. $he Gill of %innie &ane 'od(es, with respect to the order of succession, the amount of
successional ri(hts, and the intrinsic of its testamentar provisions, should be (overned b
Philippine laws because@
)a1 $he testatri7, %innie &ane 'od(es, intended Philippine laws to (overn her Gill"
)b1 Article +: of the Civil Code provides that #the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever ma be the nature of the propert and
re(ardless of the countr wherein said propert ma be found#, shall prevail. 'owever, the
ConMict of %aw of $e7as, which is the #national law# of the testatri7, %innie &ane 'od(es,
provide that the domiciliar law )Philippine law F see para(raph ;, supra1 should (overn the
testamentar dispositions and successional ri(hts over movables )personal properties1, and
the law of the situs of the propert )also Philippine law as to properties located in the
Philippines1 with re(ards immovable )real properties1. $hus applin( the #Renvoi 3octrine#,
as approved and applied b our *upreme Court in the case of #0n $he Matter =f $he $estate
Estate of Eduard E. Christensen#, I.R. No.
%-+:.45, promul(ated &anuar ,+, +5:,, Philippine law should appl to the Gill of %innie &ane
'od(es and to the successional ri(hts to her estate insofar as
her mo&a4le andimmo&a4le assets in the Philippines are concerned. Ge shall not, at this
sta(e, discuss what law should (overn the assets of %innie &ane 'od(es located in =9lahoma
and $e7as, because the onl assets in issue in this motion are those within the !urisdiction of
this motion Court in the two above-captioned *pecial Proceedin(s.
<. Cnder Philippine and $e7as law, the con!u(al or communit estate of spouses shall, upon
dissolution, be divided e2uall between them. $hus, upon the death of %innie &ane 'od(es
on Ma ;,, +56., one-half )+A;1 of the entiret of the assets of the 'od(es spouses
constitutin( their con!u(al estate pertained automaticall to Charles Newton 'od(es, not 45
!a5 of inheritance, 4ut in his o!n right as partner in the conBugal partnership. $he other
one-half )+A;1 portion of the con!u(al estate constituted the estate of %innie &ane
'od(es. 'his is the onl5 portion of the conBugal estate capa4le of inheritance 45 her heirs.
5. $his one-half )+A;1 portion of the con!u(al assets pertainin( to %innie &ane 'od(es cannot,
under a clear and speci8c provision of her Gill, be enhanced or increased b income,
earnin(s, rents, or emoluments accruin( after her death on Ma ;,, +56.. %innie &ane
'od(es> Gill provides that #all rents, emoluments and income from said estate shall 4elong
to him @C. ,. (odgesA and he is further authorized to use an5 part of the principal of said
estate as he ma5 need or desire.# )Para(raph ,, Anne7 #A#.1 $hus, b speci8c provision of
%innie &ane 'od(es> Gill, #all rents, emoluments and income# must be credited to the one-
half )+A;1 portion of the con!u(al estate pertainin( to C. N. 'od(es. Clearl5, therefore, the
;5 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
estate of innie Jane (odges, capa4le of inheritance 45 her heirs, consisted e3clusi&el5 of no
more than one.half @:C8A of the conBugal estate, computed as of the time of her death on
Ma5 89, :;<=.
+-. Articles 5--, 556 and +--+ of the New Civil Code provide that the survivin( spouse of a
deceased leavin( no ascendants or descendants is entitled, as a matter of ri(ht and b wa
of irrevocable le(itime, to at least one-half )+A;1 of the estate of the deceased, and no
testamentar disposition b the deceased can le(all and validl a?ect this ri(ht of the
survivin( spouse. 0n fact, her husband is entitled to said one-half )+A;1 portion of her estate
b wa of le(itime. )Article <<:, Civil Code.1 Clearl, therefore, immediatel upon the death
of %innie &ane 'od(es, C. N. 'od(es was the owner of at least three-fourths ),A41 or sevent-
8ve ).6L1 percent of all of the con!u(al assets of the spouses, )+A; or 6-L b wa of
con!u(al partnership share and +A4 or ;6L b wa of inheritance and le(itime1 plus all
#rents, emoluments and income# accruin( to said con!u(al estate from the moment of %innie
&ane 'od(es> death )see para(raph 5, supra1.
++. $he late %innie &ane 'od(es desi(nated her husband C.N. 'od(es as her sole and
e7clusive heir with full authorit to do what he pleased, as e7clusive heir and owner of all
the assets constitutin( her estate, e7cept onl with re(ards certain properties #owned b us,
located at, in or near the Cit of %ubboc9, $e7as#. $hus, even without relin( on our laws of
succession and le(itime, which we have cited above, C. ,. (odges, 45 speciDc testamentar5
designation of his !ife, !as entitled to the entirel5 to his !ifeEs estate in the Philippines.
+;. Article ... of the New Civil Code provides that #the ri(hts of the successor are
transmitted from the death of the decedent#. $hus, title to the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es
was transmitted to C. N. 'od(es immediatel upon her death on Ma ;,, +56.. /or the
convenience of this 'onorable Court, we attached hereto as Anne7 #C# a (raph of how the
con!u(al estate of the spouses 'od(es should be divided in accordance with Philippine law
and the Gill of %innie &ane 'od(es.
+,. 0n his capacit as sole heir and successor to the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es as above-
stated, C. N. 'od(es, shortl after the death of %innie &ane 'od(es, appropriated to himself
the entiret of her estate. 'e operated all the assets, en(a(ed in business and performed all
acts in connection with the entiret of the con!u(al estate, in his o!n name alone, !ust as he
had been operatin(, en(a(in( and doin( while the late %innie &ane 'od(es was still
alive. +pon his death on 1ecem4er 8<, :;?8, therefore, all said conBugal assets !ere in his
sole possession and control, and registered in his name alone, not as e3ecutor, 4ut as
e3clusi&e o!ner of all said assets.
+4. All these acts of C. N. 'od(es were authoriBed and sanctioned e7pressl and impliedl
b various orders of this 'onorable Court, as follows@
)a1 0n an =rder dated Ma ;., +56., this 'onorable Court ruled that C. N. 'od(es #is allowed
or authoriBed to continue the business in which he was en(a(ed, and to perform acts which
he had been doin( while the deceased was livin(.# )C/0 Record, *p. Proc. No. +,-., p. ++.1
)b1 =n 3ecember +4, +56., this 'onorable Court, on the basis of the followin( fact, alle(ed
in the veri8ed Motion dated 3ecember ++, +56. 8led b %eon P. Iellada as attorne for the
e7ecutor C. N. 'od(es@
$hat herein E7ecutor, )is1 not onl part owner of the properties left as con!u(al, but also, the
successor to all the properties left b the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es.> )C/0 Record, *p.
Proc. No. +,-., p. 44" emphasis supplied.1
,- PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
issued the followin( order@
#As praed for b Attorne Iellada, counsel for the E7ecutor, for the reasons stated in his
motion dated 1ecem4er ::, :;<=, !hich the Court considers !ell taken, all the sales,
conveances, leases and mort(a(es of all the properties left b the deceased %innie &ane
'od(es e7ecuted b the E7ecutor, Charles Newton 'od(es are hereb APPR=EE3. $he said
E7ecutor is further authoriBed to e7ecute subse2uent sales, conveances, leases and
mort(a(es of the properties left b the said deceased %innie &ane 'od(es in consonance
!ith the !ishes contained in the last !ill and testament of the latter.# )C/0 Record. *p. Proc.
No. +,-., p. 4:" emphasis supplied.1
;4 ems
)c1 =n April ;+, +565, this 'onorable Court approved the veri8ed inventor and accountin(
submitted b C. N. 'od(es throu(h his counsel %eon P. Iellada on April +4, +565 wherein he
alle(ed amon( other thin(s,
#$hat no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of e7aminin( the herein
account, be (iven notice, as herein e3ecutor is the onl5 de&isee or legatee of the deceased,
in accordance !ith the last !ill and testament alread5 pro4ated 45 the (onora4le Court.#
)C/0 Record, *p. Proc. No. +,-., pp. ..-.<" emphasis supplied.1
)d1 =n &ul ;-, +5:-, this 'onorable Court approved the veri8ed #Annual *tatement of
Account# submitted b C. N. 'od(es throu(h his counsel %eon P. Iellada on &ul ;+, +5:-
wherein he alle(ed, amon( other thin(s.
#$hat no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of e7aminin( the herein
account, be (iven notice as herein e3ecutor is the onl5 de&isee or legatee of the deceased
innie Jane (odges, in accordance with the last will and testament ofthe deceased, alread
probated b this 'onorable Court.# )C/0 Record, *p. Proc. No. +,-., pp. <+-<;" emphasis
supplied.1
)e1 =n Ma ;, +5:+, this 'onorable Court approved the veri8ed #Annual *tatement of
Account B $he E7ecutor /or the Hear +5:-# submitted throu(h %eon P. Iellada on April ;-,
+5:+ wherein he alle(ed@
#$hat no person interested in the Philippines be (iven notice, ofthe time and place of
e7aminin( the herein account, as herein e3ecutor is the onl5 de&isee or legatee of the
deceased innie Jane (odges, in accordance !ith the last !ill and testament ofthe
deceased, alread5 pro4ated 45 this (onora4le Court.# )C/0 Record, *p. Proc. No. +,-., pp.
5--5+" emphasis supplied.1
+6. *ince C. N. 'od(es was the sole and e7clusive heir of %innie &ane 'od(es, not onl b
law, but in accordance with the dispositions of her will, there was, in fact, no need to
li2uidate the con!u(al estate of the spouses. $he entirel of said con!u(al estate pertained to
him e7clusivel, therefore this 'onorable Court sanctioned and authoriBed, as above-stated,
C. N. 'od(es to mana(e, operate and control all the con!u(al assets as owner.
+:. B e7pressl authoriBin( C. N. 'od(es to act as he did in connection with the estate of
his wife, this 'onorable Court has )+1 declared C. N. 'od(es as the sole heir of the estate of
%innie &ane 'od(es, and );1 delivered and distributed her estate to C. N. 'od(es as sole heir
in accordance with the terms and conditions of her Gill. $hus, althou(h the #estate of %innie
&ane 'od(es# still e7ists as a le(al and !uridical personalit, it had no assets or properties
,+ PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
located in the Philippines re(istered in its name whatsoever at the time of the death of C. N.
'od(es on 3ecember ;6, +5:;.
+.. $he Gill of %innie &ane 'od(es )Anne7 #A#1, fourth para(raph, provides as follows@
#At the death of m said husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, 0 (ive, devise and be2ueath all of
the rest, residue and remainder of m estate both real and personal, wherever situated or
located, to be e2uall divided amon( m brothers and sisters, share and share ali9e, namel@
#Esta 'i(don, Emma 'owell, %eonard 'i(don, Ro 'i(don, *adie Rascoe, Era Boman and
Nimra 'i(don.#
Because of the facts hereinabove set out there is no #rest, residue and remainder#, at least
to the e7tent of the Philippine assets, which remains to vest in the '0I3=N*, assumin( this
proviso in %innie &ane 'od(es> Gill is valid and bindin( a(ainst the estate of C. N. 'od(es.
+<. An claims b the '0I3=N* under the above-2uoted provision of %innie &ane 'od(es>
Gill is without merit because said provision is void and invalid at least as to the Philippine
assets. 0t should not, in anwa, a?ect the ri(hts of the estate of C. N. 'od(es or his heirs to
the properties, which C. N. 'od(es ac2uired b wa of inheritance from his wife %innie &ane
'od(es upon her death.
)a1 0n spite of the above-mentioned provision in the Gill of %innie &ane 'od(es, C. N. 'od(es
ac2uired, not merel a usufructuar ri(ht, but absolute title and ownership to her estate. 0n
a recent case involvin( a ver similar testamentar provision, the *upreme Court held that
the heir 8rst desi(nated ac2uired full ownership of the propert be2ueathed b the will, not
mere usufructuar ri(hts. )Consolacion /lorentino de Crisolo(o, et al., vs. Manuel *in(son, I.
R. No. %-+,<.:, /ebruar ;<, +5:;.1
)b1 Article <:4, <.; and <<: of the New Civil Code clearl provide that no char(e, condition
or substitution whatsoever upon the le(itime can be imposed b a testator. $hus, under the
provisions of Articles 5--, 556 and +--+ of the New Civil Code, the le(itime of a survivin(
spouse is +A; of the estate of the deceased spouse. Conse2uentl, the above-mentioned
provision in the Gill of %innie &ane 'od(es is clearl invalid insofar as the le(itime of C. N.
'od(es was concerned, which consisted of +A; of the +A; portion of the con!u(al estate, or
+A4 of the entire con!u(al estate of the deceased.
)c1 $here are (enerall onl two 9inds of substitution provided for and authoriBed b our Civil
Code )Articles <6.-<.-1, namel, )+1 simple or common substitution, sometimes referred to
as &ulgar substitution )Article <651, and );1 8deicommissar substitution )Article <:,1. All
other substitutions are merel variations of these. $he substitution provided for b
para(raph four of the Gill of %innie &ane 'od(es is not 8deicommissar substitution, because
there is clearl no obli(ation on the part of C. N. 'od(es as the 8rst heir desi(nated, to
preserve the properties for the substitute heirs. )Consolacion /lorentino de Crisolo(o et al.
vs. Manuel *in(son, I. R. No.
%-+,<.:.1 At most, it is a &ulgar or simple substitution. 'owever, in order that
a &ulgar orsimple substitution can be valid, three alternative conditions must be present,
namel, that the 8rst desi(nated heir )+1 should die before the testator" or );1 should not
wish to accept the inheritance" or ),1 should be incapacitated to do so. None of these
conditions appl to C. N. 'od(es, and, therefore, the substitution provided for b the above-
2uoted provision of the Gill is not authoriBed b the Code, and, therefore, it is void. Manresa,
commentin( on these 9isses of substitution, meanin(full stated that@ #... cuando el testador
institueun primer heredero, por fallecimiento de este nombra otro u otros, ha de
,; PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
entenderse 2ue estas se(undas desi(naciones solo han de lle(ar a tener efectividad en el
caso de 2ue el primer instituido muera antes 2ue el testador, fuera o no esta su verdadera
intencion. ...#. ): Manresa, . a ed., pa(. +.6.1 0n other words, !hen another heir is
designated to inherit upon the death of a Drst heir, the second designation can ha&e eFect
onl5 in case the Drst instituted heir dies 4efore the testator, !hether or not that !as the true
intention of said testator. *ince C. N. 'od(es did not die before %innie &ane 'od(es, the
provision for substitution contained in %innie &ane 'od(es> Gillis void.
)d1 0n view of the invalidit of the provision for substitution in the Gill, C. N. 'od(es>
inheritance to the entiret of the %innie &ane 'od(es estate is irrevocable and 8nal.
+5. Be that as it ma, at the time of C. N. 'od(es> death, the entiret of the con!u(al estate
appeared and was re(istered in him e7clusivel as owner. $hus, the presumption is that all
said assets constituted his estate. $herefore F
)a1 0f the '0I3=N* wish to enforce their dubious ri(hts as substituted heirs to +A4 of the
con!u(al estate )the other +A4 is covered b the le(itime of C. N. 'od(es which can not be
a?ected b an testamentar disposition1, their remed, if an, is to 8le their claim a(ainst
the estate of C. N. 'od(es, which should be entitled at the present time to full custod and
control of all the con!u(al estate of the spouses.
)b1 $he present proceedin(s, in which two estates e7ist under separate administration,
where the administratri7 of the %innie &ane 'od(es estate e7ercises an oKcious ri(ht to
ob!ect and intervene in matters a?ectin( e7clusivel the C. N. 'od(es estate, is anomalous.
G'ERE/=RE, it is most respectfull praed that after trial and reception of evidence, this
'onorable Court declare@
+. $hat the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es was and is composed e7clusivel of one-half )+A;1
share in the con!u(al estate of the spouses 'od(es, computed as of the date of her death on
Ma ;,, +56."
;. $hat the other half of the con!u(al estate pertained e7clusivel to C. N. 'od(es as his
share as partner in the con!u(al partnership"
,. $hat all #rents, emoluments and income# of the con!u(al estate accruin( after %innie &ane
'od(es> death pertains to C. N. 'od(es"
4. $hat C. N. 'od(es was the sole and e7clusive heir of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es"
6. $hat, therefore, the entire con!u(al estate of the spouses located in the Philippines, plus
all the #rents, emoluments and income# above-mentioned, now constitutes the estate of C.
N. 'od(es, capable of distribution to his heirs upon termination of *pecial Proceedin(s No.
+:.;"
:. $hat PC0B, as administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es, is entitled to full and e7clusive
custod, control and mana(ement of all said properties" and
.. $hat Avelina A. Ma(no, as administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es, as well as
the '0I3=N*, has no ri(ht to intervene or participate in the administration of the C. N.
'od(es estate.
,, PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
PC0B further pras for such and other relief as ma be deemed !ust and e2uitable in the
premises.#
)Record, pp. ;:6-;..1
Before all of these motions of petitioner could be resolved, however, on 3ecember ;+, +5:6,
private respondent Ma(no 8led her own #Motion for the =Kcial 3eclaration of 'eirs of the
Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es# as follows@
C=ME* N=G the Administratri7 of the Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and, throu(h
undersi(ned counsel, unto this 'onorable Court most respectfull states and manifests@
+. $hat the spouses Charles Newton 'od(es and %innie &ane 'od(es were American citiBens
who died at the Cit of 0loilo after havin( amassed and accumulated e7tensive properties in
the Philippines"
;. $hat on November ;;, +56;, %innie &ane 'od(es e7ecuted a last will and testament )the
ori(inal of this will now forms part of the records of these proceedin(s as E7hibit #C# and
appears as *p. Proc. No. +,-., /olio 0, pp. +.-+<1"
,. $hat on Ma ;,, +56., %innie &ane 'od(es died at the Cit of 0loilo at the time survived b
her husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, and several relatives named in her last will and
testament"
4. $hat on &une ;<, +56., a petition therefor havin( been priorl 8led and dul heard, this
'onorable Court issued an order admittin( to probate the last will and testament of %innie
&ane 'od(es )*p. Proc. No. +,-., /olio 0, pp. ;4-;6, ;:-;<1"
6. $hat the re2uired notice to creditors and to all others who ma have an claims a(ainst
the decedent, %innie &ane 'od(es has alread been printed, published and posted )*p. Proc.
No. +,-., /olio 0. pp. ,4-4-1 and the re(lamentar period for 8lin( such claims has lon( a(o
lapsed and e7pired without an claims havin( been asserted a(ainst the estate of %innie
&ane 'od(es, approved b the AdministratorAAdministratri7 of the said estate, nor rati8ed b
this 'onorable Court"
:. $hat the last will and testament of %innie &ane 'od(es alread admitted to probate
contains an institution of heirs in the followin( words@
#*EC=N3@ 0 (ive, devise and be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m estate,
both personal and real, wherever situated or located, to m beloved husband, Charles
Newton 'od(es to have and to hold unto him, m said husband, durin( his natural lifetime.
$'0R3@ 0 desire, direct and provide that m husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, shall have the
ri(ht to mana(e, control, use and en!o said estate durin( his lifetime, and, he is hereb
(iven the ri(ht to ma9e an chan(es in the phsical properties of said estate, b sale of an
part thereof which he ma thin9 best, and the purchase of an other or additional propert
as he ma thin9 best" to e7ecute conveances with or without (eneral or special warrant,
convein( in fee simple or for an other term or time, an propert which he ma deem
proper to dispose of" to lease an of the real propert for oil, (as andAor other minerals, and
all such deeds or leases shall pass the absolute fee simple title to the interest so conveed
in such propert as he elect to sell. All rents, emoluments and income from said estate shall
belon( to him, and he is further authoriBed to use an part of the principal of said estate as
he ma need or desire. 0t is provided herein, however, that he shall not sell or otherwise
,4 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
dispose of an of the improved propert now owned b us located at, in or near the Cit of
%ubboc9 $e7as, but he shall have the full ri(ht to lease, mana(e and en!o the same durin(
his lifetime, above provided. 'e shall have the ri(ht to subdivide an farm land and sell lots
therein, and ma sell unimproved town lots.
/=CR$'@ At the death of m said husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, 0 (ive, devise and
be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m estate, both real and personal,
wherever situated or located, to be e2uall divided amon( m brothers and sisters, share
and share ali9e, namel@
Esta 'i(don, Emma 'owell, %eonard 'i(don, Ro 'i(don, *adie Rascoe, Era Boman and
Nimro 'i(don.
/0/$'@ 0n case of the death of an of m brothers andAor sisters named in item /ourth,
above, prior to the death of m husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, then it is m will and
be2uest that the heirs of such deceased brother or sister shall ta9e !ointl the share which
would have (one to such brother or sister had she or he survived.#
.. $hat under the provisions of the last will and testament alread above-2uoted, %innie &ane
'od(es (ave a life-estate or a usufruct over all her estate to her husband, Charles Newton
'od(es, and a vested remainder-estate or the na9ed title over the same estate to her
relatives named therein"
<. $hat after the death of %innie &ane 'od(es and after the admission to probate of her last
will and testament, but durin( the lifetime of Charles Newton 'od(es, the said Charles
Newton 'od(es with full and complete 9nowled(e of the life-estate or usufruct conferred
upon him b the will since he was then actin( as Administrator of the estate and later as
E7ecutor of the will of %innie &ane 'od(es, une2uivocabl and clearl throu(h oral and
written declarations and sworn public statements, renounced, disclaimed and repudiated his
life-estate and usufruct over the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es"
5. $hat, accordin(l, the onl heirs left to receive the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es pursuant
to her last will and testament, are her named brothers and sisters, or their heirs, to wit@ Esta
'i(don, Emma 'owell, %eonard 'i(don, Aline 'i(don and 3avid 'i(don, the latter two bein(
the wife and son respectivel of the deceased Ro 'i(don, *adie Rascoe Era Boman and
Nimro 'i(don, all of le(al a(es, American citiBens, with residence at the *tate of $e7as,
Cnited *tates of America"
+-. $hat at the time of the death of %innie &ane 'od(es on Ma ;,, +56., she was the co-
owner )to(ether with her husband Charles Newton 'od(es1 of an undivided one-half interest
in their con!u(al properties e7istin( as of that date, Ma ;,, +56., which properties are now
bein( administered sometimes !ointl and sometimes separatel b the Administratri7 of the
estate of %innie &ane 'od(es andAor the Administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es but all of
which are under the control and supervision of this 'onorable Court"
++. $hat because there was no separation or se(re(ation of the interests of husband and
wife in the combined con!u(al estate, as there has been no such separation or se(re(ation
up to the present, both interests have continuall earned e7actl the same amount of #rents,
emoluments and income#, the entire estate havin( been continuall devoted to the business
of the spouses as if the were alive"
+;. $hat the one-half interest of %innie &ane 'od(es in the combined con!u(al estate was
earnin( #rents, emoluments and income# until her death on Ma ;,, +56., when it ceased to
,6 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
be saddled with an more char(es or e7penditures which are purel personal to her in
nature, and her estate 9ept on earnin( such #rents, emoluments and income# b virtue of
their havin( been e7pressl renounced, disclaimed and repudiated b Charles Newton
'od(es to whom the were be2ueathed for life under the last will and testament of %innie
&ane 'od(es"
+,. $hat, on the other hand, the one-half interest of Charles Newton 'od(es in the combined
con!u(al estate e7istin( as of Ma ;,, +56., while it ma have earned e7actl the same
amount of #rents, emoluments and income# as that of the share pertainin( to %innie &ane
'od(es, continued to be burdened b char(es, e7penditures, and other dispositions which
are purel personal to him in nature, until the death of Charles Newton 'od(es himself on
3ecember ;6, +5:;"
+4. $hat of all the assets of the combined con!u(al estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and Charles
Newton 'od(es as the e7ist toda, the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es is clearl entitled to a
portion more than 8ft percent )6-L1 as compared to the portion to which the estate of
Charles Newton 'od(es ma be entitled, which portions can be e7actl determined b the
followin( manner@
a. An inventor must be made of the assets of the combined con!u(al estate as the e7isted
on the death of %innie &ane 'od(es on Ma ;,, +56. F one-half of these assets belon( to
the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es"
b. An accountin( must be made of the #rents, emoluments and income# of all these assets F
a(ain one-half of these belon( to the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es"
c. Ad!ustments must be made, after ma9in( a deduction of char(es, disbursements and
other dispositions made b Charles Newton 'od(es personall and for his own personal
account from Ma ;,, +56. up to 3ecember ;6, +5:;, as well as other char(es,
disbursements and other dispositions made for him and in his behalf since 3ecember ;6,
+5:; up to the present"
+6. $hat there remains no other matter for disposition now insofar as the estate of %innie
&ane 'od(es is concerned but to complete the li2uidation of her estate, se(re(ate them from
the con!u(al estate, and distribute them to her heirs pursuant to her last will and testament.
G'ERE/=RE, premises considered, it is most respectfull moved and praed that this
'onorable Court, after a hearin( on the factual matters raised b this motion, issue an order@
a. 3eclarin( the followin( persons, to wit@ Esta 'i(don, Emma 'owell, %eonard 'i(don, Aline
'i(don, 3avid 'i(don, *adie Rascoe, Era Boman and Nimro 'i(don, as the sole heirs under
the last will and testament of %innie &ane 'od(es and as the onl persons entitled to her
estate"
b. 3eterminin( the e7act value of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es in accordance with the
sstem enunciated in para(raph +4 of this motion"
c. After such determination orderin( its se(re(ation from the combined con!u(al estate and
its deliver to the Administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es for distribution to the
heirs to whom the properl belon( and appertain.
)Ireen Record on Appeal, pp. ,<;-,5+1
,: PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
whereupon, instead of further pressin( on its motion of &anuar <, +5:6 afore2uoted, as it
had been doin( before, petitioner withdrew the said motion and in addition to opposin( the
above motion of respondent Ma(no, 8led a motion on April ;;, +5:: alle(in( in part that@
+. $hat it has received from the counsel for the administratri7 of the supposed estate of
%innie &ane 'od(es a notice to set her #Motion for =Kcial 3eclaration of 'eirs of the Estate
of %innie &ane 'od(es#"
;. $hat before the aforesaid motion could be heard, there are matters pendin( before this
'onorable Court, such as@
a. $he e7amination alread ordered b this 'onorable Court of documents relatin( to the
alle(ation of Avelina Ma(no that Charles Newton 'od(es #throu(h ... written declarations
and sworn public statements, renounced, disclaimed and repudiated life-estate and usufruct
over the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es>"
b. $hat #Cr(ent Motion for An Accountin( and 3eliver to the Estate of C. N. 'od(es of All
the Assets of the Con!u(al Partnership of the 3eceased %innie &ane 'od(es and C. N. 'od(es
E7istin( as of Ma ;,, +56. Plus All the Rents, Emoluments and 0ncome $herefrom#"
c. Earious motions to resolve the aforesaid motion"
d. Manifestation of *eptember +4, +5:4, detailin( acts of interference of Avelina Ma(no
under color of title as administratri7 of the Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es"
which are all pre!udicial, and which involve no issues of fact, all facts involved therein bein(
matters of record, and therefore re2uire onl the resolution of 2uestions of law"
,. $hat whatever claims an alle(ed heirs or other persons ma have could be ver easil
threshed out in the $estate Estate of Charles Newton 'od(es"
4. $hat the maintenance of two separate estate proceedin(s and two administrators onl
results in confusion and is undul burdensome upon the $estate Estate of Charles Newton
'od(es, particularl because the bond 8led b Avelina Ma(no is (rossl insuKcient to
answer for the funds and propert which she has inoKciousl collected and held, as well as
those which she continues to inoKciousl collect and hold"
6. $hat it is a matter of record that such state of a?airs a?ects and inconveniences not onl
the estate but also third-parties dealin( with it"# )Anne7 #E#, Petition.1
and then, after further remindin( the court, b 2uotin( them, of the relevant alle(ations of
its earlier motion of *eptember +4, +5:4, Anne7 C, praed that@
+. 0mmediatel order Avelina Ma(no to account for and deliver to the administrator of the
Estate of C. N. 'od(es all the assets of the con!u(al partnership of the deceased %innie &ane
'od(es and C. N. 'od(es, plus all the rents, emoluments and income therefrom"
;. Pendin( the consideration of this motion, immediatel order Avelina Ma(no to turn over all
her collections to the administrator Philippine Commercial N 0ndustrial Ban9"
,. 3eclare the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es )*p. Proc. No. +,-.1 closed"
,. PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
4. 3efer the hearin( and consideration of the motion for declaration of heirs in the $estate
Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es until the matters hereinabove set forth are resolved.
)Praer, Anne7 #E# of Petition.1
=n =ctober +;, +5::, as alread indicated at the outset of this opinion, the respondent court
denied the fore(oin( motion, holdin( thus@
= R 3 E R
=n record is a motion )Eol. D, *p. +:.;, pp. 4,.5-4,5-1 dated April ;;, +5:: of administrator
PC0B prain( that )+1 0mmediatel order Avelina Ma(no to account for and deliver to the
administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es all assets of the con!u(al partnership of the
deceased %innie &ane 'od(es and C. N. 'od(es, plus all the rents, emoluments and income
therefrom" );1 Pendin( the consideration of this motion, immediatel order Avelina Ma(no to
turn over all her collections to the administrator PC0B" ),1 3eclare the $estate Estate of
%innie &ane 'od(es )*p. Proc. No. +,-.1 closed" and )41 3efer the hearin( and consideration
of the motion for declaration of heirs in the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es until the
matters hereinabove set forth are resolved.
$his motion is predicated on the fact that there are matters pendin( before this court such
as )a1 the e7amination alread ordered b this 'onorable Court of documents relatin( to the
alle(ation of Avelina Ma(no that Charles Newton 'od(es thru written declaration and sworn
public statements renounced, disclaimed and repudiated his life-estate and usufruct over
the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es )b1 the ur(ent motion for accountin( and deliver to the
estate of C. N. 'od(es of all the assets of the con!u(al partnership of the deceased %innie
&ane 'od(es and C. N. 'od(es e7istin( as of Ma ;,, +56. plus all the rents, emoluments
and income therefrom" )c1 various motions to resolve the aforesaid motion" and )d1
manifestation of *eptember +4, +5:4, detailin( acts of interference of Avelina Ma(no under
color of title as administratri7 of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es.
$hese matters, accordin( to the instant motion, are all pre-!udicial involvin( no issues of
facts and onl re2uire the resolution of 2uestion of law" that in the motion of =ctober 6,
+5:, it is alle(ed that in a motion dated 3ecember ++, +56. 8led b Att. %eon Iellada as
attorne for the e7ecutor C. N. 'od(es, the said e7ecutor C. N. 'od(es is not onl part owner
of the properties left as con!u(al but also the successor to all the properties left b the
deceased %innie &ane 'od(es.
*aid motion of 3ecember ++, +56. was approved b the Court in consonance with the
wishes contained in the last will and testament of %innie &ane 'od(es.
$hat on April ;+, +565 this Court approved the inventor and accountin( submitted b C. N.
'od(es thru counsel Att. %eon Iellada in a motion 8led on April +4, +565 statin( therein
that e7ecutor C. N. 'od(es is the onl devisee or le(atee of %innie &ane 'od(es in
accordance with the last will and testament alread probated b the Court.
$hat on &ul +,, +5:- the Court approved the annual statement of accounts submitted b
the e7ecutor C. N. 'od(es thru his counsel Att. Iellada on &ul ;+, +5:- wherein it is stated
that the e7ecutor, C. N. 'od(es is the onl devisee or le(atee of the deceased %innie &ane
'od(es" that on Ma ;, +5:+ the Court approved the annual statement of accounts
submitted b e7ecutor, C. N. 'od(es for the ear +5:- which was submitted b Att. Iellada
on April ;-, +5:+ wherein it is stated that e7ecutor 'od(es is the onl devisee or le(atee of
the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es"
,< PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
$hat durin( the hearin( on *eptember 6 and :, +5:, the estate of C. N. 'od(es claimed all
the assets belon(in( to the deceased spouses %innie &ane 'od(es and C. N. 'od(es situated
in the Philippines" that administratri7 Ma(no has e7ecuted ille(al acts to the pre!udice of the
testate estate of C. N. 'od(es.
An opposition )*p. +:.;, Eol. D, pp. 44+6-44;+1 dated April ;., +5:: of administratri7 Ma(no
has been 8led as9in( that the motion be denied for lac9 of merit and that the motion for the
oKcial declaration of heirs of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es be set for presentation and
reception of evidence.
0t is alle(ed in the aforesaid opposition that the e7amination of documents which are in the
possession of administratri7 Ma(no can be made prior to the hearin( of the motion for the
oKcial declaration of heirs of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es, durin( said hearin(.
$hat the matters raised in the PC0B>s motion of =ctober 6, +5:, )as well as the other motion1
dated *eptember +4, +5:4 have been consolidated for the purpose of presentation and
reception of evidence with the hearin( on the determination of the heirs of the estate of
%innie &ane 'od(es. 0t is further alle(ed in the opposition that the motion for the oKcial
declaration of heirs of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es is the one that constitutes a
pre!udicial 2uestion to the motions dated =ctober 6 and *eptember +4, +5:4 because if said
motion is found meritorious and (ranted b the Court, the PC0B>s motions of =ctober 6, +5:,
and *eptember +4, +5:4 will become moot and academic since the are premised on the
assumption and claim that the onl heir of %innie &ane 'od(es was C. N. 'od(es.
$hat the PC0B and counsel are estopped from further 2uestionin( the determination of heirs
in the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es at this sta(e since it was PC0B as earl as &anuar <, +5:6
which 8led a motion for oKcial declaration of heirs of %innie &ane 'od(es that the claim of
an heirs of %innie &ane 'od(es can be determined onl in the administration proceedin(s
over the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and not that of C. N. 'od(es, since the heirs of %innie
&ane 'od(es are claimin( her estate and not the estate of C. N. 'od(es.
A repl )*p. +:.;, Eol. D, pp. 44,:-44441 dated Ma ++, +5:: of the PC0B has been 8led
alle(in( that the motion dated April ;;, +5:: of the PC0B is not to see9 deferment of the
hearin( and consideration of the motion for oKcial declaration of heirs of %innie &ane 'od(es
but to declare the testate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es closed and for administratri7 Ma(no
to account for and deliver to the PC0B all assets of the con!u(al partnership of the deceased
spouses which has come to her possession plus all rents and income.
A re!oinder )*p. +:.;, Eol. D, pp. 446<-44:;1 of administratri7 Ma(no dated Ma +5, +5::
has been 8led alle(in( that the motion dated 3ecember ++, +56. onl sou(ht the approval
of all conveances made b C. N. 'od(es and re2uested the Court authorit for all
subse2uent conveances that will be e7ecuted b C. N. 'od(es" that the order dated
3ecember +4, +56. onl approved the conveances made b C. N. 'od(es" that C. N.
'od(es represented b counsel never made an claim in the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es
and never 8led a motion to declare himself as the heir of the said %innie &ane 'od(es despite
the lapse of more than 8ve )61 ears after the death of %innie &ane 'od(es" that it is further
alle(ed in the re!oinder that there can be no order of ad!udication of the estate unless there
has been a prior e7press declaration of heirs and so far no declaration of heirs in the estate
of %innie &ane 'od(es )*p. +,-.1 has been made.
Considerin( the alle(ations and ar(uments in the motion and of the PC0B as well as those in
the opposition and re!oinder of administratri7 Ma(no, the Court 8nds the opposition and
,5 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
re!oinder to be well ta9en for the reason that so far there has been no oKcial declaration of
heirs in the testate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and therefore no disposition of her estate.
G'ERE/=RE, the motion of the PC0B dated April ;;, +5:: is hereb 3EN0E3.
)Anne7 #G#, Petition1
0n its motion dated November ;4, +5:: for the reconsideration of this order, petitioner
alle(ed inter alia that@
0t cannot be over-stressed that the motion of 3ecember ++, +56. was based on the fact that@
a. Cnder the last will and testament of the deceased, %innie &ane 'od(es, the late Charles
Newton 'od(es was the sole heir instituted insofar as her properties in the Philippines are
concerned"
b. *aid last will and testament vested upon the said late Charles Newton 'od(es ri(hts over
said properties which, in sum, spell ownership, absolute and in fee simple"
c. *aid late Charles Newton 'od(es was, therefore, #not onl part owner of the properties
left as con!u(al, but also, the successor to all the properties left b the deceased %innie &ane
'od(es.
%i9ewise, it cannot be over-stressed that the aforesaid motion was (ranted b this 'onorable
Court #for the reasons stated# therein.
A(ain, the motion of 3ecember ++, +56. praed that not onl #all the sales, conveances,
leases, and mort(a(es e7ecuted b# the late Charles Newton 'od(es, but also all #the
subse2uent sales, conveances, leases, and mort(a(es ...# be approved and authoriBed. $his
'onorable Court, in its order of 3ecember +4, +56., #for the reasons stated# in the aforesaid
motion, (ranted the same, and not onl approved all the sales, conveances, leases and
mort(a(es of all properties left b the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es e7ecuted b the late
Charles Newton 'od(es, but also authoriBed #all subse2uent sales, conveances, leases and
mort(a(es of the properties left b the said deceased %innie &ane 'od(es. )Anne7 #D#,
Petition1
and reiterated its fundamental pose that the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es had
alread been factuall, althou(h not le(all, closed with the virtual declaration of 'od(es
and ad!udication to him, as sole universal heir of all the properties of the estate of his wife,
in the order of 3ecember +4, +56., Anne7 I. *till unpersuaded, on &ul +<, +5:., respondent
court denied said motion for reconsideration and held that #the court believes that there is
no !usti8cation wh the order of =ctober +;, +5:: should be considered or modi8ed#, and,
on &ul +5, +5:., the motion of respondent Ma(no #for oKcial declaration of heirs of the
estate of %innie &ane 'od(es#, alread referred to above, was set for hearin(.
0n conse2uence of all these developments, the present petition was 8led on Au(ust +, +5:.
)albeit petitioner had to pa another doc9etin( fee on Au(ust 5, +5:., since the orders in
2uestion were issued in two separate testate estate proceedin(s, Nos. +,-. and +:.;, in the
court below1.
$o(ether with such petition, there are now pendin( before Cs for resolution herein, appeals
from the followin(@
4- PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
+. $he order of 3ecember +5, +5:4 authoriBin( pament b respondent Ma(no of overtime
pa, )pp. ;;+, Ireen Record on Appeal1 to(ether with the subse2uent orders of &anuar 5,
+5:6, )pp. ;,+-;,;, id.1 =ctober ;., +5:6, )pp. ;;., id.1 and /ebruar +6, +5:: )pp. 466-
46:, id.1 repeatedl denin( motions for reconsideration thereof.
;. $he order of Au(ust :, +5:6 )pp. ;4<, id.1 re2uirin( that deeds e7ecuted b petitioner to
be co-si(ned b respondent Ma(no, as well as the order of =ctober ;., +5:6 )pp. ;.:-;..1
denin( reconsideration.
,. $he order of =ctober ;., +5:6 )pp. ;5;-;56, id.1 en!oinin( the deposit of all collections in
a !oint account and the same order of /ebruar +6, +5:: mentioned in No. + above which
included the denial of the reconsideration of this order of =ctober ;., +5:6.
4. $he order of November ,, +5:6 )pp. ,+,-,;-, id.1 directin( the pament of attorne>s
fees, fees of the respondent administratri7, etc. and the order of /ebruar +:, +5:: denin(
reconsideration thereof.
6. $he order of November ;,, +5:6 )pp. ,,4-,,6, id.1 allowin( appellee Gestern 0nstitute of
$echnolo( to ma9e paments to either one or both of the administrators of the two estates
as well as the order of March ., +5:: )p. 4:;, id.1 denin( reconsideration.
:. $he various orders hereinabove earlier enumerated approvin( deeds of sale e7ecuted b
respondent Ma(no in favor of appellees Carles, Catedral, Pablito, IuBman, Coronado,
Barrido, Causin(, &avier, %ucero and Batisanan, )see pp. ,6 to ,. of this opinion1, to(ether
with the two separate orders both dated 3ecember ;, +5:: )pp. ,-:-,-<, and pp. ,-<-,-5,
Hellow Record on Appeal1 denin( reconsideration of said approval.
.. $he order of &anuar ,, +5:., on pp. ,,6-,,:, Hellow Record on Appeal, approvin( similar
deeds of sale e7ecuted b respondent Ma(no, as those in No. :, in favor of appellees
Pacaonsis and Premalon, as to which no motion for reconsideration was 8led.
<. %astl, the order of 3ecember ;, +5::, on pp. ,-6-,-:, Hellow Record on Appeal, directin(
petitioner to surrender to appellees %ucero, Batisanan, &avier, Pablito, Barrido, Catedral,
Causin(, IuBman, and Coronado, the certi8cates of title coverin( the lands involved in the
approved sales, as to which no motion for reconsideration was 8led either.
*trictl spea9in(, and considerin( that the above orders deal with di?erent matters, !ust as
the a?ect distinctl di?erent individuals or persons, as outlined b petitioner in its brief as
appellant on pp. +;-;- thereof, there are, therefore, thirt-three ),,1 appeals before Cs, for
which reason, petitioner has to pa also thirt-one ),+1 more doc9et fees.
0t is as well perhaps to state here as elsewhere in this opinion that in connection with these
appeals, petitioner has assi(ned a total of sevent-ei(ht )%DDE0001 alle(ed errors, the
respective discussions and ar(uments under all of them coverin( also the fundamental
issues raised in respect to the petition for certiorari and prohibition, thus ma9in( it feasible
and more practical for the Court to dispose of all these cases to(ether.

$he assi(nments of error read thus@
0 to 0E
4+ PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
$'E =R3ER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E /0NA% 3EE3* =/ *A%E 0N /AE=R =/ $'E
APPE%%EE*, PEP0$= I. 0HC%=RE*, E*P0R030=N PAR$0*A%A, G0N0/RE3= C. E*PA3A AN3
R=*AR0= A%0NIA*A, EDECC$E3 BH $'E APPE%%EE, AEE%0NA A. MAIN=, C=EER0NI PARCE%*
=/ %AN3 =GNE3 BH $'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E* NEG$=N '=3IE*, AN3 $'E C=N$RAC$* $=
*E%% C=EER0NI G'0C' GERE EDECC$E3 BH '0M 3CR0NI '0* %0/E$0ME.
E to E000
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E 3EE3* =/ *A%E 0N /AE=R =/ $'E APPE%%EE*,
PEP0$= I. 0HC%=RE*, E*P0R030=N PAR$0*A%A, G0N0/RE3= C. E*PA3A AN3 R=*AR0=
A%0NIA*A, C=EER0NI PARCE%* =/ %AN3 /=R G'0C' $'EH 'AEE NEEER PA03 0N /C%% 0N
ACC=R3ANCE G0$' $'E =R0I0NA% C=N$RAC$* $= *E%%.
0D to D00
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N 3E$ERM0N0NI $'E R0I'$* =/ =GNER*'0P =EER REA%
PR=PER$H =/ $'E APPE%%EE*, PEP0$= I. 0HC%=RE*, E*P0R030=N PAR$0*A%A, G0N0/RE3= C.
E*PA3A AN3 R=*AR0= A%0NIA*A, G'0%E AC$0NI A* A PR=BA$E C=CR$.
D000 to DE
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E /0NA% 3EE3* =/ *A%E 0N /AE=R =/ $'E
APPE%%EE* A3E%/A PREMAH%=N )%=$ N=. +-;1, *AN$0AI= PACA=N*0*, AN3 A3E%/A
PREMAH%=N )%=$ N=. +-41, EDECC$E3 BH $'E APPE%%EE, AEE%0NA A. MAIN=, C=EER0NI
PARCE%* =/ %AN3 =GNE3 BH $'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E* NEG$=N '=3IE*, AN3 $'E
C=N$RAC$* $= *E%% C=EER0NI G'0C' GERE EDECC$E3 BH '0M 3CR0NI '0* %0/E$0ME.
DE0 to DE000
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E 3EE3* =/ *A%E 0N /AE=R =/ $'E APPE%%EE*
A3E%/A PREMAH%=N )%=$ N=. +-;1, *AN$0AI= PACA=N*0*, AN3 A3E%/A PREMAH%=N )%=$
N=. +-41 C=EER0NI PARCE%* =/ %AN3 /=R G'0C' $'EH 'AEE NEEER PA03 0N /C%% 0N
ACC=R3ANCE G0$' $'E =R0I0NA% C=N$RAC$* $= *E%%.
D0D to DD0
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N 3E$ERM0N0NI $'E R0I'$* =/ =GNER*'0P =EER REA%
PR=PER$H =/ $'E APPE%%EE* A3E%/A PREMAH%=N )%=$ N=. +-;1, *AN$0AI= PACA=N*0*,
AN3 A3E%/A PREMAH%=N )%=$ N=. +-41 G'0%E AC$0NI A* A PR=BA$E C=CR$.
DD00 to DDE
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E /0NA% 3EE3* =/ *A%E 0N /AE=R =/ $'E
APPE%%EE* %=RENR= CAR%E*, &=*E PAB%0C=, A%/RE3= CA$E3RA% AN3 *A%EA3=R *.
ICRMAN, EDECC$E3 BH $'E APPE%%EE, AEE%0NA A. MAIN=, C=EER0NI PARCE%* =/ %AN3
=GNE3 BH $'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E* NEG$=N '=3IE*, AN3 $'E C=N$RAC$* $= *E%%
C=EER0NI G'0C' GERE EDECC$E3 BH '0M 3CR0NI '0* %0/E$0ME.
DDE0 to DD0D
4; PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E /0NA% 3EE3 =/ *A%E EDECC$E3 0N /AE=R =/
$'E APPE%%EE*, %=RENR= CAR%E*, &=*E PAB%0C=, A%/RE3= CA$E3RA% AN3 *A%EA3=R *.
ICRMAN PCR*CAN$ $= C=N$RAC$* $= *PE%% G'0C' GERE CANCE%%E3 AN3 RE*C0N3E3.
DDD to DDD0E
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N 3E$ERM0N0NI $'E R0I'$* =/ =GNER*'0P =EER REA%
PR=PER$H =/ $'E %=RENR= CAR%E*, &=*E PAB%0C=, A%/RE3= CA$E3RA% AN3 *A%EA3=R *.
ICRMAN, G'0%E AC$0NI A* A PR=BA$E C=CR$.
DDDE to DDDE0
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E /0NA% 3EE3* =/ *A%E 0N /AE=R =/ $'E
APPE%%EE*, /%=REN0A BARR03= AN3 PCR0/0CAC0=N C=R=NA3=, EDECC$E3 BH $'E
APPE%%EE, AEE%0NA A. MAIN=, C=EER0NI PARCE%* =/ %AN3 =GNE3 BH $'E 3ECEA*E3,
C'AR%E* NEG$=N '=3IE*, AN3 $'E C=N$RAC$* $= *E%% C=EER0NI G'0C' GERE
EDECC$E3 BH '0M 3CR0NI '0* %0/E$0ME.
DDDE00 to DDDE000
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E 3EE3* =/ *A%E 0N /AE=R =/ $'E APPE%%EE*,
/%=REN0A BARR03= AN3 PCR0/0CAC0=N C=R=NA3=, A%$'=CI' $'EH GERE 0N ARREAR* 0N
$'E PAHMEN$* AIREE3 CP=N 0N $'E =R0I0NA% C=N$RAC$ $= *E%% G'0C' $'EH EDECC$E3
G0$' $'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E* NEG$=N '=3IE*, 0N $'E AM=CN$ =/ P+-,:<-.-- and
P4,4;<.5-, RE*PEC$0EE%H.
DDD0D to D%
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N 3EPR0E0NI $'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E* NEG$=N '=3IE*, =/
$'E C=N$RAC$CA% R0I'$, EDERC0*E3 $'R=CI' '0* A3M0N0*$RA$=R, $'E 0N*$AN$
APPE%%AN$, $= CANCE% $'E C=N$RAC$* $= *E%% =/ $'E APPE%%EE*, /%=REN0A BARR03=
AN3 PCR0/0CAC0=N C=R=NA3=.
D%0 to D%000
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E /0NA% 3EE3* =/ *A%E 0N /AE=R =/ $'E
APPE%%EE*, IRAC0AN= %CCER=, AR0$E= $'=MA* &AM0R AN3 ME%JC0A3E* BA$0*ANAN,
EDECC$E3 BH $'E APPE%%EE, AEE%0NA A. MAIN=, C=EER0NI PARCE%* =/ %AN3 =GNE3 BH
$'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E* NEG$=N '=3IE*, AN3 $'E C=N$RAC$* $= *E%% C=EER0NI
G'0C' GERE EDECC$E3 BH '0M 3CR0NI '0* %0/E$0ME.
D%0E to D%E0
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E /0NA% 3EE3 =/ *A%E 0N /AE=R =/ $'E
APPE%%EE*, IRAC0AN= %CCER=, AR0$E= $'=MA* &AM0R AN3 ME%JC0A3E* BA$0*ANAN,
PCR*CAN$ $= C=N$RAC$* $= *E%% EDECC$E3 BH $'EM G0$' $'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E*
NEG$=N '=3IE*, $'E $ERM* AN3 C=N30$0=N* =/ G'0C' $'EH 'AEE NEEER C=MP%0E3
G0$'.
D%E00 to D%0D
4, PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N 3EPR0E0NI $'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E* NEG$=N '=3IE*, =/
'0* R0I'$, EDERC0*E3 $'R=CI' '0* A3M0N0*$RA$0=N, $'E 0N*$AN$ APPE%%AN$, $=
CANCE% $'E C=N$RAC$* $= *E%% =/ $'E APPE%%EE*, IRAC0AN= %CCER=, AR0$E= $'=MA*
&AM0R AN3 ME%JC0A3E* BA$0*ANAN, AN3 0N 3E$ERM0N0NI $'E R0I'$* =/ $'E *A03
APPE%%EE* =EER REA% PR=PER$H G'0%E AC$0NI A* A PR=BA$E C=CR$.
%
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E /0NA% 3EE3* =/ *A%E 0N /AE=R =/ $'E
APPE%%EE, BE%CE*AR CAC*0NI, EDECC$E3 BH $'E APPE%%EE, AEE%0NA A. MAIN=,
C=EER0NI PARCE%* =/ %AN3 =GNE3 BH $'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E* NEG$=N '=3IE*, AN3
$'E C=N$RAC$* $= *E%% C=EER0NI G'0C' GERE EDECC$E3 BH '0M 3CR0NI '0* %0/E$0ME.
%0
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E 3EE3* =/ *A%E 0N /AE=R =/ $'E APPE%%EE,
BE%CE*AR CAC*0NI, A%$'=CI' 'E GA* 0N ARREAR* 0N $'E PAHMEN$* AIREE3 CP=N 0N
$'E =R0I0NA% C=N$RAC$ $= *E%% G'0C' 'E EDECC$E3 G0$' $'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E*
NEG$=N '=3IE*, 0N $'E AM=CN$ =/ P;,,,..6-.
%00
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N APPR=E0NI $'E 3EE3 =/ *A%E 0N /AE=R =/ $'E APPE%%EE,
BE%CE*AR CAC*0NI, A%$'=CI' $'E *AME GA* N=$ EDECC$E3 0N ACC=R3ANCE G0$' $'E
RC%E* =/ C=CR$.
%000 to %D0
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N =R3ER0NI $'E APPE%%AN$, P'0%0PP0NE C=MMERC0A% AN3
0N3C*$R0A% BANQ $= *CRREN3ER $'E =GNER>* 3CP%0CA$E CER$0/0CA$E* =/ $0$%E =EER
$'E RE*PEC$0EE %=$* C=EERE3 BH $'E 3EE3* =/ *A%E EDECC$E3 BH $'E APPE%%EE,
AEE%0NA A. MAIN=, 0N /AE=R =/ $'E =$'ER APPE%%EE*, &=*E PAB%0C=, A%/RE3=
CA$E3RA%, *A%EA3=R *. ICRMAN, /%REN0A BARR03=, PCR0/0CAC0=N C=R=NA3=,
BE%CE*AR CAC*0NI, AR0$E= $'=MA* &AM0R, MAD0MA BA$0*ANAN AN3 IRAC0AN= %.
%CCER=.
%D00
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N RE*=%E0NI $'E M=$0=N =/ $'E APPE%%EE, GE*$ERN
0N*$0$C$E =/ $EC'N=%=IH, 3A$E3 N=EEMBER ,, +5:6, G0$'=C$ ANH C=PH $'ERE=/
'AE0NI BEEN *EREE3 CP=N $'E APPE%%AN$, P'0%0PP0NE C=MMERC0A% N 0N3C*$R0A% BANQ.
%D000
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N 'EAR0NI AN3 C=N*03ER0NI $'E M=$0=N =/ $'E APPE%%EE,
GE*$ERN 0N*$0$C$E =/ $EC'N=%=IH, 3A$E3 N=EEMBER ,rd, +5:6, =N N=EEMBER ;,,
+5:6, G'EN $'E N=$0CE /=R $'E 'EAR0NI $'ERE=/ GA* /=R N=EEMBER ;-, +5:6.
%D0E
44 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N IRAN$0NI $'E APPE%%EE, GE*$ERN 0N*$0$C$E =/
$EC'N=%=IH A RE%0E/ =$'ER $'AN $'A$ PRAHE3 /=R 0N 0$* M=$0=N, 3A$E3 N=EEMBER
,, +5:6, 0N $'E AB*ENCE =/ A PRAHER /=R IENERA% RE%0E/ C=N$A0NE3 $'ERE0N.
%DE
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N A%%=G0NI $'E APPE%%EE, GE*$ERN 0N*$0$C$E =/
$EC'N=%=IH, $= C=N$0NCE PAHMEN$* CP=N A C=N$RAC$ $= *E%% $'E $ERM* AN3
C=N30$0=N* =/ G'0C' 0$ 'A* /A0%E3 $= /C%/0%%.
%DE0
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N 3E$ERM0N0NI $'E R0I'$* =/ $'E APPE%%EE, GE*$ERN
0N*$0$C$E =/ $EC'N=%=IH =EER $'E REA% PR=PER$H *CB&EC$ MA$$ER =/ $'E C=N$RAC$
$= *E%% 0$ EDECC$E3 G0$' $'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E* NEG$=N '=3IE*, G'0%E AC$0NI A*
A PR=BA$E C=CR$.
%DE00
%=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N A%%=G0NI $'E C=N$0NCA$0=N =/ PAHMEN$* BH $'E APPE%%EE,
GE*$ERN 0N*$0$C$E =/ $EC'N=%=IH, CP=N A C=N$RAC$ $= *E%% EDECC$E3 BH 0$ AN3
$'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E* NEG$=N '=3IE*, $= A PER*=N =$'ER $'AN '0* %AG/C%%H
APP=0N$E3 A3M0N0*$RA$=R.
%DE000
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N =R3ER0NI $'E PAHMEN$ =/ RE$A0NER>* /EE* /R=M $'E
*CPP=*E3 E*$A$E =/ $'E 3ECEA*E3, %0NN0E &ANE '=3IE*, G'EN $'ERE 0* NE0$'ER
*CC' E*$A$E N=R A**E$* $'ERE=/.
%D0D
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N =R3ER0NI $'E PAHMEN$ =/ RE$A0NER>* /EE* =/ %AGHER*
=/ A%%EIE3 'E0R* $= $'E *CPP=*E3 E*$A$E =/ $'E 3ECEA*E3, %0NN0E &ANE '=3IE*.
%DD
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N 0MP%EMEN$0NI $'E A%%EIE3 AIREEMEN$ BE$GEEN $'E
'E0R* =/ $'E *CPP=*E3 E*$A$E =/ $'E 3ECEA*E3, %0NN0E &ANE '=3IE*, AN3 $'E0R
%AGHER*.
%DD0
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N =R3ER0NI $'E PREMA$CRE 30*$R0BC$0=N =/ E*$A$E A**E$*
$= A%%EIE3 'E0R* =R BENE/0C0AR0E* $'ERE=/, BH GAH =/ RE$A0NER>* /EE*.
%DD00
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N =R3ER0NI $'A$ A%% /0NA% 3EE3* =/ *A%E EDECC$E3
PCR*CAN$ $= C=N$RAC$* $= *E%% EN$ERE3 0N$= BH $'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E* NEG$=N
'=3IE*, 3CR0NI '0* %0/E$0ME, BE *0INE3 &=0N$%H BH $'E APPE%%EE, AEE%0NA A. MAIN=,
46 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
AN3 $'E APPE%%AN$, P'0%0PP0NE C=MMERC0A% AN3 0N3C*$R0A% BANQ, AN3 N=$ BH $'E
%A$$ER =N%H A* $'E %AG/C%%H APP=0N$E3 A3M0N0*$RA$=R =/ '0* E*$A$E.
%DD000
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N =R3ER0NI $'E PAHMEN$ =/ %EIA% EDPEN*E* /R=M $'E
*CPP=*E3 E*$A$E =/ $'E 3ECEA*E3, %0NN0E &ANE '=3IE*, G'EN $'ERE 0* NE0$'ER
*CC' E*$A$E N=R A**E$* $'ERE=/.
%DD0E
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N =R3ER0NI $'E PAHMEN$ =/ %EIA% EDPEN*E* =/ %AGHER*
=/ A%%EIE3 'E0R* $= $'E *CPP=*E3 E*$A$E =/ $'E 3ECEA*E3, %0NN0E &ANE '=3IE*.
%DDE
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N =R3ER0NI $'E PREMA$CRE 30*$R0BC$0=N =/ E*$A$E A**E$*
$= A%%EIE3 'E0R* =R BENE/0C0AR0E* $'ERE=/, BH GAH =/ %EIA% EDPEN*E*.
%DDE0
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N =R3ER0NI $'E PAHMEN$ =/ C=MPEN*A$0=N $= $'E
PCRP=R$E3 A3M0N0*$RA$R0D =/ $'E *CPP=*E3 E*$A$E =/ $'E 3ECEA*E3, %0NN0E &ANE
'=3IE*, $'E 0N*$AN$ APPE%%EE, AEE%0NA A. MAIN=, G'EN $'ERE 0* NE0$'ER *CC'
E*$A$E N=R A**E$* $'ERE=/.
%DDE00
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N =R3ER0NI $'A$ $'E /CN3* =/ $'E $E*$A$E E*$A$E =/ $'E
3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E* NEG$=N '=3IE*, BE P%ACE3 0N A &=0N$ ACC=CN$ =/ $'E
APPE%%AN$, P'0%0PP0NE C=MMERC0A% AN3 0N3C*$R0A% BANQ, AN3 $'E APPE%%EE, AEE%0NA
A. MAIN=, G'= 0* A C=MP%E$E *$RANIER $= $'E A/=RE*A03 E*$A$E.
%DDE000
$'E %=GER C=CR$ ERRE3 0N =R3ER0NI $'A$ $'E APPE%%EE, AEE%0NA A. MAIN=, BE I0EEN
EJCA% ACCE** $= $'E REC=R3* =/ $'E $E*$A$E E*$A$E =/ $'E 3ECEA*E3, C'AR%E*
NEG$=N '=3IE*, G'EN *'E 0* A C=MP%E$E *$RANIER $= $'E A/=RE*A03 E*$A$E. )Pp.
.,-<,, Appellant>s Brief.1
$o complete this rather elaborate, and unavoidabl e7tended narration of the factual settin(
of these cases, it ma also be mentioned that an attempt was made b the heirs of Mrs.
'od(es to have respondent Ma(no removed as administratri7, with the proposed
appointment of Benito &. %opeB in her place, and that respondent court did actuall order
such proposed replacement, but the Court declared the said order of respondent court
violative of its in!unction of Au(ust <, +5:., hence without force and e?ect )see Resolution of
*eptember <, +5.; and /ebruar +, +5.,1. *ubse2uentl, Att. Efrain B. $renas, one of the
lawers of said heirs, appeared no lon(er for the proposed administrator %opeB but for the
heirs themselves, and in a motion dated =ctober ;:, +5.; informed the Court that a motion
had been 8led with respondent court for the removal of petitioner PC0B as administrator of
the estate of C. N. 'od(es in *pecial Proceedin(s +:.;, which removal motion alle(ed that
;;.5:<+45L of the share of C. N. 'od(es had alread been ac2uired b the heirs of Mrs.
4: PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
'od(es from certain heirs of her husband. /urther, in this connection, in the answer of PC0B
to the motion of respondent Ma(no to have it declared in contempt for disre(ardin( the
Court>s resolution of *eptember <, +5.; modifin( the in!unction of Au(ust <, +5:., said
petitioner anne7ed thereto a !oint manifestation and motion, appearin( to have been 8led
with respondent court, informin( said court that in addition to the fact that ;;L of the share
of C. N. 'od(es had alread been bou(ht b the heirs of Mrs. 'od(es, as alread stated,
certain other heirs of 'od(es representin( +..,4,.6-L of his estate were !oinin( cause with
the heirs of Mrs. 'od(es as a(ainst PC0B, thereb ma9in( somewhat precarious, if not
possibl untenable, petitioners> continuation as administrator of the 'od(es estate.
RE*=%C$0=N =/ 0**CE* 0N $'E C)$'I"$A$I AN3
PR='0B0$0=N CA*E*
0
As to the Alleged 'ardiness
of the Present Appeals
$he priorit 2uestion raised b respondent Ma(no relates to the alle(ed tardiness of all the
aforementioned thirt-three appeals of PC0B. Considerin(, however, that these appeals
revolve around practicall the same main issues and that it is admitted that some of them
have been timel ta9en, and, moreover, their 8nal results hereinbelow to be stated and
e7plained ma9e it of no conse2uence whether or not the orders concerned have become
8nal b the lapsin( of the respective periods to appeal them, Ge do not deem it necessar
to pass upon the timeliness of an of said appeals.
00
'he Propriet5 (ere of Certiorari and
Prohi4ition instead of Appeal
$he other preliminar point of the same respondent is alle(ed impropriet of the special civil
action of certiorariand prohibition in view of the e7istence of the remed of appeal which it
claims is proven b the ver appeals now before Cs. *uch contention fails to ta9e into
account that there is a common thread amon( the basic issues involved in all these thirt-
three appeals which, unless resolved in one sin(le proceedin(, will inevitabl cause the
proliferation of more or less similar or closel related incidents and conse2uent eventual
appeals. 0f for this consideration alone, and without ta9in( account anmore of the
unnecessar additional e?ort, e7pense and time which would be involved in as man
individual appeals as the number of such incidents, it is lo(ical and proper to hold, as Ge do
hold, that the remed of appeal is not ade2uate in the present cases. 0n determinin(
whether or not a special civil action of certiorari or prohibition ma be resorted to in lieu of
appeal, in instances wherein lac9 or e7cess of !urisdiction or (rave abuse of discretion is
alle(ed, it is not enou(h that the remed of appeal e7ists or is possible. 0t is indispensable
that ta9in( all the relevant circumstances of the (iven case, appeal would better serve the
interests of !ustice. =bviousl, the lon(er dela, au(mented e7pense and trouble and
unnecessar repetition of the same wor9 attendant to the present multiple appeals, which,
after all, deal with practicall the same basic issues that can be more e7peditiousl resolved
or determined in a sin(le special civil action, ma9e the remedies of certiorari and prohibition,
pursued b petitioner, preferable, for purposes of resolvin( the common basic issues raised
in all of them, despite the conceded availabilit of appeal. Besides, the settlin( of such
common fundamental issues would naturall minimiBe the areas of conMict between the
parties and render more simple the determination of the secondar issues in each of them.
4. PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
Accordin(l, respondent Ma(no>s ob!ection to the present remed of certiorari and
prohibition must be overruled.
Ge come now to the errors assi(ned b petitioner-appellant, Philippine Commercial N
0ndustrial Ban9, )PC0B, for short1 in the petition as well as in its main brief as appellant.
000
"n /hether or ,ot 'here is Still An5 Part of the 'estate
)state Mrs. (odges that ma5 4e AdBudicated to her 4rothers
and sisters as her estate, of !hich respondent Magno is the
un6uestioned Administratri3 in special Proceedings :9G=.
0n the petition, it is the position of PC0B that the respondent court e7ceeded its !urisdiction or
(ravel abused its discretion in further reco(niBin( after 3ecember +4, +56. the e7istence
of the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and in sanctionin( purported acts of
administration therein of respondent Ma(no. Main (round for such posture is that b the
afore2uoted order of respondent court of said date, 'od(es was alread allowed to assert
and e7ercise all his ri(hts as universal heir of his wife pursuant to the provisions of her will,
2uoted earlier, hence, nothin( else remains to be done in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-. e7cept
to formall close it. 0n other words, the contention of PC0B is that in view of said order,
nothin( more than a formal declaration of 'od(es as sole and e7clusive heir of his wife and
the conse2uent formal un2uali8ed ad!udication to him of all her estate remain to be done to
completel close *pecial Proceedin(s +,-., hence respondent Ma(no should be considered
as havin( ceased to be Administratri7 of the $estate Estate of Mrs. 'od(es since then.
After carefull (oin( over the record, Ge feel constrained to hold that such pose is patentl
untenable from whatever an(le it is e7amined.
$o start with, Ge cannot 8nd anwhere in respondent =rder of 3ecember +4, +56. the sense
bein( read into it b PC0B. $he tenor of said order bears no su((estion at all to such e?ect.
$he declaration of heirs and distribution b the probate court of the estate of a decedent is
its most important function, and this Court is not disposed to encoura(e !ud(es of probate
proceedin(s to be less than de8nite, plain and speci8c in ma9in( orders in such re(ard, if for
no other reason than that all parties concerned, li9e the heirs, the creditors, and most of all
the (overnment, the devisees and le(atees, should 9now with certaint what are and when
their respective ri(hts and obli(ations ensuin( from the inheritance or in relation thereto
would be(in or cease, as the case ma be, thereb avoidin( precisel the le(al
complications and conse2uent liti(ations similar to those that have developed unnecessaril
in the present cases. Ghile it is true that in instances wherein all the parties interested in the
estate of a deceased person have alread actuall distributed amon( themselves their
respective shares therein to the satisfaction of everone concerned and no ri(hts of
creditors or third parties are adversel a?ected, it would naturall be almost ministerial for
the court to issue the 8nal order of declaration and distribution, still it is inconceivable that
the special proceedin( instituted for the purpose ma be considered terminated, the
respective ri(hts of all the parties concerned be deemed de8nitel settled, and the e7ecutor
or administrator thereof be re(arded as automaticall dischar(ed and relieved alread of all
functions and responsibilities without the correspondin( de8nite orders of the probate court
to such e?ect.
0ndeed, the law on the matter is speci8c, cate(orical and une2uivocal. *ection + of Rule 5-
provides@
4< PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
*EC$0=N +. /hen order for distri4ution of residue made. F Ghen the debts, funeral char(es,
and e7penses of administration, the allowance to the widow and inheritance ta7, if an,
char(eable to the estate in accordance with law have been paid, the court, on the
application of the e7ecutor or administrator, or of a person interested in the estate, and after
hearin( upon notice, shall assi(n the residue of the estate to the persons entitled to the
same, namin( them and the proportions, or parts, to which each is entitled, and such
persons ma demand and recover their respective shares from the e7ecutor or
administrator, or an other person havin( the same in his possession. 0f there is a
controvers before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to
the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controvers shall
be heard and decided as in ordinar cases.
No distribution shall be allowed until the pament of the obli(ations above mentioned has
been made or provided for, unless the distributees, or an of them (ive a bond, in a sum to
be 87ed b the court, conditioned for the pament of said obli(ations within such time as
the court directs.
$hese provisions cannot mean anthin( less than that in order that a proceedin( for the
settlement of the estate of a deceased ma be deemed read for 8nal closure, )+1 there
should have been issued alread an order of distribution or assi(nment of the estate of the
decedent amon( or to those entitled thereto b will or b law, but );1 such order shall not be
issued until after it is shown that the #debts, funeral e7penses, e7penses of administration,
allowances, ta7es, etc. char(eable to the estate# have been paid, which is but lo(ical and
proper. ),1 Besides, such an order is usuall issued upon proper and speci8c application for
the purpose of the interested part or parties, and not of the court.
... it is onl after, and not before, the pament of all debts, funeral char(es, e7penses of
administration, allowance to the widow, and inheritance ta7 shall have been e?ected that
the court should ma9e a declaration of heirs or of such persons as are entitled b law to the
residue. )Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, ;nd ed., Eol. 00, p. ,5., citin( Capistrano
vs. Nadurata, 45 Phil., .;:" %opeB vs. %opeB, ,. =?. IaB., ,-5+.1 )&0M=IA-=N v. BE%M=N$E,
<4 Phil. 646, 64<1 )p. <:, Appellee>s Brief1
777 777 777
Cnder *ection .6, of the Code of Civil Procedure, )correspondin( to *ection +, Rule 5-1 what
brin(s an intestate )or testate1 proceedin( to a close is the order of distribution directin(
deliver of the residue to the persons entitled thereto after pain( the indebtedness, if an,
left b the deceased. )*antiesteban vs. *antiesteban, :< Phil. ,:., ,.-.1
0n the cases at bar, Ge cannot discern from the voluminous and varied facts, pleadin(s and
orders before Cs that the above indispensable prere2uisites for the declaration of heirs and
the ad!udication of the estate of Mrs. 'od(es had alread been complied with when the
order of 3ecember +4, +56. was issued. As alread stated, Ge are not persuaded that the
proceedin(s leadin( to the issuance of said order, constitutin( barel of the motion of Ma
;., +56., Anne7 3 of the petition, the order of even date, Anne7 E, and the motion of
3ecember ++, +56., Anne7 ', all afore2uoted, are what the law contemplates. Ge cannot
see in the order of 3ecember +4, +56., so much relied upon b the petitioner, anthin(
more than an e7plicit approval of #all the sales, conveances, leases and mort(a(es of all
the properties left b the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es e7ecuted b the E7ecutor Charles N.
'od(es# )after the death of his wife and prior to the date of the motion1, plus a (eneral
advance authoriBation to enable said #E7ecutor F to e7ecute subse2uent sales,
conveances, leases and mort(a(es of the properties left the said deceased %innie &ane
'od(es in consonance with wishes conveed in the last will and testament of the latter#,
45 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
which, certainl, cannot amount to the order of ad!udication of the estate of the decedent to
'od(es contemplated in the law. 0n fact, the motion of 3ecember ++, +56. on which the
court predicated the order in 2uestion did not pra for an such ad!udication at all. Ghat is
more, althou(h said motion did alle(e that #herein E7ecutor )'od(es1 is not onl part owner
of the properties left as con!u(al, but also, the successor to all the properties left b the
deceased %innie &ane 'od(es#, it si(ni8cantl added that #herein E7ecutor, as %e(atee )sic1,
has the ri(ht to sell, conve, lease or dispose of the properties in the Philippines F durin(
his lifetime#, thereb indicatin( that what said motion contemplated was nothin( more than
either the en!oment b 'od(es of his ri(hts under the particular portion of the dispositions
of his wife>s will which were to be operative onl durin( his lifetime or the use of his own
share of the con!u(al estate, pendin( the termination of the proceedin(s. 0n other words, the
authorit referred to in said motions and orders is in the nature of that contemplated either
in *ection ; of Rule +-5 which permits, in appropriate cases, advance or partial
implementation of the terms of a dul probated will before 8nal ad!udication or distribution
when the ri(hts of third parties would not be adversel a?ected thereb or in the established
practice of allowin( the survivin( spouse to dispose of his own share of he con!u(al estate,
pendin( its 8nal li2uidation, when it appears that no creditors of the con!u(al partnership
would be pre!udiced thereb, )see the Revised Rules of Court b /rancisco, Eol. E-B, +5.- ed.
p. <<.1 albeit, from the tenor of said motions, Ge are more inclined to believe that 'od(es
meant to refer to the former. 0n an event, Ge are full persuaded that the 2uoted
alle(ations of said motions read to(ether cannot be construed as a repudiation of the ri(hts
une2uivocall established in the will in favor of Mrs. 'od(es> brothers and sisters to
whatever have not been disposed of b him up to his death.
0ndeed, nowhere in the record does it appear that the trial court subse2uentl acted upon
the premise su((ested b petitioner. =n the contrar, on November ;,, +5:6, when the
court resolved the motion of appellee Gestern 0nstitute of $echnolo( b its order Ge have
2uoted earlier, it cate(oricall held that as of said date, November ;,, +5:6, #in both cases
)*pecial Proceedin(s +,-. and +:.;1 there is as et no !udicial declaration of heirs nor
distribution of properties to whomsoever are entitled thereto.# 0n this connection, it ma be
stated further a(ainst petitioner, b wa of some 9ind of estoppel, that in its own motion of
&anuar <, +5:6, alread 2uoted in full on pa(es 64-:. of this decision, it praed inter
alia that the court declare that #C. N. 'od(es was the sole and e7clusive heir of the estate of
%innie &ane 'od(es#, which it would not have done if it were reall convinced that the order
of 3ecember +4, +56. was alread the order of ad!udication and distribution of her estate.
$hat said motion was later withdrawn when Ma(no 8led her own motion for determination
and ad!udication of what should correspond to the brothers and sisters of Mrs. 'od(es does
not alter the indubitable implication of the praer of the withdrawn motion.
0t must be borne in mind that while it is true that Mrs. 'od(es be2ueathed her whole estate
to her husband and (ave him what amounts to full powers of dominion over the same durin(
his lifetime, she imposed at the same time the condition that whatever should remain
thereof upon his death should (o to her brothers and sisters. 0n e?ect, therefore, what was
absolutel (iven to 'od(es was onl so much of his wife>s estate as he mi(ht possibl
dispose of durin( his lifetime" hence, even assumin( that b the alle(ations in his motion, he
did intend to ad!udicate the whole estate to himself, as su((ested b petitioner, such
unilateral act could not have a?ected or diminished in an de(ree or manner the ri(ht of his
brothers and sisters-in-law over what would remain thereof upon his death, for surel, no
one can ri(htl contend that the testamentar provision in 2uestion allowed him to so
ad!udicate an part of the estate to himself as to pre!udice them. 0n other words, irrespective
of whatever mi(ht have been 'od(es> intention in his motions, as E7ecutor, of Ma ;., +56.
and 3ecember ++, +56., the trial court>s orders (rantin( said motions, even in the terms in
which the have been worded, could not have had the e?ect of an absolute and
unconditional ad!udication unto 'od(es of the whole estate of his wife. None of them could
6- PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
have deprived his brothers and sisters-in-law of their ri(hts under said will. And it ma be
added here that the fact that no one appeared to oppose the motions in 2uestion ma onl
be attributed, 8rstl, to the failure of 'od(es to send notices to an of them, as admitted in
the motion itself, and, secondl, to the fact that even if the had been noti8ed, the could
not have ta9en said motions to be for the 8nal distribution and ad!udication of the estate,
but merel for him to be able, pendin( such 8nal distribution and ad!udication, to either
e7ercise durin( his lifetime ri(hts of dominion over his wife>s estate in accordance with the
be2uest in his favor, which, as alread observed, ma be allowed under the broad terms of
*ection ; of Rule +-5, or ma9e use of his own share of the con!u(al estate. 0n an event, Ge
do not believe that the trial court could have acted in the sense pretended b petitioner, not
onl because of the clear lan(ua(e of the will but also because none of the interested
parties had been dul noti8ed of the motion and hearin( thereof. *tated di?erentl, if the
orders of Ma ;., +56. and 3ecember 4, +56. were reall intended to be read in the sense
contended b petitioner, Ge would have no hesitanc in declarin( them null and void.
Petitioner cites the case of Austria &s. 2entenilla, I. R. No. %-+--+<, *eptember +5, +56:,
)unreported but a partial di(est thereof appears in 55 Phil. +-:51 in support of its insistence
that with the orders of Ma ;. and 3ecember +4, +56., the closure of Mrs. 'od(es> estate
has become a mere formalit, inasmuch as said orders amounted to the order of
ad!udication and distribution ordained b *ection + of Rule 5-. But the parallel attempted to
be drawn between that case and the present one does not hold. $here the trial court had in
fact issued a clear, distinct and e7press order of ad!udication and distribution more than
twent ears before the other heirs of the deceased 8led their motion as9in( that the
administratri7 be removed, etc. As 2uoted in that decision, the order of the lower court in
that respect read as follows@
En orden a la mocion de la administradora, el !uB(ado la encuentra procedente ba!o la
condicion de 2ue no se hara entre(a ni ad!udicacion de los bienes a los herederos antes de
2ue estos presten la 8anBa correspondiente de acuerdo con lo prescrito en el Art. .64 del
Codi(o de Procedimientos@ pues, en autos no aparece 2ue haan sido nombrados
comisionados de avaluo reclamaciones. 3icha 8anBa podra ser por un valor i(ual al de los
bienes 2ue correspondan a cada heredero se(un el testamento. Creo 2ue no es obice para la
terminacion del e7pediente el hecho de 2ue la administradora no ha presentado hasta ahora
el inventario de los bienes" pues, se(un la le, estan e7entos de esta formalidad os
administradores 2ue son le(atarios del residuo o remanente de los bienes haan prestado
8anBa para responder de las (estiones de su car(o, aparece en el testamento 2ue la
administradora Ale!andra Austria reune dicha condicion.
P=R $=3= %= EDPCE*$=, el !uB(ado declara, +.o@ no haber lu(ar a la mocion de Ramon
Eentenilla otros" ;.o, declara asimismo 2ue los unicos herederos del 8nado Antonio
Eentenilla son su esposa Ale!andra Austria, Maria Eentenilla, hermana del testador, Ramon
Eentenilla, Maria Eentenilla, Ramon *oriano, Eulalio *oriano, &ose *oriano, Iabriela
Eentenilla, %orenBo Eentenilla, /elicitas Eentenilla, Eu(enio Eentenilla Ale!andra Eentenilla,
en representacion de los difuntos &uan, $omas, Catalino /roilan, hermanos del testador,
declarando, ademas 2ue la heredera Ale!andra Austria tiene derecho al remanente de todos
los bienes de!ados por el 8nado, despues de deducir de ellos la porcion 2ue corresponde a
cada uno de sus coherederos, conforme esta mandado en las clausulas <.a, 5.a, +-.a, ++.a,
+;.a +,.a del testamento" ,.o, se aprueba el pa(o hecho por la administradora de los
(astos de la ultima enfermedad funerales del testador, de la donacion hecha por el
testador a favor de la Escuela a Publica del Municipio de Man(atarem, de las misas en
sufra(io del alma del 8nado" 4.o, 2ue una veB prestada la 8anBa mencionada al principio de
este auto, se ha(a la entre(a ad!udicacion de los bienes, conforme se dispone en el
testamento se acaba de declarar en este auto" 6.o, , 8nalmente, 2ue veri8cada la
6+ PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
ad!udicacion, se dara por terminada la administracion, revelandole toda responsabilidad a la
administradora, cancelando su 8anBa.
A*0 *E =R3ENA.
Cndoubtedl, after the issuance of an order of such tenor, the closure of an proceedin(s for
the settlement of the estate of a deceased person cannot be but perfunctor.
0n the case at bar, as alread pointed out above, the two orders relied upon b petitioner do
not appear e3.facie to be of the same tenor and nature as the order !ust 2uoted, and, what
is more, the circumstances attendant to its issuance do not su((est that such was the
intention of the court, for nothin( could have been more violative of the will of Mrs. 'od(es.
0ndeed, to infer from 'od(es> said motions and from his statements of accounts for the ears
+56<, +565 and +5:-, A Anne7es 0, Q and M, respectivel, wherein he repeatedl claimed
that #herein e7ecutor )bein(1 the onl devisee or le(atee of the deceased, in accordance
with the last will and testament alread probated,# there is #no )other1 person interested in
the Philippines of the time and place of e7aminin( herein account to be (iven notice#, an
intent to ad!udicate unto himself the whole of his wife>s estate in an absolute manner and
without re(ard to the contin(ent interests of her brothers and sisters, is to impute bad faith
to him, an imputation which is not le(all permissible, much less warranted b the facts of
record herein. 'od(es 9new or ou(ht to have 9nown that, le(all spea9in(, the terms of his
wife>s will did not (ive him such a ri(ht. /actuall, there are enou(h circumstances e7tant in
the records of these cases indicatin( that he had no such intention to i(nore the ri(hts of his
co-heirs. 0n his ver motions in 2uestion, 'od(es alle(ed, thru counsel, that the #deceased
%innie &ane 'od(es died leavin( no descendants and ascendants, e3cept 4rothers and
sisters and herein petitioner, as sur&i&ing spouse, to inherit the properties of the decedent#,
and even promised that #proper accountin( will be had F in all these transactions# which he
had submitted for approval and authoriBation b the court, thereb implin( that he was
aware of his responsibilities vis-a-vis his co-heirs. As alle(ed b respondent Ma(no in her
brief as appellee@
Cnder date of April +4, +565, C. N. 'od(es 8led his 8rst #Account b the E7ecutor# of the
estate of %innie &ane 'od(es. 0n the #*tatement of Networth of Mr. C. N. 'od(es and the
Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es# as of 3ecember ,+, +56< anne7ed thereto, C. N. 'od(es
reported that the combined con!u(al estate earned a net income of P,;<,4-;.:;, divided
evenl between him and the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es. Pursuant to this, he 8led an
#individual income ta7 return# for calendar ear +56< on the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es
reportin(, under oath, the said estate as havin( earned income of P+:4,;-+.,+, e7actl one-
half of the net income of his combined personal assets and that of the estate of %innie &ane
'od(es. )p. 5+, Appellee>s Brief.1
Cnder date of &ul ;+, +5:-, C. N. 'od(es 8led his second #Annual *tatement of Account b
the E7ecutor# of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es. 0n the #*tatement of Networth of Mr. C. N.
'od(es and the Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es# as of 3ecember ,+, +565 anne7ed thereto, C.
N. 'od(es reported that the combined con!u(al estate earned a net income of P;.-,:;,.,;,
divided evenl between him and the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es. Pursuant to this, he 8led
an #individual income ta7 return# for calendar ear +565 on the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es
reportin(, under oath, the said estate as havin( earned income of P+,6,,++.::, e7actl one-
half of the net income of his combined personal assets and that of the estate of %innie &ane
'od(es. )pp. 5+-5;, id.1
6; PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
Cnder date of April ;-, +5:+, C. N. 'od(es 8led his third #Annual *tatement of Account b
the E7ecutor for the ear +5:-# of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es. 0n the #*tatement of Net
Gorth of Mr. C. N. 'od(es and the Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es# as of 3ecember ,+, +5:-
anne7ed thereto, C. N. 'od(es reported that the combined con!u(al estate earned a net
income of P,+4,<6..54, divided of %innie &ane 'od(es. Pursuant to this, he 8led an
#individual evenl between him and the estate income ta7 return# for calendar ear +5:- on
the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es reportin(, under oath, the said estate as havin( earned
income of P+6.,4;<.5., e7actl one-half of the net income of his combined personal assets
and that of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es. )pp. 5;-5,, id.1
0n the petition for probate that he )'od(es1 8led, he listed the seven brothers and sisters of
%innie &ane as her #heirs# )see p. ;, Ireen R=A1. $he order of the court admittin( the will to
probate unfortunatel omitted one of the heirs, Ro 'i(don )see p. +4, Ireen R=A1.
0mmediatel, C. N. 'od(es 8led a veri8ed motion to have Ro 'i(don>s name included as an
heir, statin( that he wanted to strai(hten the records #in order )that1 the heirs of deceased
Ro 'i(don ma not thin9 or believe the were omitted, and that the were reall and are
interested in the estate of deceased %innie &ane 'od(es#.
$hus, he reco(niBed, if in his own wa, the separate identit of his wife>s estate from his own
share of the con!u(al partnership up to the time of his death, more than 8ve ears after that
of his wife. 'e never considered the whole estate as a sin(le one belon(in( e7clusivel to
himself. $he onl conclusion one can (ather from this is that he could have been preparin(
the basis for the eventual transmission of his wife>s estate, or, at least, so much thereof as
he would not have been able to dispose of durin( his lifetime, to her brothers and sisters in
accordance with her e7pressed desire, as intimated in his ta7 return in the Cnited *tates to
be more e7tensivel referred to anon. And assumin( that he did pa the correspondin(
estate and inheritance ta7es in the Philippines on the basis of his bein( sole heir, such
pament is not necessaril inconsistent with his reco(nition of the ri(hts of his co-heirs.
Githout purportin( to rule de8nitel on the matter in these proceedin(s, Ge mi(ht sa here
that Ge are inclined to the view that under the peculiar provisions of his wife>s will, and for
purposes of the applicable inheritance ta7 laws, 'od(es had to be considered as her sole
heir, pendin( the actual transmission of the remainin( portion of her estate to her other
heirs, upon the eventualit of his death, and whatever ad!ustment mi(ht be warranted
should there be an such remainder then is a matter that could well be ta9en care of b the
internal revenue authorities in due time.
0t is to be noted that the lawer, Att. %eon P. Iellada, who si(ned the motions of Ma ;.,
+56. and 3ecember ++, +56. and the aforementioned statements of account was the ver
same one who also subse2uentl si(ned and 8led the motion of 3ecember ;:, +5:; for the
appointment of respondent Ma(no as #Administratri7 of the Estate of Mrs. %innie &ane
'od(es# wherein it was alle(ed that #in accordance with the provisions of the last will and
testament of %innie &ane 'od(es, whatever real properties that ma remain at the death of
her husband, Charles Newton 'od(es, the said properties shall be e2uall divided amon(
their heirs.# And it appearin( that said attorne was 'od(es> lawer as E7ecutor of the
estate of his wife, it stands to reason that his understandin( of the situation, implicit in his
alle(ations !ust 2uoted, could somehow be reMective of 'od(es> own understandin( thereof.
As a matter of fact, the alle(ations in the motion of the same Att. Iellada dated &ul +,
+56., a #Re2uest for 0nclusion of the Name of Ro 'i(don in the =rder of the Court dated
&ul +5, +56., etc.#, reference to which is made in the above 2uotation from respondent
Ma(no>s brief, are over the oath of 'od(es himself, who veri8ed the motion. *aid alle(ations
read@
+. F $hat the 'on. Court issued orders dated &une ;5, +56., orderin( the probate of the will.
6, PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
;. F $hat in said order of the 'on. Court, the relatives of the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es
were enumerated. 'owever, in the petition as well as in the testimon of E7ecutor durin(
the hearin(, the name Ro 'i(don was mentioned, but deceased. 0t was unintentionall
omitted the heirs of said Ro 'i(don who are his wife Aline 'i(don and son 3avid 'i(don, all
of a(e, and residents of Juinlan, $e7as, C.*.A.
,. F 'hat to straighten the records, and in order the heirs of deceased $o5 (igdon ma5 not
think or 4elie&e the5 !ere omitted, and that the5 !ere reall5 and are interested in the
estate of deceased innie Jane (odges, it is re2uested of the 'on. Court to insert the names
of Aline 'i(don and 3avid 'i(don, wife and son of deceased Ro 'i(don in the said order of
the 'on. Court dated &une ;5, +56.. )pars. + to ,, Anne7 ; of Ma(no>s Answer F Record, p.
;:-1
As can be seen, these italiciBed alle(ations indicate, more or less, the real attitude of 'od(es
in re(ard to the testamentar dispositions of his wife.
0n connection with this point of 'od(es> intent, Ge note that there are documents, copies of
which are anne7ed to respondent Ma(no>s answer, which purportedl contain 'od(es> own
solemn declarations reco(niBin( the ri(ht of his co-heirs, such as the alle(ed ta7 return he
8led with the Cnited *tates $a7ation authorities, identi8ed as *chedule M, )Anne7 4 of her
answer1 and his supposed aKdavit of renunciation, Anne7 6. 0n said *chedule M, 'od(es
appears to have answered the pertinent 2uestion thus@
;a. 'ad the survivin( spouse the ri(ht to declare an election between )+1 the provisions
made in his or her favor b the will and )++1 dower, curtes or a statutor interestS )D1 Hes ) 1
No
;d. 3oes the survivin( spouse contemplate renouncin( the will and electin( to ta9e dower,
curtes, or a statutor interestS )D1 Hes ) 1 No
,. Accordin( to the information and belief of the person or persons 8lin( the return, is an
action described under 2uestion + desi(ned or contemplatedS ) 1 Hes )D1 No )Anne7 4,
Answer F Record, p. ;:,1
and to have further stated under the item, #3escription of propert interests passin( to
survivin( spouse# the followin(@
None, e7cept for purposes of administerin( the Estate, pain( debts, ta7es and other le(al
char(es. It is the intention of the sur&i&ing hus4and of deceased to distri4ute the remaining
propert5 and interests of the deceased in their Communit5 )state to the de&isees and
legatees named in the !ill !hen the de4ts, lia4ilities, ta3es and e3penses of administration
are Dnall5 determined and paid. )Anne7 4, Answer F Record, p. ;:,1
0n addition, in the supposed aKdavit of 'od(es, Anne7 6, it is stated@
0, C. N. 'od(es, bein( dul sworn, on oath aKrm that at the time the Cnited *tates Estate
$a7 Return was 8led in the Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es on Au(ust <, +56<, 0 renounced and
disclaimed an and all ri(ht to receive the rents, emoluments and income from said estate,
as shown b the statement contained in *chedule M at pa(e ;5 of said return, a cop of
which schedule is attached to this aKdavit and made a part hereof.
'he purpose of this a#da&it is to ratif5 and conDrm, and I do here45 ratif5 and conDrm, the
declaration made in Schedule M of said return and hereb formall disclaim and renounce
64 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
an ri(ht on m part to receive an of the said rents, emoluments and income from the
estate of m deceased wife, %innie &ane 'od(es. $his aKdavit is made to absolve me or m
estate from an liabilit for the pament of income ta7es on income which has accrued to
the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es since the death of the said %innie &ane 'od(es on Ma ;,,
+56.. )Anne7 6, Answer F Record, p. ;:41
Althou(h it appears that said documents were not dul presented as evidence in the court
below, and Ge cannot, therefore, rel on them for the purpose of the present proceedin(s,
still, Ge cannot close our ees to their e7istence in the record nor fail to note that their tenor
!ibes with =ur conclusion discussed above from the circumstances related to the orders of
Ma ;. and 3ecember +4, +56.. 6 *omehow, these documents, considerin( the are
supposed to be copies of their ori(inals found in the oKcial 8les of the (overnments of the
Cnited *tates and of the Philippines, serve to lessen an possible apprehension that =ur
conclusion from the other evidence of 'od(es> manifest intent vis-a-vis the ri(hts of his co-
heirs is without basis in fact.
Eeril, with such elo2uent manifestations of his (ood intentions towards the other heirs of
his wife, Ge 8nd it ver hard to believe that 'od(es did as9 the court and that the latter
a(reed that he be declared her sole heir and that her whole estate be ad!udicated to him
without so much as !ust annotatin( the contin(ent interest of her brothers and sisters in
what would remain thereof upon his demise. =n the contrar, it seems to us more factual
and fairer to assume that 'od(es was well aware of his position as e7ecutor of the will of his
wife and, as such, had in mind the followin( admonition made b the Court in Pamittan &s.
asam, et al., :- Phil., 5-<, at pp. 5+,-5+4@
Cpon the death of Bernarda in *eptember, +5-<, said lands continued to be con!u(al
propert in the hands of the defendant %asam. 0t is provided in article +4+< of the Civil Code
that upon the dissolution of the con!u(al partnership, an inventor shall immediatel be
made and this court in construin( this provision in connection with section :<6 of the Code
of Civil Procedure )prior to its amendment b Act No. ,+.: of November ;4, +5;41 has
repeatedl held that in the event of the death of the wife, the law imposes upon the
husband the dut of li2uidatin( the a?airs of the partnership without dela )desde lue(o1
)Alfonso vs. Natividad, : Phil., ;4-" Prado vs. %a(era, . Phil., ,56" 3e la Rama vs. 3e la
Rama, . Phil., .46" Enri2ueB vs. Eictoria, +- Phil., +-" Amancio vs. Pardo, +, Phil., ;5." Ro!as
vs. *in(son $on(son, +. Phil., 4.:" *ochasen( vs. $ru!illo, ,+ Phil., +6," Molera vs. Molera,
4- Phil., 6::" Nable &ose vs. Nable &ose, 4+ Phil., .+,.1
0n the last mentioned case this court 2uoted with approval the case of eather!ood &s.
Arnold ):: $e7as, 4+4, 4+:, 4+.1, in which that court discussed the powers of the survivin(
spouse in the administration of the communit propert. Attention was called to the fact that
the survivin( husband, in the mana(ement of the con!u(al propert after the death of the
wife, was a trustee of uni2ue character who is liable for an fraud committed b him with
relation to the propert while he is char(ed with its administration. 0n the li2uidation of the
con!u(al partnership, he had wide powers )as the law stood prior to Act No. ,+.:1 and the
hi(h de(ree of trust reposed in him stands out more clearl in view of the fact that he was
the owner of a half interest in his own ri(ht of the con!u(al estate which he was char(ed to
administer. 'e could therefore no more ac2uire a title b prescription a(ainst those for
whom he was administerin( the con!u(al estate than could a (uardian a(ainst his ward or a
!udicial administrator a(ainst the heirs of estate. *ection ,< of Chapter 000 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, with relation to prescription, provides that #this chapter shall not appl ... in the
case of a continuin( and subsistin( trust.# $he survivin( husband in the administration and
li2uidation of the con!u(al estate occupies the position of a trustee of the hi(hest order and
is not permitted b the law to hold that estate or an portion thereof adversel to those for
whose bene8t the law imposes upon him the dut of administration and li2uidation. No
66 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
li2uidation was ever made b %asam F hence, the con!u(al propert which came into his
possession on the death of his wife in *eptember, +5-<, still remains con!u(al propert, a
continuin( and subsistin( trust. 'e should have made a li2uidation immediatel )desde
lue(o1. 'e cannot now be permitted to ta9e advanta(e of his own wron(. =ne of the
conditions of title b prescription )section 4+, Code of Civil Procedure1 is possession #under a
claim of title e7clusive of an other ri(ht#. /or a trustee to ma9e such a claim would be a
manifest fraud.
And 9nowin( thus his responsibilities in the premises, Ge are not convinced that 'od(es
arro(ated everthin( unto himself leavin( nothin( at all to be inherited b his wife>s brothers
and sisters.
PC0B insists, however, that to read the orders of Ma ;. and 3ecember +4, +56., not as
ad!udicator, but merel as approvin( past and authoriBin( future dispositions made b
'od(es in a wholesale and (eneral manner, would necessaril render the said orders void
for bein( violative of the provisions of Rule <5 (overnin( the manner in which such
dispositions ma be made and how the authorit therefor and approval thereof b the
probate court ma be secured. 0f Ge sustained such a view, the result would onl be that the
said orders should be declared ine?ective either wa the are understood, considerin( Ge
have alread seen it is le(all impossible to consider them as ad!udicator. As a matter of
fact, however, what sur(es immediatel to the surface, relative to PC0B>s observations based
on Rule <5, is that from such point of view, the supposed irre(ularit would involve no more
than some non-!urisdictional technicalities of procedure, which have for their evident
fundamental purpose the protection of parties interested in the estate, such as the heirs, its
creditors, particularl the (overnment on account of the ta7es due it" and since it is
apparent here that none of such parties are ob!ectin( to said orders or would be pre!udiced
b the unobservance b the trial court of the procedure pointed out b PC0B, Ge 8nd no
le(al inconvenience in nor impediment to =ur (ivin( sanction to the blan9et approval and
authorit contained in said orders. $his solution is de8nitel preferable in law and in e2uit,
for to view said orders in the sense su((ested b PC0B would result in the deprivation of
substantive ri(hts to the brothers and sisters of Mrs. 'od(es, whereas readin( them the
other wa will not cause an pre!udice to anone, and, withal, will (ive peace of mind and
stabilit of ri(hts to the innocent parties who relied on them in (ood faith, in the li(ht of the
peculiar pertinent provisions of the will of said decedent.
Now, the inventor submitted b 'od(es on Ma +;, +56< referred to the estate of his wife
as consistin( of #=ne-half of all the items desi(nated in the balance sheet, cop of which is
hereto attached and mar9ed as #Anne7 A#.# Althou(h, re(rettabl, no cop of said Anne7 A
appears in the records before Cs, Ge ta9e !udicial notice, on the basis of the undisputed
facts in these cases, that the same consists of considerable real and other personal 9inds of
properties. And since, accordin( to her will, her husband was to be the sole owner thereof
durin( his lifetime, with full power and authorit to dispose of an of them, provided that
should there be an remainder upon his death, such remainder would (o to her brothers and
sisters, and furthermore, there is no pretension, much less an proof that 'od(es had in fact
disposed of all of them, and, on the contrar, the indications are rather to the e?ect that he
had 9ept them more or less intact, it cannot truthfull be said that, upon the death of
'od(es, there was no more estate of Mrs. 'od(es to spea9 of. 0t is =ur conclusion, therefore,
that properties do e7ist which constitute such estate, hence *pecial Proceedin(s +,-.
should not et be closed.
Neither is there basis for holdin( that respondent Ma(no has ceased to be the Administratri7
in said proceedin(. $here is no showin( that she has ever been le(all removed as such, the
attempt to replace her with Mr. Benito %opeB without authorit from the Court havin( been
e7pressl held ine?ective b =ur resolution of *eptember <, +5.;. Parentheticall, on this
6: PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
last point, PC0B itself is ver emphatic in stressin( that it is not 2uestionin( said respondent>s
status as such administratri7. 0ndeed, it is not clear that PC0B has an standin( to raise an
ob!ection thereto, considerin( it is a complete stran(er insofar as the estate of Mrs. 'od(es
is concerned.
0t is the contention of PC0B, however, that as thin(s actuall stood at the time of 'od(es>
death, their con!u(al partnership had not et been li2uidated and, inasmuch as the
properties composin( the same were thus commin(led pro indiviso and, conse2uentl, the
properties pertainin( to the estate of each of the spouses are not et identi8able, it is PC0B
alone, as administrator of the estate of 'od(es, who should administer everthin(, and all
that respondent Ma(no can do for the time bein( is to wait until the properties constitutin(
the remainin( estate of Mrs. 'od(es have been dul se(re(ated and delivered to her for her
own administration. *eemin(l, PC0B would li9en the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es to
a part havin( a claim of ownership to some properties included in the inventor of an
administrator of the estate of a decedent, )here that of 'od(es1 and who normall has no
ri(ht to ta9e part in the proceedin(s pendin( the establishment of his ri(ht or title" for which
as a rule it is re2uired that an ordinar action should be 8led, since the probate court is
without !urisdiction to pass with 8nalit on 2uestions of title between the estate of the
deceased, on the one hand, and a third part or even an heir claimin( adversel a(ainst the
estate, on the other.
Ge do not 8nd such contention suKcientl persuasive. As Ge see it, the situation obtainin(
herein cannot be compared with the claim of a third part the basis of which is alien to the
pendin( probate proceedin(s. 0n the present cases what (ave rise to the claim of PC0B of
e7clusive ownership b the estate of 'od(es over all the properties of the 'od(es spouses,
includin( the share of Mrs. 'od(es in the communit properties, were the orders of the trial
court issued in the course of the ver settlement proceedin(s themselves, more speci8call,
the orders of Ma ;. and 3ecember +4, +56. so often mentioned above. 0n other words, the
root of the issue of title between the parties is somethin( that the court itself has done in
the e7ercise of its probate !urisdiction. And since in the ultimate analsis, the 2uestion of
whether or not all the properties herein involved pertain e7clusivel to the estate of 'od(es
depends on the le(al meanin( and e?ect of said orders, the claim that respondent court has
no !urisdiction to ta9e co(niBance of and decide the said issue is incorrect. 0f it was within
the competence of the court to issue the root orders, wh should it not be within its
authorit to declare their true si(ni8cance and intent, to the end that the parties ma 9now
whether or not the estate of Mrs. 'od(es had alread been ad!udicated b the court, upon
the initiative of 'od(es, in his favor, to the e7clusion of the other heirs of his wife instituted
in her willS
At this point, it bears emphasis a(ain that the main cause of all the present problems
confrontin( the courts and the parties in these cases was the failure of 'od(es to secure, as
e7ecutor of his wife>s estate, from Ma, +56. up to the time of his death in 3ecember, +5:;,
a period of more than 8ve ears, the 8nal ad!udication of her estate and the closure of the
proceedin(s. $he record is bare of an showin( that he ever e7erted an e?ort towards the
earl settlement of said estate. Ghile, on the one hand, there are enou(h indications, as
alread discuss that he had intentions of leavin( intact her share of the con!u(al properties
so that it ma pass wholl to his co-heirs upon his death, pursuant to her will, on the other
hand, b not terminatin( the proceedin(s, his interests in his own half of the con!u(al
properties remained commin(led pro-indiviso with those of his co-heirs in the other half.
=bviousl, such a situation could not be conducive to read ascertainment of the portion of
the inheritance that should appertain to his co-heirs upon his death. 'avin( these
considerations in mind, it would be (ivin( a premium for such procrastination and rather
unfair to his co-heirs, if the administrator of his estate were to be (iven e7clusive
administration of all the properties in 2uestion, which would necessaril include the function
6. PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
of promptl li2uidatin( the con!u(al partnership, thereb identifin( and se(re(atin( without
unnecessar loss of time which properties should be considered as constitutin( the estate of
Mrs. 'od(es, the remainder of which her brothers and sisters are supposed to inherit e2uall
amon( themselves.
$o be sure, an administrator is not supposed to represent the interests of an particular
part and his acts are deemed to be ob!ectivel for the protection of the ri(hts of everbod
concerned with the estate of the decedent, and from this point of view, it mabe said that
even if PC0B were to act alone, there should be no fear of undue disadvanta(e to anone. =n
the other hand, however, it is evidentl implicit in section : of Rule .< 87in( the priorit
amon( those to whom letters of administration should be (ranted that the criterion in the
selection of the administrator is not his impartialit alone but, more importantl, the e7tent
of his interest in the estate, so much so that the one assumed to have (reater interest is
preferred to another who has less. $a9in( both of these considerations into account,
inasmuch as, accordin( to 'od(es> own inventor submitted b him as E7ecutor of the
estate of his wife, practicall all their properties were con!u(al which means that the
spouses have e2ual shares therein, it is but lo(ical that both estates should be administered
!ointl b representatives of both, pendin( their se(re(ation from each other. Particularl is
such an arran(ement warranted because the actuations so far of PC0B evince a determined,
albeit (roundless, intent to e7clude the other heirs of Mrs. 'od(es from their inheritance.
Besides, to allow PC0B, the administrator of his estate, to perform now what 'od(es was
dut bound to do as e7ecutor is to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of *ection ; of Rule .<
which e7pressl provides that #$he e7ecutor of an e7ecutor shall not, as such, administer the
estate of the 8rst testator.# 0t (oes without sain( that this provision refers also to the
administrator of an e7ecutor li9e PC0B here.
Ge are not unmindful of the fact that under *ection ; of Rule .,, #Ghen the marria(e is
dissolved b the death of the husband or wife, the communit propert shall be inventoried,
administered, and li2uidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate
proceedin(s of the deceased spouse. 0f both spouses have died, the con!u(al partnership
shall be li2uidated in the testate or intestate proceedin(s of either.# 0ndeed, it is true that
the last sentence of this provision allows or permits the con!u(al partnership of spouses who
are both deceased to be settled or li2uidated in the testate or intestate proceedin(s of
either, but precisel because said sentence allows or permits that the li2uidation be made in
either proceedin(, it is a matter of sound !udicial discretion in which one it should be made.
After all, the former rule referrin( to the administrator of the husband>s estate in respect to
such li2uidation was done awa with b Act ,+.:, the pertinent provisions of which are now
embodied in the rule !ust cited.
$hus, it can be seen that at the time of the death of 'od(es, there was alread the pendin(
!udicial settlement proceedin( of the estate of Mrs. 'od(es, and, more importantl, that the
former was the e7ecutor of the latter>s will who had, as such, failed for more than 8ve ears
to see to it that the same was terminated earliest, which was not diKcult to do, since from
ou(ht that appears in the record, there were no serious obstacles on the wa, the estate not
bein( indebted and there bein( no immediate heirs other than 'od(es himself. *uch dilator
or indi?erent attitude could onl spell possible pre!udice of his co-heirs, whose ri(hts to
inheritance depend entirel on the e7istence of an remainder of Mrs. 'od(es> share in the
communit properties, and who are now faced with the pose of PC0B that there is no such
remainder. 'ad 'od(es secured as earl as possible the settlement of his wife>s estate, this
problem would not arisen. All thin(s considered, Ge are full convinced that the interests of
!ustice will be better served b not permittin( or allowin( PC0B or an administrator of the
estate of 'od(es e7clusive administration of all the properties in 2uestion. Ge are of the
considered opinion and so hold that what would be !ust and proper is for both administrators
6< PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
of the two estates to act con!ointl until after said estates have been se(re(ated from each
other.
At this !uncture, it ma be stated that we are not overloo9in( the fact that it is PC0B>s
contention that, viewed as a substitution, the testamentar disposition in favor of Mrs.
'od(es> brothers and sisters ma not be (iven e?ect. $o a certain e7tent, this contention is
correct. 0ndeed, le(all spea9in(, Mrs. 'od(es> will provides neither for a simple or vul(ar
substitution under Article <65 of the Civil Code nor for a 8deicommissar substitution under
Article <:, thereof. $here is no vul(ar substitution therein because there is no provision for
either )+1 predecease of the testator b the desi(nated heir or );1 refusal or ),1 incapacit of
the latter to accept the inheritance, as re2uired b Article <65" and neither is there a
8deicommissar substitution therein because no obli(ation is imposed thereb upon 'od(es
to preserve the estate or an part thereof for anone else. But from these premises, it is not
correct to !ump to the conclusion, as PC0B does, that the testamentar dispositions in
2uestion are therefore inoperative and invalid.
$he error in PC0B>s position lies simpl in the fact that it views the said disposition
e7clusivel in the li(ht of substitutions covered b the Civil Code section on that sub!ect,
)*ection ,, Chapter ;, $itle 0E, Boo9 0001 when it is obvious that substitution occurs onl when
another heir is appointed in a will #so that he ma enter into inheritance in default of the
heir ori(inall instituted,# )Article <6., id.1 and, in the present case, no such possible default
is contemplated. $he brothers and sisters of Mrs. 'od(es are not substitutes for 'od(es
because, under her will, the are not to inherit what 'od(es cannot, would not or ma not
inherit, but what he would not dispose of from his inheritance" rather, therefore, the are
also heirs instituted simultaneousl with 'od(es, sub!ect, however, to certain conditions,
partiall resolutor insofar as 'od(es was concerned and correspondin(l suspensive with
reference to his brothers and sisters-in-law. 0t is partiall resolutor, since it be2ueaths unto
'od(es the whole of her estate to be owned and en!oed b him as universal and sole heir
with absolute dominion over them
6
onl durin( his lifetime, which means that while he could
completel and absolutel dispose of an portion thereof inter &i&os to anone other than
himself, he was not free to do so mortis causa, and all his ri(hts to what mi(ht remain upon
his death would cease entirel upon the occurrence of that contin(enc, inasmuch as the
ri(ht of his brothers and sisters-in-law to the inheritance, althou(h vested alread upon the
death of Mrs. 'od(es, would automaticall become operative upon the occurrence of the
death of 'od(es in the event of actual e7istence of an remainder of her estate then.
Contrar to the view of respondent Ma(no, however, it was not the usufruct alone of her
estate, as contemplated in Article <:5 of the Civil Code, that she be2ueathed to 'od(es
durin( his lifetime, but the full ownership thereof, althou(h the same was to last also durin(
his lifetime onl, even as there was no restriction whatsoever a(ainst his disposin( or
convein( the whole or an portion thereof to anbod other than himself. $he Court sees
no le(al impediment to this 9ind of institution, in this !urisdiction or under Philippine law,
e7cept that it cannot appl to the le(itime of 'od(es as the survivin( spouse, consistin( of
one-half of the estate, considerin( that Mrs. 'od(es had no survivin( ascendants nor
descendants. )Arts. <.;, 5--, and 5-4, New Civil Code.1
But relative precisel to the 2uestion of how much of Mrs. 'od(es> share of the con!u(al
partnership properties ma be considered as her estate, the parties are in disa(reement as
to how Article +: of the Civil Code
7
should be applied. =n the one hand, petitioner claims
that inasmuch as Mrs. 'od(es was a resident of the Philippines at the time of her death,
under said Article +:, construed in relation to the pertinent laws of $e7as and the principle
of ren&oi, what should be applied here should be the rules of succession under the Civil Code
of the Philippines, and, therefore, her estate could consist of no more than one-fourth of the
said con!u(al properties, the other fourth bein(, as alread e7plained, the le(itime of her
65 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
husband )Art. 5--, Civil Code1 which she could not have disposed of nor burdened with an
condition )Art. <.;, Civil Code1. =n the other hand, respondent Ma(no denies that Mrs.
'od(es died a resident of the Philippines, since alle(edl she never chan(ed nor intended to
chan(e her ori(inal residence of birth in $e7as, Cnited *tates of America, and contends that,
anwa, re(ardless of the 2uestion of her residence, she bein( indisputabl a citiBen of
$e7as, under said Article +: of the Civil Code, the distribution of her estate is sub!ect to the
laws of said *tate which, accordin( to her, do not provide for an le(itime, hence, the
brothers and sisters of Mrs. 'od(es are entitled to the remainder of the whole of her share of
the con!u(al partnership properties consistin( of one-half thereof. Respondent Ma(no further
maintains that, in an event, 'od(es had renounced his ri(hts under the will in favor of his
co-heirs, as alle(edl proven b the documents touchin( on the point alread mentioned
earlier, the (enuineness and le(al si(ni8cance of which petitioner seemin(l 2uestions.
Besides, the parties are disa(reed as to what the pertinent laws of $e7as provide. 0n the
interest of settlin( the estates herein involved soonest, it would be best, indeed, if these
conMictin( claims of the parties were determined in these proceedin(s. $he Court re(rets,
however, that it cannot do so, for the simple reason that neither the evidence submitted b
the parties in the court below nor their discussion, in their respective briefs and memoranda
before Cs, of their respective contentions on the pertinent le(al issues, of (rave importance
as the are, appear to Cs to be ade2uate enou(h to enable Cs to render an intelli(ent
comprehensive and !ust resolution. /or one thin(, there is no clear and reliable proof of what
in fact the possibl applicable laws of $e7as are.
7
= $hen also, the (enuineness of documents
relied upon b respondent Ma(no is disputed. And there are a number of still other
conceivable related issues which the parties ma wish to raise but which it is not proper to
mention here. 0n &ustice, therefore, to all the parties concerned, these and all other relevant
matters should 8rst be threshed out full in the trial court in the proceedin(s hereafter to be
held therein for the purpose of ascertainin( and ad!udicatin( andAor distributin( the estate
of Mrs. 'od(es to her heirs in accordance with her dul probated will.
$o be more e7plicit, all that Ge can and do decide in connection with the petition
for certiorari and prohibition are@ )+1 that re(ardless of which correspondin( laws are
applied, whether of the Philippines or of $e7as, and ta9in( for (ranted either of the
respective contentions of the parties as to provisions of the latter,
8
and re(ardless also of
whether or not it can be proven b competent evidence that 'od(es renounced his
inheritance in an de(ree, it is easil and de8nitel discernible from the inventor submitted
b 'od(es himself, as E7ecutor of his wife>s estate, that there are properties which should
constitute the estate of Mrs. 'od(es and ou(ht to be disposed of or distributed amon( her
heirs pursuant to her will in said *pecial Proceedin(s +,-." );1 that, more speci8call,
inasmuch as the 2uestion of what are the pertinent laws of $e7as applicable to the situation
herein is basicall one of fact, and, considerin( that the sole di?erence in the positions of
the parties as to the e?ect of said laws has reference to the supposed le(itime of 'od(es F
it bein( the stand of PC0B that 'od(es had such a le(itime whereas Ma(no claims the
ne(ative - it is now beond controvers for all future purposes of these proceedin(s that
whatever be the provisions actuall of the laws of $e7as applicable hereto, the estate of Mrs.
'od(es is at least, one-fourth of the con!u(al estate of the spouses" the e7istence and
e?ects of forei(n laws bein( 2uestions of fact, and it bein( the position now of PC0B that the
estate of Mrs. 'od(es, pursuant to the laws of $e7as, should onl be one-fourth of the
con!u(al estate, such contention constitutes an admission of fact, and conse2uentl, it would
be in estoppel in an further proceedin(s in these cases to claim that said estate could be
less, irrespective of what mi(ht be proven later to be actuall the provisions of the
applicable laws of $e7as" ),1 that *pecial Proceedin(s +,-. for the settlement of the testate
estate of Mrs. 'od(es cannot be closed at this sta(e and should proceed to its lo(ical
conclusion, there havin( been no proper and le(al ad!udication or distribution et of the
estate therein involved" and )41 that respondent Ma(no remains and continues to be the
Administratri7 therein. 'ence, nothin( in the fore(oin( opinion is intended to resolve the
issues which, as alread stated, are not properl before the Court now, namel, )+1 whether
:- PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
or not 'od(es had in fact and in law waived or renounced his inheritance from Mrs. 'od(es,
in whole or in part, and );1 assumin( there had been no such waiver, whether or not, b the
application of Article +: of the Civil Code, and in the li(ht of what mi(ht be the applicable
laws of $e7as on the matter, the estate of Mrs. 'od(es is more than the one-fourth declared
above. As a matter of fact, even our 8ndin( above about the e7istence of properties
constitutin( the estate of Mrs. 'od(es rests lar(el on a (eneral appraisal of the siBe and
e7tent of the con!u(al partnership (athered from reference made thereto b both parties in
their briefs as well as in their pleadin(s included in the records on appeal, and it should
accordin(l ield, as to which e7actl those properties are, to the more concrete and speci8c
evidence which the parties are supposed to present in support of their respective positions
in re(ard to the fore(oin( main le(al and factual issues. 0n the interest of !ustice, the parties
should be allowed to present such further evidence in relation to all these issues in a !oint
hearin( of the two probate proceedin(s herein involved. After all, the court a 6uo has not et
passed s2uarel on these issues, and it is best for all concerned that it should do so in the
8rst instance.
Relative to =ur holdin( above that the estate of Mrs. 'od(es cannot be less than the
remainder of one-fourth of the con!u(al partnership properties, it ma be mentioned here
that durin( the deliberations, the point was raised as to whether or not said holdin( mi(ht
be inconsistent with =ur other rulin( here also that, since there is no reliable evidence as to
what are the applicable laws of $e7as, C.*.A. #with respect to the order of succession and to
the amount of successional ri(hts# that ma be willed b a testator which, under Article +:
of the Civil Code, are controllin( in the instant cases, in view of the undisputed $e7an
nationalit of the deceased Mrs. 'od(es, these cases should be returned to the court a 2uo,
so that the parties ma prove what said law provides, it is premature for Cs to ma9e an
speci8c rulin( now on either the validit of the testamentar dispositions herein involved or
the amount of inheritance to which the brothers and sisters of Mrs. 'od(es are entitled.
After nature reMection, Ge are of the considered view that, at this sta(e and in the state of
the records before Cs, the feared inconsistenc is more apparent than real. Githal, it no
lon(er lies in the lips of petitioner PC0B to ma9e an claim that under the laws of $e7as, the
estate of Mrs. 'od(es could in an event be less than that Ge have 87ed above.
0t should be borne in mind that as above-indicated, the 2uestion of what are the laws of
$e7as (overnin( the matters herein issue is, in the 8rst instance, one of fact, not of law.
Elementar is the rule that forei(n laws ma not be ta9en !udicial notice of and have to be
proven li9e an other fact in dispute between the parties in an proceedin(, with the rare
e7ception in instances when the said laws are alread within the actual 9nowled(e of the
court, such as when the are well and (enerall 9nown or the have been actuall ruled
upon in other cases before it and none of the parties concerned do not claim otherwise. )6
Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, p. 4+, +5.- ed.1 0n *luemer &s. (i3, 64 Phil. :+-, it
was held@
0t is the theor of the petitioner that the alle(ed will was e7ecuted in El9ins Gest Eir(inia, on
November ,, +5;6, b 'i7 who had his residence in that !urisdiction, and that the laws of
Gest Eir(inia (overn. $o this end, there was submitted a cop of section ,<:< of Acts +<<;,
c. <4 as found in Gest Eir(inia Code, Annotated, b 'o(( Charles E., vol. ;, +5+4, p. +5:-,
and as certi8ed to b the 3irector of the National %ibrar. But this was far from a compliance
with the law. $he laws of a forei(n !urisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. $he
courts of the Philippine 0slands are not authoriBed to ta9e !udicial notice of the laws of the
various *tates of the American Cnion. *uch laws must be proved as facts. )0n re Estate of
&ohnson O+5+<P, ,5 Phil., +6:.1 'ere the re2uirements of the law were not met. $here was no
showin( that the boo9 from which an e7tract was ta9en was printed or published under the
authorit of the *tate of Gest Eir(inia, as provided in section ,-- of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Nor was the e7tract from the law attested b the certi8cate of the oKcer havin(
:+ PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
char(e of the ori(inal, under the seal of the *tate of Gest Eir(inia, as provided in section ,-+
of the Code of Civil Procedure. No evidence was introduced to show that the e7tract from the
laws of Gest Eir(inia was in force at the time the alle(ed will was e7ecuted.#
No evidence of the nature thus su((ested b the Court ma be found in the records of the
cases at bar. Juite to the contrar, the parties herein have presented opposin( versions in
their respective pleadin(s and memoranda re(ardin( the matter. And even if Ge too9 into
account that in Aznar &s. Garcia, the Court did ma9e reference to certain provisions
re(ardin( succession in the laws of $e7as, the disparit in the material dates of that case
and the present ones would not permit Cs to indul(e in the haBardous con!ecture that said
provisions have not been amended or chan(ed in the meantime.
=n the other hand, in 0n re Estate of &ohnson, ,5 Phil. +6:, Ge held@
Cpon the other point F as to whether the will was e7ecuted in conformit with the statutes
of the *tate of 0llinois F we note that it does not aKrmativel appear from the transcription
of the testimon adduced in the trial court that an witness was e7amined with reference to
the law of 0llinois on the sub!ect of the e7ecution of will. $he trial !ud(e no doubt was
satis8ed that the will was properl e7ecuted b e7aminin( section +<.4 of the Revised
*tatutes of 0llinois, as e7hibited in volume , of *tarr N Curtis>s Annotated 0llinois *tatutes,
;nd ed., p. 4;:" and he ma have assumed that he could ta9e !udicial notice of the laws of
0llinois under section ;.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 0f so, he was in our opinion
mista9en. $hat section authoriBes the courts here to ta9e !udicial notice, amon( other thin(s,
of the acts of the le(islative department of the Cnited *tates. $hese words clearl have
reference to Acts of the Con(ress of the Cnited *tates" and we would hesitate to hold that
our courts can, under this provision, ta9e !udicial notice of the multifarious laws of the
various American *tates. Nor do we thin9 that an such authorit can be derived from the
broader lan(ua(e, used in the same section, where it is said that our courts ma ta9e
!udicial notice of matters of public 9nowled(e #similar# to those therein enumerated. $he
proper rule we thin9 is to re2uire proof of the statutes of the *tates of the American Cnion
whenever their provisions are determinative of the issues in an action liti(ated in the
Philippine courts.
Nevertheless, even supposin( that the trial court ma have erred in ta9in( !udicial notice of
the law of 0llinois on the point in 2uestion, such error is not now available to the petitioner,
8rst, because the petition does not state an fact from which it would appear that the law of
0llinois is di?erent from what the court found, and, secondl, because the assi(nment of
error and ar(ument for the appellant in this court raises no 2uestion based on such
supposed error. $hou(h the trial court ma have acted upon pure con!ecture as to the law
prevailin( in the *tate of 0llinois, its !ud(ment could not be set aside, even upon application
made within si7 months under section ++, of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless it should be
made to appear aKrmativel that the con!ecture was wron(. $he petitioner, it is true, states
in (eneral terms that the will in 2uestion is invalid and inade2uate to pass real and personal
propert in the *tate of 0llinois, but this is merel a conclusion of law. $he aKdavits b which
the petition is accompanied contain no reference to the sub!ect, and we are cited to no
authorit in the appellant>s brief which mi(ht tend to raise a doubt as to the correctness of
the conclusion of the trial court. 0t is ver clear, therefore, that this point cannot be ur(ed as
of serious moment.
0t is implicit in the above rulin( that when, with respect to certain aspects of the forei(n laws
concerned, the parties in a (iven case do not have an controvers or are more or less in
a(reement, the Court ma ta9e it for (ranted for the purposes of the particular case before it
that the said laws are as such virtual a(reement indicates, without the need of re2uirin( the
presentation of what otherwise would be the competent evidence on the point. $hus, in the
:; PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
instant cases wherein it results from the respective contentions of both parties that even if
the pertinent laws of $e7as were 9nown and to be applied, the amount of the inheritance
pertainin( to the heirs of Mrs. 'od(es is as Ge have 87ed above, the absence of evidence to
the e?ect that, actuall and in fact, under said laws, it could be otherwise is of no lon(er of
an conse2uence, unless the purpose is to show that it could be more. 0n other words, since
PC0B, the petitioner-appellant, concedes that upon application of Article +: of the Civil Code
and the pertinent laws of $e7as, the amount of the estate in controvers is !ust as Ge have
determined it to be, and respondent-appellee is onl claimin(, on her part, that it could be
more, PC0B ma not now or later pretend di?erentl.
$o be more concrete, on pa(es ;--;+ of its petition herein, dated &ul ,+, +5:., PC0B states
cate(oricall@
0nasmuch as Article +: of the Civil Code provides that #intestate and testamentar
successions both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional
ri(hts and to the intrinsic validit of testamentar provisions, shall be re(ulated b the
national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever ma be the
nature of the propert and re(ardless of the countr wherein said propert ma be found#,
while the law of $e7as )the 'od(es spouses bein( nationals of C.*.A., *tate of $e7as1, in its
conMicts of law rules, provides that the domiciliar law )in this case Philippine law1 (overns
the testamentar dispositions and successional ri(hts over movables or personal properties,
while the law of the situs )in this case also Philippine law with respect to all 'od(es
properties located in the Philippines1, (overns with respect to immovable properties, and
applin( therefore the >renvoi doctrine> as enunciated and applied b this 'onorable Court in
the case of 0n re Estate of Christensen )I.R. No. %-+:.45, &an. ,+, +5:,1, there can be no
2uestion that Philippine law (overns the testamentar dispositions contained in the %ast Gill
and $estament of the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es, as well as the successional ri(hts to her
estate, both with respect to movables, as well as to immovables situated in the Philippines.
0n its main brief dated /ebruar ;:, +5:<, PC0B asserts@
'he la! go&erning successional rights.
As recited above, there is no 2uestion that the deceased, %innie &ane 'od(es, was an
American citiBen. $here is also no 2uestion that she was a national of the *tate of $e7as,
C.*.A. A(ain, there is li9ewise no 2uestion that she had her domicile of choice in the Cit of
0loilo, Philippines, as this has alread been pronounced b the above-cited orders of the
lower court, pronouncements which are b now res adBudicata )par. OaP, *ee. 45, Rule ,5,
Rules of Court" 0n re Estate of &ohnson, ,5 Phil. +6:1.
Article +: of the Civil Code provides@
#Real propert as well as personal propert is sub!ect to the law of the countr where it is
situated.
'owever, intestate and testamentar successions, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional ri(hts and to the intrinsic validit of
testamentar provisions, shall be re(ulated b the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever ma be the nature of the propert and
re(ardless of the countr wherein said propert ma be found.#
$hus the aforecited provision of the Civil Code points towards the national law of the
deceased, %innie &ane 'od(es, which is the law of $e7as, as (overnin( succession #both with
:, PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional ri(hts and to the
intrinsic validit of testamentar provisions ...#. But the law of $e7as, in its conMicts of law
rules, provides that the domiciliar law (overns the testamentar dispositions and
successional ri(hts over movables or personal propert, while the law of the situs (overns
with respect to immovable propert. *uch that with respect to both movable propert, as
well as immovable propert situated in the Philippines, the law of $e7as points to the law of
the Philippines.
Applin(, therefore, the so-called #renvoi doctrine#, as enunciated and applied b this
'onorable Court in the case of #0n re Christensen# )I.R. No. %-+:.45, &an. ,+, +5:,1, there
can be no 2uestion that Philippine law (overns the testamentar provisions in the %ast Gill
and $estament of the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es, as well as the successional ri(hts to her
estate, both with respect to movables, as well as immovables situated in the Philippines.
$he sub!ect of successional ri(hts.
Cnder Philippine law, as it is under the law of $e7as, the con!u(al or communit propert of
the spouses, Charles Newton 'od(es and %innie &ane 'od(es, upon the death of the latter, is
to be divided into two, one-half pertainin( to each of the spouses, as his or her own propert.
$hus, upon the death of %innie &ane 'od(es, one-half of the con!u(al partnership propert
immediatel pertained to Charles Newton 'od(es as his own share, and not b virtue of an
successional ri(hts. $here can be no 2uestion about this.
A(ain, Philippine law, or more speci8call, Article 5-- of the Civil Code provides@
0f the onl survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled to one-half of the
hereditar estate of the deceased spouse, and the testator ma freel dispose of the other
half.
0f the marria(e between the survivin( spouse and the testator was solemniBed in articulo
mortis, and the testator died within three months from the time of the marria(e, the le(itime
of the survivin( spouse as the sole heir shall be one-third of the hereditar estate, e7cept
when the have been livin( as husband and wife for more than 8ve ears. 0n the latter case,
the le(itime of the survivin( spouse shall be that speci8ed in the precedin( para(raph.
$his le(itime of the survivin( spouse cannot be burdened b a 8deicommisar substitution
)Art. <:4, Civil code1, nor b an char(e, condition, or substitution )Art, <.;, Civil code1. 0t is
clear, therefore, that in addition to one-half of the con!u(al partnership propert as his own
con!u(al share, Charles Newton 'od(es was also immediatel entitled to one-half of the half
con!u(al share of the deceased, %innie &ane 'od(es, or one-fourth of the entire con!u(al
propert, as his le(itime.
=ne-fourth of the con!u(al propert therefore remains at issue.
0n the summar of its ar(uments in its memorandum dated April ,-, +5:<, the followin(
appears@
BrieM, the position advanced b the petitioner is@
a. $hat the 'od(es spouses were domiciled le(all in the Philippines )pp. +5-;-, petition1.
$his is now a matter of res ad!udicata )p. ;-, petition1.
:4 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
b. $hat under Philippine law, $e7as law, and the renvoi doctrine, Philippine law (overns the
successional ri(hts over the properties left b the deceased, %innie &ane 'od(es )pp. ;--;+,
petition1.
c. $hat under Philippine as well as $e7as law, one-half of the 'od(es properties pertains to
the deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es )p. ;+, petition1. $his is not 2uestioned b the
respondents.
d. $hat under Philippine law, the deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, automaticall inherited
one-half of the remainin( one-half of the 'od(es properties as his le(itime )p. ;+, petition1.
e. $hat the remainin( ;6L of the 'od(es properties was inherited b the deceased, Charles
Newton 'od(es, under the will of his deceased spouse )pp. ;;-;,, petition1. Cpon the death
of Charles Newton 'od(es, the substitution >provision of the will of the deceased, %innie &ane
'od(es, did not operate because the same is void )pp. ;,-;6, petition1.
f. $hat the deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, asserted his sole ownership of the 'od(es
properties and the probate court sanctioned such assertion )pp. ;6-;5, petition1. 'e in fact
assumed such ownership and such was the status of the properties as of the time of his
death )pp. ;5-,4, petition1.
=f similar tenor are the alle(ations of PC0B in some of its pleadin(s 2uoted in the earlier part
of this option.
=n her part, it is respondent-appellee Ma(no>s posture that under the laws of $e7as, there is
no sstem of le(itime, hence the estate of Mrs. 'od(es should be one-half of all the con!u(al
properties.
0t is thus un2uestionable that as far as PC0B is concerned, the application to these cases of
Article +: of the Civil Code in relation to the correspondin( laws of $e7as would result in that
the Philippine laws on succession should control. =n that basis, as Ge have alread
e7plained above, the estate of Mrs. 'od(es is the remainder of one-fourth of the con!u(al
partnership properties, considerin( that Ge have found that there is no le(al impediment to
the 9ind of disposition ordered b Mrs. 'od(es in her will in favor of her brothers and sisters
and, further, that the contention of PC0B that the same constitutes an inoperative
testamentar substitution is untenable. As will be recalled, PC0B>s position that there is no
such estate of Mrs. 'od(es is predicated e7clusivel on two propositions, namel@ )+1 that
the provision in 2uestion in Mrs. 'od(es> testament violates the rules on substitution of heirs
under the Civil Code and );1 that, in an event, b the orders of the trial court of Ma ;.,
and 3ecember +4, +56., the trial court had alread 8nall and irrevocabl ad!udicated to her
husband the whole free portion of her estate to the e7clusion of her brothers and sisters,
both of which poses, Ge have overruled. Nowhere in its pleadin(s, briefs and memoranda
does PC0B maintain that the application of the laws of $e7as would result in the other heirs of
Mrs. 'od(es not inheritin( anthin( under her will. And since PC0B>s representations in
re(ard to the laws of $e7as virtuall constitute admissions of fact which the other parties and
the Court are bein( made to rel and act upon, PC0B is #not permitted to contradict them or
subse2uentl ta9e a position contradictor to or inconsistent with them.# )6 Moran, id, p. :6,
citin( Cunanan vs. Amparo, <- Phil. ;;." *ta. Ana vs. Maliwat, %-;,-;,, Au(. ,+, +5:<, ;4
*CRA +-+<1.
Accordin(l, the onl 2uestion that remains to be settled in the further proceedin(s hereb
ordered to be held in the court below is how much more than as 87ed above is the estate of
Mrs. 'od(es, and this would depend on )+1 whether or not the applicable laws of $e7as do
:6 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
provide in e?ect for more, such as, when there is no le(itime provided therein, and );1
whether or not 'od(es has validl waived his whole inheritance from Mrs. 'od(es.
0n the course of the deliberations, it was brou(ht out b some members of the Court that to
avoid or, at least, minimiBe further protracted le(al controversies between the respective
heirs of the 'od(es spouses, it is imperative to elucidate on the possible conse2uences of
dispositions made b 'od(es after the death of his wife from the mass of the unpartitioned
estates without an e7press indication in the pertinent documents as to whether his
intention is to dispose of part of his inheritance from his wife or part of his own share of the
con!u(al estate as well as of those made b PC0B after the death of 'od(es. After a lon(
discussion, the consensus arrived at was as follows@ )+1 an such dispositions
made gratuitousl5 in favor of third parties, whether these be individuals, corporations or
foundations, shall be considered as intended to be of properties constitutin( part of 'od(es>
inheritance from his wife, it appearin( from the tenor of his motions of Ma ;. and
3ecember ++, +56. that in as9in( for (eneral authorit to ma9e sales or other disposals of
properties under the !urisdiction of the court, which include his own share of the con!u(al
estate, he was not invo9in( particularl his ri(ht over his own share, but rather his ri(ht to
dispose of an part of his inheritance pursuant to the will of his wife" );1 as re(ards sales,
e7chan(es or other remunerati&e transfers, the proceeds of such sales or the properties
ta9en in b virtue of such e7chan(es, shall be considered as merel the products of #phsical
chan(es# of the properties of her estate which the will e7pressl authoriBes 'od(es to ma9e,
provided that whatever of said products should remain with the estate at the time of the
death of 'od(es should (o to her brothers and sisters" ),1 the dispositions made b PC0B
after the death of 'od(es must naturall be deemed as coverin( onl the properties
belon(in( to his estate considerin( that bein( onl the administrator of the estate of
'od(es, PC0B could not have disposed of properties belon(in( to the estate of his wife.
Neither could such dispositions be considered as involvin( con!u(al properties, for the
simple reason that the con!u(al partnership automaticall ceased when Mrs. 'od(es died,
and b the peculiar provision of her will, under discussion, the remainder of her share
descended also automaticall upon the death of 'od(es to her brothers and sisters, thus
outside of the scope of PC0B>s administration. Accordin(l, these construction of the will of
Mrs. 'od(es should be adhered to b the trial court in its 8nal order of ad!udication and
distribution andAor partition of the two estates in 2uestion.
'() APP)AS
A cursor e7amination of the sevent-ei(ht assi(nments of error in appellant PC0B>s brief
would readil reveal that all of them are predicated mainl on the contention that inasmuch
as 'od(es had alread ad!udicated unto himself all the properties constitutin( his wife>s
share of the con!u(al partnership, alle(edl with the sanction of the trial court per its order
of 3ecember +4, +56., there has been, since said date, no lon(er an estate of Mrs. 'od(es
of which appellee Ma(no could be administratri7, hence the various assailed orders
sanctionin( her actuations as such are not in accordance with law. *uch bein( the case, with
the fore(oin( resolution holdin( such posture to be untenable in fact and in law and that it is
in the best interest of !ustice that for the time bein( the two estates should be administered
con!ointl b the respective administrators of the two estates, it should follow that said
assi(nments of error have lost their fundamental reasons for bein(. $here are certain
matters, however, relatin( peculiarl to the respective orders in 2uestion, if commonl
amon( some of them, which need further clari8cation. /or instance, some of them
authoriBed respondent Ma(no to act alone or without concurrence of PC0B. And with respect
to man of said orders, PC0B further claims that either the matters involved were not
properl within the probate !urisdiction of the trial court or that the procedure followed was
not in accordance with the rules. 'ence, the necessit of dealin( separatel with the merits
of each of the appeals.
:: PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
0ndeed, inasmuch as the said two estates have until now remained commin(led pro.indi&iso,
due to the failure of 'od(es and the lower court to li2uidate the con!u(al partnership, to
reco(niBe appellee Ma(no as Administratri7 of the $estate Estate of Mrs. 'od(es which is
still unse(re(ated from that of 'od(es is not to sa, without an 2uali8cation, that she was
therefore authoriBed to do and perform all her acts complained of in these appeals,
sanctioned thou(h the mi(ht have been b the trial court. As a matter of fact, it is such
commin(lin( pro.indi&isoof the two estates that should deprive appellee of freedom to act
independentl from PC0B, as administrator of the estate of 'od(es, !ust as, for the same
reason, the latter should not have authorit to act independentl from her. And considerin(
that the lower court failed to adhere consistentl to this basic point of view, b allowin( the
two administrators to act independentl of each other, in the various instances alread
noted in the narration of facts above, the Court has to loo9 into the attendant circumstances
of each of the appealed orders to be able to determine whether an of them has to be set
aside or the ma all be le(all maintained notwithstandin( the failure of the court a 6uo to
observe the pertinent procedural technicalities, to the end onl that (raver in!ur to the
substantive ri(hts of the parties concerned and unnecessar and undesirable proliferation of
incidents in the sub!ect proceedin(s ma be forestalled. 0n other words, Ge have to
determine, whether or not, in the li(ht of the unusual circumstances e7tant in the record,
there is need to be more pra(matic and to adopt a rather unorthodo7 approach, so as to
cause the least disturbance in ri(hts alread bein( e7ercised b numerous innocent third
parties, even if to do so ma not appear to be strictl in accordance with the letter of the
applicable purel ad!ective rules.
0ncidentall, it ma be mentioned, at this point, that it was principall on account of the
confusion that mi(ht result later from PC0B>s continuin( to administer all the communit
properties, notwithstandin( the certaint of the e7istence of the separate estate of Mrs.
'od(es, and to enable both estates to function in the meantime with a relative de(ree of
re(ularit, that the Court ordered in the resolution of *eptember <, +5.; the modi8cation of
the in!unction issued pursuant to the resolutions of Au(ust <, =ctober 4 and 3ecember :,
+5:., b virtue of which respondent Ma(no was completel barred from an participation in
the administration of the properties herein involved. 0n the *eptember < resolution, Ge
ordered that, pendin( this decision, *pecial Proceedin(s +,-. and +:.; should proceed
!ointl and that the respective administrators therein #act con!ointl F none of them to act
sin(l and independentl of each other for an purpose.# Cpon mature deliberation, Ge felt
that to allow PC0B to continue mana(in( or administerin( all the said properties to the
e7clusion of the administratri7 of Mrs. 'od(es> estate mi(ht place the heirs of 'od(es at an
undul advanta(eous position which could result in considerable, if not irreparable, dama(e
or in!ur to the other parties concerned. 0t is indeed to be re(retted that apparentl, up to
this date, more than a ear after said resolution, the same has not been (iven due re(ard,
as ma be (leaned from the fact that recentl, respondent Ma(no has 8led in these
proceedin(s a motion to declare PC0B in contempt for alle(ed failure to abide therewith,
notwithstandin( that its repeated motions for reconsideration thereof have all been denied
soon after the were 8led.
9
Ioin( bac9 to the appeals, it is perhaps best to be(in 8rst with what appears to =ur mind to
be the simplest, and then proceed to the more complicated ones in that order, without
re(ard to the numerical se2uence of the assi(nments of error in appellant>s brief or to the
order of the discussion thereof b counsel.
Assignments of error num4ers
--II, --2II and --2III.
$hese assi(nments of error relate to )+1 the order of the trial court of Au(ust :, +5:6
providin( that #the deeds of sale )therein referred to involvin( properties in the name of
:. PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
'od(es1 should be si(ned !ointl b the PC0B, as Administrator of $estate Estate of C.N.
'od(es, and Avelina A. Ma(no, as Administratri7 of the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es,
and to this e?ect, the PC0B should ta9e the necessar steps so that Administratri7 Avelina A.
Ma(no could si(n the deeds of sale,# )p. ;4<, Ireen Rec. on Appeal1 );1 the order of =ctober
;., +5:6 denin( the motion for reconsideration of the fore(oin( order, )pp. ;.:-;.., id.1 ),1
the other order also dated =ctober ;., +5:6 en!oinin( inter alia, that #)a1 all cash collections
should be deposited in the !oint account of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and estate of C.
N. 'od(es, )b1 that whatever cash collections )that1 had been deposited in the account of
either of the estates should be withdrawn and since then )sic1 deposited in the !oint account
of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and the estate of C. N. 'od(es" ... )d1 )that1
Administratri7 Ma(no F allow the PC0B to inspect whatever records, documents and papers
she ma have in her possession, in the same manner that Administrator PC0B is also directed
to allow Administratri7 Ma(no to inspect whatever records, documents and papers it ma
have in its possession# and #)e1 that the accountant of the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es shall
have access to all records of the transactions of both estates for the protection of the estate
of %innie &ane 'od(es" and in li9e manner, the accountant or an authoriBed representative
of the estate of C. N. 'od(es shall have access to the records of transactions of the %innie
&ane 'od(es estate for the protection of the estate of C. N. 'od(es#, )pp. ;5;-;56, id.1 and
)41 the order of /ebruar +6, +5::, denin(, amon( others, the motion for reconsideration of
the order of =ctober ;., +5:6 last referred to. )pp. 466-46:, id.1
As ma be readil seen, the thrust of all these four impu(ned orders is in line with the
Court>s above-mentioned resolution of *eptember <, +5.; modifin( the in!unction
previousl issued on Au(ust <, +5:., and, more importantl, with what Ge have said the
trial court should have alwas done pendin( the li2uidation of the con!u(al partnership of
the 'od(es spouses. 0n fact, as alread stated, that is the arran(ement Ge are orderin(, b
this decision, to be followed. *tated di?erentl, since the 2uestioned orders provide for !oint
action b the two administrators, and that is precisel what Ge are holdin( out to have been
done and should be done until the two estates are separated from each other, the said
orders must be aKrmed. Accordin(l the fore(oin( assi(nments of error must be, as the
are hereb overruled.
Assignments of error ,um4ers -2III
to --I and --III to --2I.
$he orders complained of under these assi(nments of error commonl deal with
e7penditures made b appellee Ma(no, as Administratri7 of the Estate of Mrs. 'od(es, in
connection with her administration thereof, albeit additionall, assi(nments of error
Numbers %D0D to %DD0 put into 2uestion the pament of attornes fees provided for in the
contract for the purpose, as constitutin(, in e?ect, premature advances to the heirs of Mrs.
'od(es.
More speci8call, assi(nment Number %DD000 refers to reimbursement of overtime pa paid
to si7 emploees of the court and three other persons for services in copin( the court
records to enable the lawers of the administration to be full informed of all the incidents in
the proceedin(s. $he reimbursement was approved as proper le(al e7penses of
administration per the order of 3ecember +5, +5:4, )pp. ;;+-;;;, id.1 and repeated motions
for reconsideration thereof were denied b the orders of &anuar 5, +5:6, )pp. ;,+-;,;, id.1
=ctober ;., +5:6, )p. ;.., id.1 and /ebruar +6, +5::. )pp. 466-46:, id.1 =n the other hand,
Assi(nments Numbers %DE000 to %DD0, %DD0E and %DDE 2uestion the trial court>s order of
November ,, +5:6 approvin( the a(reement of &une :, +5:4 between Administratri7 Ma(no
and &ames %. *ullivan, attorne-in-fact of the heirs of Mrs. 'od(es, as Parties of the /irst Part,
and Attornes Raul Man(lapus and RiBal R. Juimpo, as Parties of the *econd Part, re(ardin(
attornes fees for said counsel who had a(reed #to prosecute and defend their interests )of
:< PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
the Parties of the /irst Part1 in certain cases now pendin( liti(ation in the Court of /irst
0nstance of 0loilo F, more speci8call in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-. and +:.; F# )pp. +;:-
+;5, id.1 and directin( Administratri7 Ma(no #to issue and si(n whatever chec9 or chec9s
mabe needed to implement the approval of the a(reement anne7ed to the motion# as well
as the #administrator of the estate of C. N. 'od(es F to countersi(n the said chec9 or
chec9s as the case mabe.# )pp. ,+,-,;-, id.1, reconsideration of which order of approval
was denied in the order of /ebruar +:, +5::, )p. 46:,id.1 Assi(nment Number %DDE0
imputes error to the lower court>s order of =ctober ;., +5:6, alread referred to above,
insofar as it orders that #PC0B should counter si(n the chec9 in the amount of P;6- in favor
of Administratri7 Avelina A. Ma(no as her compensation as administratri7 of %innie &ane
'od(es estate char(eable to the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es onl.# )p. ;54, id.1
Main contention a(ain of appellant PC0B in re(ard to these ei(ht assi(ned errors is that there
is no such estate as the estate of Mrs. 'od(es for which the 2uestioned e7penditures were
made, hence what were authoriBed were in e?ect e7penditures from the estate of 'od(es.
As Ge have alread demonstrated in =ur resolution above of the petition for certiorari and
prohibition, this posture is incorrect. 0ndeed, in whichever wa the remainin( issues between
the parties in these cases are ultimatel resolved,
10
the 8nal result will surel be that there
are properties constitutin( the estate of Mrs. 'od(es of which Ma(no is the current
administratri7. 0t follows, therefore, that said appellee had the ri(ht, as such administratri7,
to hire the persons whom she paid overtime pa and to be paid for her own services as
administratri7. $hat she has not et collected and is not collectin( amounts as substantial as
that paid to or due appellant PC0B is to her credit.
=f course, she is also entitled to the services of counsel and to that end had the authorit to
enter into contracts for attorne>s fees in the manner she had done in the a(reement of &une
:, +5:4. And as re(ards to the reasonableness of the amount therein stipulated, Ge see no
reason to disturb the discretion e7ercised b the probate court in determinin( the same. Ge
have (one over the a(reement, and considerin( the obvious siBe of the estate in 2uestion
and the nature of the issues between the parties as well as the professional standin( of
counsel, Ge cannot sa that the fees a(reed upon re2uire the e7ercise b the Court of its
inherent power to reduce it.
PC0B insists, however, that said a(reement of &une :, +5:4 is not for le(al services to the
estate but to the heirs of Mrs. 'od(es, or, at most, to both of them, and such bein( the case,
an pament under it, insofar as counsels> services would redound to the bene8t of the
heirs, would be in the nature of advances to such heirs and a premature distribution of the
estate. A(ain, Ge hold that such posture cannot prevail.
Cpon the premise Ge have found plausible that there is an e7istin( estate of Mrs. 'od(es, it
results that !uridicall and factuall the interests involved in her estate are distinct and
di?erent from those involved in her estate of 'od(es and vice versa. 0nsofar as the matters
related e7clusivel to the estate of Mrs. 'od(es, PC0B, as administrator of the estate of
'od(es, is a complete stran(er and it is without personalit to 2uestion the actuations of the
administratri7 thereof re(ardin( matters not a?ectin( the estate of 'od(es. Actuall,
considerin( the obviousl considerable siBe of the estate of Mrs. 'od(es, Ge see no possible
cause for apprehension that when the two estates are se(re(ated from each other, the
amount of attorne>s fees stipulated in the a(reement in 2uestion will pre!udice an portion
that would correspond to 'od(es> estate.
And as re(ards the other heirs of Mrs. 'od(es who ou(ht to be the ones who should have a
sa on the attorne>s fees and other e7penses of administration assailed b PC0B, suKce it
to sa that the appear to have been dul represented in the a(reement itself b their
attorne-in-fact, &ames %. *ullivan and have not otherwise interposed an ob!ection to an of
:5 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
the e7penses incurred b Ma(no 2uestioned b PC0B in these appeals. As a matter of fact, as
ordered b the trial court, all the e7penses in 2uestion, includin( the attorne>s fees, ma be
paid without awaitin( the determination and se(re(ation of the estate of Mrs. 'od(es.
Githal, the wei(htiest consideration in connection with the point under discussion is that at
this sta(e of the controvers amon( the parties herein, the vital issue refers to the e7istence
or non-e7istence of the estate of Mrs. 'od(es. 0n this respect, the interest of respondent
Ma(no, as the appointed administratri7 of the said estate, is to maintain that it e7ists, which
is naturall common and identical with and inseparable from the interest of the brothers and
sisters of Mrs. 'od(es. $hus, it should not be wondered wh both Ma(no and these heirs
have seemin(l a(reed to retain but one counsel. 0n fact, such an arran(ement should be
more convenient and economical to both. $he possibilit of conMict of interest between
Ma(no and the heirs of Mrs. 'od(es would be, at this sta(e, 2uite remote and, in an event,
rather insubstantial. Besides, should an substantial conMict of interest between them arise
in the future, the same would be a matter that the probate court can ver well ta9e care of
in the course of the independent proceedin(s in Case No. +,-. after the correspondin(
se(re(ation of the two sub!ect estates. Ge cannot perceive an co(ent reason wh, at this
sta(e, the estate and the heirs of Mrs. 'od(es cannot be represented b a common counsel.
Now, as to whether or not the portion of the fees in 2uestion that should correspond to the
heirs constitutes premature partial distribution of the estate of Mrs. 'od(es is also a matter
in which neither PC0B nor the heirs of 'od(es have an interest. 0n an event, since, as far
as the records show, the estate has no creditors and the correspondin( estate and
inheritance ta7es, e7cept those of the brothers and sisters of Mrs. 'od(es, have alread
been paid,
11
no pre!udice can caused to anone b the comparativel small amount of
attorne>s fees in 2uestion. And in this connection, it ma be added that, althou(h strictl
spea9in(, the attorne>s fees of the counsel of an administrator is in the 8rst instance his
personal responsibilit, reimbursable later on b the estate, in the 8nal analsis, when, as in
the situation on hand, the attorne-in-fact of the heirs has (iven his conformit thereto, it
would be idle e?ort to in2uire whether or not the sanction (iven to said fees b the probate
court is proper.
/or the fore(oin( reasons, Assi(nments of Error %DE000 to %DD0 and %DD000 to %DDE0 should be
as the are hereb overruled.
Assignments of error I to I2,
-III to -2, --II to --2, ---2
to --- 2I, -I to -III and .
$hese assi(nments of error deal with the approval b the trial court of various deeds of sale
of real properties re(istered in the name of 'od(es but e7ecuted b appellee Ma(no, as
Administratri7 of the Estate of Mrs. 'od(es, purportedl in implementation of correspondin(
supposed written #Contracts to *ell# previousl e7ecuted b 'od(es durin( the interim
between Ma ;,, +56., when his wife died, and 3ecember ;6, +5:;, the da he died. As
stated on pp. ++<-+;- of appellant>s main brief, #$hese are@ the, contract to sell between the
deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, and the appellee, Pepito I. 0ulores e7ecuted on
/ebruar 6, +5:+" the contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, and
the appellant Esperidion Partisala, e7ecuted on April ;-, +5:-" the contract to sell between
the deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, and the appellee, Ginifredo C. Espada, e7ecuted on
April +<, +5:-" the contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, and the
appellee, Rosario Alin(asa, e7ecuted on Au(ust ;6, +56<" the contract to sell between the
deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, and the appellee, %orenBo Carles, e7ecuted on &une +.,
+56<" the contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, and the appellee,
*alvador *. IuBman, e7ecuted on *eptember +,, +5:-" the contract to sell between the
.- PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, and the appellee, /lorenia Barrido, e7ecuted on /ebruar
;+, +56<" the contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, and the
appellee, Puri8cacion Coronado, e7ecuted on Au(ust +4, +5:+" the contract to sell between
the deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, and the appellee, Iraciano %ucero, e7ecuted on
November ;., +5:+" the contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es,
and the appellee, Ariteo $homas &amir, e7ecuted on Ma ;:, +5:+" the contract to sell
between the deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, and the appellee, Mel2uiades Batisanan,
e7ecuted on &une 5, +565" the contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton
'od(es, and the appellee, BelceBar Causin(, e7ecuted on /ebruar +-, +565 and the
contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton 'od(es, and the appellee, Adelfa
Premalon, e7ecuted on =ctober ,+, +565, re $itle No. +,<+6.#
Relative to these sales, it is the position of appellant PC0B that, inasmuch as pursuant to the
will of Mrs. 'od(es, her husband was to have dominion over all her estate durin( his
lifetime, it was as absolute owner of the properties respectivel covered b said sales that
he e7ecuted the aforementioned contracts to sell, and conse2uentl, upon his death, the
implementation of said contracts ma be underta9en onl b the administrator of his estate
and not b the administratri7 of the estate of Mrs. 'od(es. Basicall, the same theor is
invo9ed with particular reference to 8ve other sales, in which the respective #contracts to
sell# in favor of these appellees were e7ecuted b 'od(es before the death of his wife,
namel, those in favor of appellee *antia(o Pacaonsis, Alfredo Catedral, &ose Pablico,
Gestern 0nstitute of $echnolo( and Adelfa Premalon.
Anent those deeds of sale based on promises or contracts to sell e7ecuted b 'od(es after
the death of his wife, those enumerated in the 2uotation in the immediatel precedin(
para(raph, it is 2uite obvious that PC0B>s contention cannot be sustained. As alread
e7plained earlier, +
1
= all proceeds of remunerative transfers or dispositions made b 'od(es
after the death of his wife should be deemed as continuin( to be parts of her estate and,
therefore, sub!ect to the terms of her will in favor of her brothers and sisters, in the sense
that should there be no showin( that such proceeds, whether in cash or propert have been
subse2uentl conveed or assi(ned subse2uentl b 'od(es to an third part b acts inter
vivos with the result that the could not thereb belon( to him anmore at the time of his
death, the automaticall became part of the inheritance of said brothers and sisters. $he
deeds here in 2uestion involve transactions which are e7actl of this nature. Conse2uentl,
the paments made b the appellees should be considered as paments to the estate of
Mrs. 'od(es which is to be distributed and partitioned amon( her heirs speci8ed in the will.
$he 8ve deeds of sale predicated on contracts to sell e7ecuted 'od(es durin( the lifetime of
his wife, present a di?erent situation. At 8rst blush, it would appear that as to them, PC0B>s
position has some de(ree of plausibilit. Considerin(, however, that the adoption of PC0B>s
theor would necessaril have tremendous repercussions and would brin( about
considerable disturbance of propert ri(hts that have somehow accrued alread in favor of
innocent third parties, the 8ve purchasers aforenamed, the Court is inclined to ta9e a
pra(matic and practical view of the le(al situation involvin( them b overloo9in( the
possible technicalities in the wa, the non-observance of which would not, after all, detract
materiall from what should substantiall correspond to each and all of the parties
concerned.
$o start with, these contracts can hardl be i(nored. Bona Dde third parties are involved" as
much as possible, the should not be made to su?er an pre!udice on account of !udicial
controversies not of their own ma9in(. Ghat is more, the transactions the rel on were
submitted b them to the probate court for approval, and from alread 9nown and recorded
actuations of said court then, the had reason to believe that it had authorit to act on their
motions, since appellee Ma(no had, from time to time prior to their transactions with her,
.+ PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
been allowed to act in her capacit as administratri7 of one of the sub!ect estates either
alone or con!ointl with PC0B. All the sales in 2uestion were e7ecuted b Ma(no in +5::
alread, but before that, the court had previousl authoriBed or otherwise sanctioned
e7pressl man of her act as administratri7 involvin( e7penditures from the estate made b
her either con!ointl with or independentl from PC0B, as Administrator of the Estate of
'od(es. $hus, it ma be said that said buers-appellees merel followed precedents in
previous orders of the court. Accordin(l, unless the impu(ned orders approvin( those sales
indubitabl su?er from some clearl fatal in8rmit the Court would rather aKrm them.
0t is 2uite apparent from the record that the properties covered b said sales are e2uivalent
onl to a fraction of what should constitute the estate of Mrs. 'od(es, even if it is assumed
that the same would 8nall be held to be onl one-fourth of the con!u(al properties of the
spouses as of the time of her death or, to be more e7act, one-half of her estate as per the
inventor submitted b 'od(es as e7ecutor, on Ma +;, +56<. 0n none of its numerous,
varied and voluminous pleadin(s, motions and manifestations has PC0B claimed an
possibilit otherwise. *uch bein( the case, to avoid an conMict with the heirs of 'od(es, the
said properties covered b the 2uestioned deeds of sale e7ecuted b appellee Ma(no ma
be treated as amon( those correspondin( to the estate of Mrs. 'od(es, which would have
been actuall under her control and administration had 'od(es complied with his dut to
li2uidate the con!u(al partnership. Eiewin( the situation in that manner, the onl ones who
could stand to be pre!udiced b the appealed orders referred to in the assi(nment of errors
under discussion and who could, therefore, have the re2uisite interest to 2uestion them
would be onl the heirs of Mrs. 'od(es, de8nitel not PC0B.
0t is of no moment in what capacit 'od(es made the #contracts to sell> after the death of
his wife. Even if he had acted as e7ecutor of the will of his wife, he did not have to submit
those contracts to the court nor follow the provisions of the rules, )*ections ;, 4, 6, :, < and
5 of Rule <5 2uoted b appellant on pp. +;6 to +;. of its brief1 for the simple reason that b
the ver orders, much relied upon b appellant for other purposes, of Ma ;., +56. and
3ecember +4, +56., 'od(es was #allowed or authoriBed# b the trial court #to continue the
business in which he was en(a(ed and to perform acts which he had been doin( while the
deceased was livin(#, )=rder of Ma ;.1 which accordin( to the motion on which the court
acted was #of buin( and sellin( personal and real properties#, and #to e7ecute subse2uent
sales, conveances, leases and mort(a(es of the properties left b the said deceased %innie
&ane 'od(es in consonance with the wishes conveed in the last will and testament of the
latter.# )=rder of 3ecember +41 0n other words, if 'od(es acted then as e7ecutor, it can be
said that he had authorit to do so b virtue of these blan9et orders, and PC0B does not
2uestion the le(alit of such (rant of authorit" on the contrar, it is relin( on the terms of
the order itself for its main contention in these cases. =n the other hand, if, as PC0B
contends, he acted as heir-ad!udicatee, the authorit (iven to him b the aforementioned
orders would still suKce.
As can be seen, therefore, it is of no moment whether the #contracts to sell# upon which the
deeds in 2uestion were based were e7ecuted b 'od(es before or after the death of his wife.
0n a word, Ge hold, for the reasons alread stated, that the properties covered b the deeds
bein( assailed pertain or should be deemed as pertainin( to the estate of Mrs. 'od(es"
hence, an supposed irre(ularit attendin( the actuations of the trial court ma be invo9ed
onl b her heirs, not b PC0B, and since the said heirs are not ob!ectin(, and the defects
pointed out not bein( strictl !urisdictional in nature, all thin(s considered, particularl the
unnecessar disturbance of ri(hts alread created in favor of innocent third parties, it is best
that the impu(ned orders are not disturbed.
0n view of these considerations, Ge do not 8nd suKcient merit in the assi(nments of error
under discussion.
.; PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
Assignments of error 2 to 2III,
-2I to -2III, --2I to --I-, ---2II
to ---2III, -I2 to -2I and I.
All these assi(nments of error commonl deal with alle(ed non-ful8llment b the respective
vendees, appellees herein, of the terms and conditions embodied in the deeds of sale
referred to in the assi(nments of error !ust discussed. 0t is claimed that some of them never
made full paments in accordance with the respective contracts to sell, while in the cases of
the others, li9e %orenBo Carles, &ose Pablico, Alfredo Catedral and *alvador *. IuBman, the
contracts with them had alread been unilaterall cancelled b PC0B pursuant to automatic
rescission clauses contained in them, in view of the failure of said buers to pa arreara(es
lon( overdue. But PC0B>s posture is a(ain premised on its assumption that the properties
covered b the deeds in 2uestion could not pertain to the estate of Mrs. 'od(es. Ge have
alread held above that, it bein( evident that a considerable portion of the con!u(al
properties, much more than the properties covered b said deeds, would inevitabl
constitute the estate of Mrs. 'od(es, to avoid unnecessar le(al complications, it can be
assumed that said properties form part of such estate. /rom this point of view, it is apparent
a(ain that the 2uestions, whether or not it was proper for appellee Ma(no to have
disre(arded the cancellations made b PC0B, thereb revivin( the ri(hts of the respective
buers-appellees, and, whether or not the rules (overnin( new dispositions of properties of
the estate were strictl followed, ma not be raised b PC0B but onl b the heirs of Mrs.
'od(es as the persons desi(nated to inherit the same, or perhaps the (overnment because
of the still unpaid inheritance ta7es. But, a(ain, since there is no pretense that an
ob!ections were raised b said parties or that the would necessaril be pre!udiced, the
contentions of PC0B under the instant assi(nments of error hardl merit an consideration.
Assignments of error I- to -II, -I-
to --I, --- to --I2, ---I- to -,
-2II to -I-, II and III to -I.
PC0B raises under these assi(nments of error two issues which accordin( to it are
fundamental, namel@ )+1 that in approvin( the deeds e7ecuted b Ma(no pursuant to
contracts to sell alread cancelled b it in the performance of its functions as administrator
of the estate of 'od(es, the trial court deprived the said estate of the ri(ht to invo9e such
cancellations it )PC0B1 had made and );1 that in so actin(, the court #arro(ated unto itself,
while actin( as a probate court, the power to determine the contendin( claims of third
parties a(ainst the estate of 'od(es over real propert,# since it has in e?ect determined
whether or not all the terms and conditions of the respective contracts to sell e7ecuted b
'od(es in favor of the buers-appellees concerned were complied with b the latter. Ghat is
worse, in the view of PC0B, is that the court has ta9en the word of the appellee Ma(no, #a
total stran(er to his estate as determinative of the issue#.
Actuall, contrar to the stand of PC0B, it is this last point re(ardin( appellee Ma(no>s havin(
a(reed to i(nore the cancellations made b PC0B and allowed the buers-appellees to
consummate the sales in their favor that is decisive. *ince Ge have alread held that the
properties covered b the contracts in 2uestion should be deemed to be portions of the
estate of Mrs. 'od(es and not that of 'od(es, it is PC0B that is a complete stran(er in these
incidents. Considerin(, therefore, that the estate of Mrs. 'od(es and her heirs who are the
real parties in interest havin( the ri(ht to oppose the consummation of the impu(ned sales
are not ob!ectin(, and that the are the ones who are precisel ur(in( that said sales be
sanctioned, the assi(nments of error under discussion have no basis and must accordin(l
be as the are hereb overruled.
., PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
Gith particular reference to assi(nments %000 to %D0, assailin( the orders of the trial court
re2uirin( PC0B to surrender the respective owner>s duplicate certi8cates of title over the
properties covered b the sales in 2uestion and otherwise directin( the Re(ister of 3eeds of
0loilo to cancel said certi8cates and to issue new transfer certi8cates of title in favor of the
buers-appellees, suKce it to sa that in the li(ht of the above discussion, the trial court was
within its ri(hts to so re2uire and direct, PC0B havin( refused to (ive wa, b withholdin(
said owners> duplicate certi8cates, of the correspondin( re(istration of the transfers dul
and le(all approved b the court.
Assignments of error -II to -2II
All these assi(nments of error commonl deal with the appeal a(ainst orders favorin(
appellee Gestern 0nstitute of $echnolo(. As will be recalled, said institute is one of the
buers of real propert covered b a contract to sell e7ecuted b 'od(es prior to the death
of his wife. As of =ctober, +5:6, it was in arrears in the total amount of P5;,:5+.-- in the
pament of its installments on account of its purchase, hence it received under date of
=ctober 4, +5:6 and =ctober ;-, +5:6, letters of collection, separatel and respectivel,
from PC0B and appellee Ma(no, in their respective capacities as administrators of the distinct
estates of the 'od(es spouses, albeit, while in the case of PC0B it made 9nown that #no
other arran(ement can be accepted e7cept b pain( all our past due account#, on the
other hand, Ma(no merel said she would #appreciate ver much if ou can ma9e some
remittance to brin( this account up-to-date and to reduce the amount of the obli(ation.#
)*ee pp. ;56-,++, Ireen R. on A.1 =n November ,, +5:6, the 0nstitute 8led a motion which,
after alle(in( that it was read and willin( to pa P;-,--- on account of its overdue
installments but uncertain whether it should pa PC0B or Ma(no, it praed that it be #allowed
to deposit the aforesaid amount with the court pendin( resolution of the conMictin( claims of
the administrators.# Actin( on this motion, on November ;,, +5:6, the trial court issued an
order, alread 2uoted in the narration of facts in this opinion, holdin( that pament to both
or either of the two administrators is #proper and le(al#, and so #movant F can pa to both
estates or either of them#, considerin( that #in both cases )*pecial Proceedin(s +,-. and
+:.;1 there is as et no !udicial declaration of heirs nor distribution of properties to
whomsoever are entitled thereto.#
$he ar(uments under the instant assi(nments of error revolve around said order. /rom the
procedural standpoint, it is claimed that PC0B was not served with a cop of the 0nstitute>s
motion, that said motion was heard, considered and resolved on November ;,, +5:6,
whereas the date set for its hearin( was November ;-, +5:6, and that what the order (rants
is di?erent from what is praed for in the motion. As to the substantive aspect, it is
contended that the matter treated in the motion is beond the !urisdiction of the probate
court and that the order authoriBed pament to a person other than the administrator of the
estate of 'od(es with whom the 0nstitute had contracted.
$he procedural points ur(ed b appellant deserve scant consideration. Ge must assume,
absent an clear proof to the contrar, that the lower court had acted re(ularl b seein( to
it that appellant was dul noti8ed. =n the other hand, there is nothin( irre(ular in the court>s
havin( resolved the motion three das after the date set for hearin( the same. Moreover,
the record reveals that appellants> motion for reconsideration wherein it raised the same
points was denied b the trial court on March ., +5:: )p. 4:;, Ireen R. on A.1 Githal, Ge are
not convinced that the relief (ranted is not within the (eneral intent of the 0nstitute>s
motion.
0nsofar as the substantive issues are concerned, all that need be said at this point is that
the are mere reiterations of contentions Ge have alread resolved above adversel to
appellants> position. 0ncidentall, Ge ma add, perhaps, to erase all doubts as to the
.4 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
propriet of not disturbin( the lower court>s orders sanctionin( the sales 2uestioned in all
these appeal s b PC0B, that it is onl when one of the parties to a contract to conve
propert e7ecuted b a deceased person raises substantial ob!ections to its bein(
implemented b the e7ecutor or administrator of the decedent>s estate that *ection < of
Rule <5 ma not appl and, conse2uentl, the matter has, to be ta9en up in a separate
action outside of the probate court" but where, as in the cases of the sales herein involved,
the interested parties are in a(reement that the conveance be made, it is properl within
the !urisdiction of the probate court to (ive its sanction thereto pursuant to the provisions of
the rule !ust mentioned. And with respect to the supposed automatic rescission clauses
contained in the contracts to sell e7ecuted b 'od(es in favor of herein appellees, the e?ect
of said clauses depend on the true nature of the said contracts, despite the nomenclature
appearin( therein, which is not controllin(, for if the amount to actual contracts of sale
instead of bein( mere unilateral accepted #promises to sell#, )Art. +4.5, Civil Code of the
Philippines, ;nd para(raph1 thepactum commissorium or the automatic rescission provision
would not operate, as a matter of public polic, unless there has been a previous notarial or
!udicial demand b the seller )+- Manresa ;:,, ;nd ed.1 neither of which have been shown
to have been made in connection with the transactions herein involved.
Conse2uentl, Ge 8nd no merit in the assi(nments of error
Number %D00 to %DE00.
S + M M A $ 7
Considerin( the fact that this decision is unusuall e7tensive and that the issues herein
ta9en up and resolved are rather numerous and varied, what with appellant ma9in( sevent-
ei(ht assi(nments of error a?ectin( no less than thirt separate orders of the court a 2uo, if
onl to facilitate proper understandin( of the import and e7tent of our rulin(s herein
contained, it is perhaps desirable that a brief restatement of the whole situation be made
to(ether with our conclusions in re(ard to its various factual and le(al aspects. .
$he instant cases refer to the estate left b the late Charles Newton 'od(es as well as that
of his wife, %innie &ane 'od(es, who predeceased him b about 8ve ears and a half. 0n their
respective wills which were e7ecuted on di?erent occasions, each one of them provided
mutuall as follows@ #0 (ive, devise and be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder )after
funeral and administration e7penses, ta7es and debts1 of m estate, both real and personal,
wherever situated or located, to m beloved )spouse1 to have and to hold unto )himAher1 F
durin( )hisAher1 natural lifetime#, sub!ect to the condition that upon the death of whoever of
them survived the other, the remainder of what he or she would inherit from the other is
#(ive)n1, devise)d1 and be2ueath)ed1# to the brothers and sisters of the latter.
Mrs. 'od(es died 8rst, on Ma ;,, +56.. /our das later, on Ma ;., 'od(es was appointed
special administrator of her estate, and in a separate order of the same date, he was
#allowed or authoriBed to continue the business in which he was en(a(ed, )buin( and
sellin( personal and real properties1 and to perform acts which he had been doin( while the
deceased was livin(.# *ubse2uentl, on 3ecember +4, +56., after Mrs. 'od(es> will had
been probated and 'od(es had been appointed and had 2uali8ed as E7ecutor thereof, upon
his motion in which he asserted that he was #not onl part owner of the properties left as
con!u(al, but also, the successor to all the properties left b the deceased %innie &ane
'od(es#, the trial court ordered that #for the reasons stated in his motion dated 3ecember
++, +56., which the Court considers well ta9en, ... all the sales, conveances, leases and
mort(a(es of all properties left b the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es e7ecuted b the
E7ecutor, Charles Newton 'od(es are hereb APPR=EE3. $he said E7ecutor is further
authoriBed to e7ecute subse2uent sales, conveances, leases and mort(a(es of the
.6 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
properties left b the said deceased %innie &ane 'od(es in consonance with the wishes
contained in the last will and testament of the latter.#
Annuall thereafter, 'od(es submitted to the court the correspondin( statements of account
of his administration, with the particularit that in all his motions, he alwas made it point to
ur(e the that #no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of e7aminin( the
herein accounts be (iven notice as herein e7ecutor is the onl devisee or le(atee of the
deceased in accordance with the last will and testament alread probated b the 'onorable
Court.# All said accounts approved as praed for.
Nothin( else appears to have been done either b the court a 6uo or 'od(es until 3ecember
;6, +5:;. 0mportantl to be the provision in the will of Mrs. 'od(es that her share of the
con!u(al partnership was to be inherited b her husband #to have and to hold unto him, m
said husband, durin( his natural lifetime# and that #at the death of m said husband, 0 (ive,
devise and be2ueath all the rest, residue and remainder of m estate, both real and
personal, wherever situated or located, to be e2uall divided amon( m brothers and
sisters, share and share ali9e#, which provision naturall made it imperative that the
con!u(al partnership be promptl li2uidated, in order that the #rest, residue and remainder#
of his wife>s share thereof, as of the time of 'od(es> own death, ma be readil 9nown and
identi8ed, no such li2uidation was ever underta9en. $he record (ives no indication of the
reason for such omission, althou(h relatedl, it appears therein@
+. $hat in his annual statement submitted to the court of the net worth of C. N. 'od(es and
the Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es, 'od(es repeatedl and consistentl reported the combined
income of the con!u(al partnership and then merel divided the same e2uall between
himself and the estate of the deceased wife, and, more importantl, he also, as consistentl,
8led correspondin( separate income ta7 returns for each calendar ear for each resultin(
half of such combined income, thus reportin( that the estate of Mrs. 'od(es had its own
income distinct from his own.
;. $hat when the court a 6uo happened to inadvertentl omit in its order probatin( the will
of Mrs. 'od(es, the name of one of her brothers, Ro 'i(don then alread deceased, 'od(es
lost no time in as9in( for the proper correction #in order that the heirs of deceased Ro
'i(don ma not thin9 or believe the were omitted, and that the were reall interested in
the estate of the deceased %innie &ane 'od(es#.
,. $hat in his aforementioned motion of 3ecember ++, +56., he e7pressl stated that
#deceased %innie &ane 'od(es died leavin( no descendants or ascendants e7cept brothers
and sisters and herein petitioner as the survivin( spouse, to inherit the properties of the
decedent#, thereb indicatin( that he was not e7cludin( his wife>s brothers and sisters from
the inheritance.
4. $hat 'od(es alle(edl made statements and manifestations to the Cnited *tates
inheritance ta7 authorities indicatin( that he had renounced his inheritance from his wife in
favor of her other heirs, which attitude he is supposed to have reiterated or rati8ed in an
alle(ed aKdavit subscribed and sworn to here in the Philippines and in which he even
purportedl stated that his reason for so disclaimin( and renouncin( his ri(hts under his
wife>s will was to #absolve )him1 or )his1 estate from an liabilit for the pament of income
ta7es on income which has accrued to the estate of %innie &ane 'od(es#, his wife, since her
death.
=n said date, 3ecember ;6, +5:;, 'od(es died. $he ver ne7t da, upon motion of herein
respondent and appellee, Avelina A. Ma(no, she was appointed b the trial court as
.: PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
Administratri7 of the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es, in *pecial Proceedin(s No. +,-.
and as *pecial Administratri7 of the estate of Charles Newton 'od(es, #in the latter case,
because the last will of said Charles Newton 'od(es is still 9ept in his vault or iron safe and
that the real and personal properties of both spouses ma be lost, dama(ed or (o to waste,
unless *pecial Administratri7 is appointed,# )=rder of 3ecember ;:, +5:;, p. ;., Hellow R. on
A.1 althou(h, soon enou(h, on 3ecember ;5, +5:;, a certain 'arold Q. 3avies was appointed
as her Co-*pecial Administrator, and when *pecial Proceedin(s No. +:.;, $estate Estate of
Charles Newton 'od(es, was opened, &oe 'od(es, as ne7t of 9in of the deceased, was in due
time appointed as Co-Administrator of said estate to(ether with Att. /ernando P. Mirasol, to
replace Ma(no and 3avies, onl to be in turn replaced eventuall b petitioner PC0B alone.
At the outset, the two probate proceedin(s appear to have been proceedin( !ointl, with
each administrator actin( to(ether with the other, under a sort of modus operandi. PC0B
used to secure at the be(innin( the conformit to and si(nature of Ma(no in transactions it
wanted to enter into and submitted the same to the court for approval as their !oint acts. *o
did Ma(no do li9ewise. *omehow, however, di?erences seem to have arisen, for which
reason, each of them be(an actin( later on separatel and independentl of each other, with
apparent sanction of the trial court. $hus, PC0B had its own lawers whom it contracted and
paid handsomel, conducted the business of the estate independentl of Ma(no and
otherwise acted as if all the properties appearin( in the name of Charles Newton 'od(es
belon(ed solel and onl to his estate, to the e7clusion of the brothers and sisters of Mrs.
'od(es, without considerin( whether or not in fact an of said properties corresponded to
the portion of the con!u(al partnership pertainin( to the estate of Mrs. 'od(es. =n the other
hand, Ma(no made her own e7penditures, hired her own lawers, on the premise that there
is such an estate of Mrs. 'od(es, and dealth with some of the properties, appearin( in the
name of 'od(es, on the assumption that the actuall correspond to the estate of Mrs.
'od(es. All of these independent and separate actuations of the two administrators were
invariabl approved b the trial court upon submission. Eventuall, the di?erences reached a
point wherein Ma(no, who was more co(niBant than anone else about the ins and outs of
the businesses and properties of the deceased spouses because of her lon( and intimate
association with them, made it diKcult for PC0B to perform normall its functions as
administrator separatel from her. $hus, le(al complications arose and the present !udicial
controversies came about.
Predicatin( its position on the tenor of the orders of Ma ;. and 3ecember +4, +56. as well
as the approval b the court a 6uo of the annual statements of account of 'od(es, PC0B
holds to the view that the estate of Mrs. 'od(es has alread been in e?ect closed with the
virtual ad!udication in the mentioned orders of her whole estate to 'od(es, and that,
therefore, Ma(no had alread ceased since then to have an estate to administer and the
brothers and sisters of Mrs. 'od(es have no interests whatsoever in the estate left b
'od(es. Mainl upon such theor, PC0B has come to this Court with a petition
for certiorari and prohibition prain( that the lower court>s orders allowin( respondent
Ma(no to continue actin( as administratri7 of the estate of Mrs. 'od(es in *pecial
Proceedin(s +,-. in the manner she has been doin(, as detailed earlier above, be set aside.
Additionall, PC0B maintains that the provision in Mrs. 'od(es> will institutin( her brothers
and sisters in the manner therein speci8ed is in the nature of a testamentar substitution,
but inasmuch as the purported substitution is not, in its view, in accordance with the
pertinent provisions of the Civil Code, it is ine?ective and ma not be enforced. 0t is further
contended that, in an event, inasmuch as the 'od(es spouses were both residents of the
Philippines, followin( the decision of this Court in ABnar vs. Iarcia, or the case of
Christensen, . *CRA 56, the estate left b Mrs. 'od(es could not be more than one-half of
her share of the con!u(al partnership, notwithstandin( the fact that she was citiBen of $e7as,
C.*.A., in accordance with Article +: in relation to Articles 5-- and <.; of the Civil Code.
0nitiall, Ge issued a preliminar in!unction a(ainst Ma(no and allowed PC0B to act alone.
.. PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
At the same time PC0B has appealed several separate orders of the trial court approvin(
individual acts of appellee Ma(no in her capacit as administratri7 of the estate of Mrs.
'od(es, such as, hirin( of lawers for speci8ed fees and incurrin( e7penses of
administration for di?erent purposes and e7ecutin( deeds of sale in favor of her co-
appellees coverin( properties which are still re(istered in the name of 'od(es, purportedl
pursuant to correspondin( #contracts to sell# e7ecuted b 'od(es. $he said orders are bein(
2uestioned on !urisdictional and procedural (rounds directl or indirectl predicated on the
principal theor of appellant that all the properties of the two estates belon( alread to the
estate of 'od(es e7clusivel.
=n the other hand, respondent-appellee Ma(no denies that the trial court>s orders of Ma ;.
and 3ecember +4, +56. were meant to be 8nall ad!udicator of the hereditar ri(hts of
'od(es and contends that the were no more than the court>s (eneral sanction of past and
future acts of 'od(es as e7ecutor of the will of his wife in due course of administration. As to
the point re(ardin( substitution, her position is that what was (iven b Mrs. 'od(es to her
husband under the provision in 2uestion was a lifetime usufruct of her share of the con!u(al
partnership, with the na9ed ownership passin( directl to her brothers and sisters. Anent the
application of Article +: of the Civil Code, she claims that the applicable law to the will of
Mrs. 'od(es is that of $e7as under which, she alle(es, there is no sstem of le(itime, hence,
the estate of Mrs. 'od(es cannot be less than her share or one-half of the con!u(al
partnership properties. *he further maintains that, in an event, 'od(es had as a matter of
fact and of law renounced his inheritance from his wife and, therefore, her whole estate
passed directl to her brothers and sisters e?ective at the latest upon the death of 'od(es.
0n this decision, for the reasons discussed above, and upon the issues !ust summariBed, Ge
overrule PC0B>s contention that the orders of Ma ;., +56. and 3ecember +4, +56. amount
to an ad!udication to 'od(es of the estate of his wife, and Ge reco(niBe the present
e7istence of the estate of Mrs. 'od(es, as consistin( of properties, which, while re(istered in
that name of 'od(es, do actuall correspond to the remainder of the share of Mrs. 'od(es in
the con!u(al partnership, it appearin( that pursuant to the pertinent provisions of her will,
an portion of said share still e7istin( and undisposed of b her husband at the time of his
death should (o to her brothers and sisters share and share ali9e. /actuall, Ge 8nd that the
proven circumstances relevant to the said orders do not warrant the conclusion that the
court intended to ma9e thereb such alle(ed 8nal ad!udication. %e(all, Ge hold that the
tenor of said orders furnish no basis for such a conclusion, and what is more, at the time said
orders were issued, the proceedin(s had not et reached the point when a 8nal distribution
and ad!udication could be made. Moreover, the interested parties were not dul noti8ed that
such disposition of the estate would be done. At best, therefore, said orders merel allowed
'od(es to dispose of portions of his inheritance in advance of 8nal ad!udication, which is
implicitl permitted under *ection ; of Rule +-5, there bein( no possible pre!udice to third
parties, inasmuch as Mrs. 'od(es had no creditors and all pertinent ta7es have been paid.
More speci8call, Ge hold that, on the basis of circumstances presentl e7tant in the record,
and on the assumption that 'od(es> purported renunciation should not be upheld, the estate
of Mrs. 'od(es inherited b her brothers and sisters consists of one-fourth of the communit
estate of the spouses at the time of her death, minus whatever 'od(es had (ratuitousl
disposed of therefrom durin( the period from, Ma ;,, +56., when she died, to 3ecember
;6, +5:;, when he died provided, that with re(ard to remunerative dispositions made b him
durin( the same period, the proceeds thereof, whether in cash or propert, should be
deemed as continuin( to be part of his wife>s estate, unless it can be shown that he had
subse2uentl disposed of them gratuitousl5.
At this !uncture, it ma be reiterated that the 2uestion of what are the pertinent laws of
$e7as and what would be the estate of Mrs. 'od(es under them is basicall one of fact, and
.< PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
considerin( the respective positions of the parties in re(ard to said factual issue, it can
alread be deemed as settled for the purposes of these cases that, indeed, the free portion
of said estate that could possibl descend to her brothers and sisters b virtue of her will
ma not be less than one-fourth of the con!u(al estate, it appearin( that the di?erence in
the stands of the parties has reference solel to the le(itime of 'od(es, PC0B bein( of the
view that under the laws of $e7as, there is such a le(itime of one-fourth of said con!u(al
estate and Ma(no contendin(, on the other hand, that there is none. 0n other words,
hereafter, whatever mi(ht ultimatel appear, at the subse2uent proceedin(s, to be actuall
the laws of $e7as on the matter would no lon(er be of an conse2uence, since PC0B would
anwa be in estoppel alread to claim that the estate of Mrs. 'od(es should be less than as
contended b it now, for admissions b a part related to the e?ects of forei(n laws, which
have to be proven in our courts li9e an other controverted fact, create estoppel.
0n the process, Ge overrule PC0B>s contention that the provision in Mrs. 'od(es> will in favor
of her brothers and sisters constitutes ine?ective hereditar substitutions. But neither are
Ge sustainin(, on the other hand, Ma(no>s pose that it (ave 'od(es onl a lifetime usufruct.
Ge hold that b said provision, Mrs. 'od(es simultaneousl instituted her brothers and
sisters as co-heirs with her husband, with the condition, however, that the latter would have
complete ri(hts of dominion over the whole estate durin( his lifetime and what would (o to
the former would be onl the remainder thereof at the time of 'od(es> death. 0n other
words, whereas the are not to inherit onl in case of default of 'od(es, on the other hand,
'od(es was not obli(ed to preserve anthin( for them. Clearl then, the essential elements
of testamentar substitution are absent" the provision in 2uestion is a simple case of
conditional simultaneous institution of heirs, whereb the institution of 'od(es is sub!ect to
a partial resolutor condition the operative contin(enc of which is coincidental with that of
the suspensive condition of the institution of his brothers and sisters-in-law, which manner of
institution is not prohibited b law.
Ge also hold, however, that the estate of Mrs. 'od(es inherited b her brothers and sisters
could be more than !ust stated, but this would depend on )+1 whether upon the proper
application of the principle of ren&oi in relation to Article +: of the Civil Code and the
pertinent laws of $e7as, it will appear that 'od(es had no le(itime as contended b Ma(no,
and );1 whether or not it can be held that 'od(es had le(all and e?ectivel renounced his
inheritance from his wife. Cnder the circumstances presentl obtainin( and in the state of
the record of these cases, as of now, the Court is not in a position to ma9e a 8nal rulin(,
whether of fact or of law, on an of these two issues, and Ge, therefore, reserve said issues
for further proceedin(s and resolution in the 8rst instance b the court a 2uo, as
hereinabove indicated. Ge reiterate, however, that pendin( such further proceedin(s, as
matters stand at this sta(e, =ur considered opinion is that it is beond cavil that since,
under the terms of the will of Mrs. 'od(es, her husband could not have anwa le(all
ad!udicated or caused to be ad!udicated to himself her whole share of their con!u(al
partnership, albeit he could have disposed an part thereof durin( his lifetime, the resultin(
estate of Mrs. 'od(es, of which Ma(no is the uncontested administratri7, cannot be less
than one-fourth of the con!u(al partnership properties, as of the time of her death, minus
what, as e7plained earlier, have beengratuitousl5 disposed of therefrom, b 'od(es in favor
of third persons since then, for even if it were assumed that, as contended b PC0B, under
Article +: of the Civil Code and applin( ren&oi the laws of the Philippines are the ones
ultimatel applicable, such one-fourth share would be her free disposable portion, ta9in(
into account alread the le(itime of her husband under Article 5-- of the Civil Code.
$he fore(oin( considerations leave the Court with no alternative than to conclude that in
predicatin( its orders on the assumption, albeit une7pressed therein, that there is an estate
of Mrs. 'od(es to be distributed amon( her brothers and sisters and that respondent Ma(no
is the le(al administratri7 thereof, the trial court acted correctl and within its !urisdiction.
.5 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
Accordin(l, the petition for certiorari and prohibition has to be denied. $he Court feels
however, that pendin( the li2uidation of the con!u(al partnership and the determination of
the speci8c properties constitutin( her estate, the two administrators should act con!ointl
as ordered in the Court>s resolution of *eptember <, +5.; and as further clari8ed in the
dispositive portion of its decision.
Anent the appeals from the orders of the lower court sanctionin( pament b appellee
Ma(no, as administratri7, of e7penses of administration and attorne>s fees, it is obvious
that, with =ur holdin( that there is such an estate of Mrs. 'od(es, and for the reasons stated
in the bod of this opinion, the said orders should be aKrmed. $his Ge do on the assumption
Ge 8nd !usti8ed b the evidence of record, and seemin(l a(reed to b appellant PC0B, that
the siBe and value of the properties that should correspond to the estate of Mrs. 'od(es far
e7ceed the total of the attorne>s fees and administration e7penses in 2uestion.
Gith respect to the appeals from the orders approvin( transactions made b appellee
Ma(no, as administratri7, coverin( properties re(istered in the name of 'od(es, the details
of which are related earlier above, a distinction must be made between those predicated on
contracts to sell e7ecuted b 'od(es before the death of his wife, on the one hand, and
those premised on contracts to sell entered into b him after her death. As re(ards the
latter, Ge hold that inasmuch as the paments made b appellees constitute proceeds of
sales of properties belon(in( to the estate of Mrs. 'od(es, as ma be implied from the tenor
of the motions of Ma ;. and 3ecember +4, +56., said paments continue to pertain to said
estate, pursuant to her intent obviousl reMected in the relevant provisions of her will, on the
assumption that the siBe and value of the properties to correspond to the estate of Mrs.
'od(es would e7ceed the total value of all the properties covered b the impu(ned deeds of
sale, for which reason, said properties ma be deemed as pertainin( to the estate of Mrs.
'od(es. And there bein( no showin( that thus viewin( the situation, there would be
pre!udice to anone, includin( the (overnment, the Court also holds that, disre(ardin(
procedural technicalities in favor of a pra(matic and practical approach as discussed above,
the assailed orders should be aKrmed. Bein( a stran(er to the estate of Mrs. 'od(es, PC0B
has no personalit to raise the procedural and !urisdictional issues raised b it. And
inasmuch as it does not appear that an of the other heirs of Mrs. 'od(es or the (overnment
has ob!ected to an of the orders under appeal, even as to these parties, there e7ists no
reason for said orders to be set aside.
1ISP"SI'I2) PA$'
0N E0EG =/ A%% $'E /=REI=0NI PREM0*E*, !ud(ment is hereb rendered 30*M0**0NI the
petition in I. R. Nos. %-;.<:- and %-;.<5:, and A//0RM0NI, in I. R. Nos. %-;.5,:-,. and the
other thirt-one numbers hereunder ordered to be added after pament of the
correspondin( doc9et fees, all the orders of the trial court under appeal enumerated in detail
on pa(es ,6 to ,. and <- to <; of this decision" the e7istence of the $estate Estate of %innie
&ane 'od(es, with respondent-appellee Avelina A. Ma(no, as administratri7 thereof is
reco(niBed, and it is declared that, until 8nal !ud(ment is ultimatel rendered re(ardin( )+1
the manner of applin( Article +: of the Civil Code of the Philippines to the situation
obtainin( in these cases and );1 the factual and le(al issue of whether or not Charles
Newton 'od(es had e?ectivel and le(all renounced his inheritance under the will of %innie
&ane 'od(es, the said estate consists of one-fourth of the communit properties of the said
spouses, as of the time of the death of the wife on Ma ;,, +56., minus whatever the
husband had alread (ratuitousl disposed of in favor of third persons from said date until
his death, provided, 8rst, that with respect to remunerative dispositions, the proceeds
thereof shall continue to be part of the wife>s estate, unless subse2uentl disposed of
(ratuitousl to third parties b the husband, and second, that should the purported
renunciation be declared le(all e?ective, no deductions whatsoever are to be made from
<- PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
said estate" in conse2uence, the preliminar in!unction of Au(ust <, +5:., as amended on
=ctober 4 and 3ecember :, +5:., is lifted, and the resolution of *eptember <, +5.;,
directin( that petitioner-appellant PC0B, as Administrator of the $estate Estate of Charles
Newton 'od(es, in *pecial Proceedin(s +:.;, and respondent-appellee Avelina A. Ma(no, as
Administratri7 of the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es, in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-.,
should act thenceforth alwas con!ointl, never independentl from each other, as such
administrators, is reiterated, and the same is made part of this !ud(ment and shall continue
in force, pendin( the li2uidation of the con!u(al partnership of the deceased spouses and the
determination and se(re(ation from each other of their respective estates, provided, that
upon the 8nalit of this !ud(ment, the trial court should immediatel proceed to the partition
of the presentl combined estates of the spouses, to the end that the one-half share thereof
of Mrs. 'od(es ma be properl and clearl identi8ed" thereafter, the trial court should
forthwith se(re(ate the remainder of the one-fourth herein ad!ud(ed to be her estate and
cause the same to be turned over or delivered to respondent for her e7clusive
administration in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-., while the other one-fourth shall remain under
the !oint administration of said respondent and petitioner under a !oint proceedin(s in
*pecial Proceedin(s +,-. and +:.;, whereas the half un2uestionabl pertainin( to 'od(es
shall be administered b petitioner e7clusivel in *pecial Proceedin(s +:.;, without
pre!udice to the resolution b the trial court of the pendin( motions for its removal as
administrator
12
" and this arran(ement shall be maintained until the 8nal resolution of the
two issues of renvoi and renunciation hereb reserved for further hearin( and determination,
and the correspondin( complete se(re(ation and partition of the two estates in the
proportions that ma result from the said resolution.
Ienerall and in all other respects, the parties and the court a 6uo are directed to adhere
henceforth, in all their actuations in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-. and +:.;, to the views passed
and ruled upon b the Court in the fore(oin( opinion.
Appellant PC0B is ordered to pa, within 8ve )61 das from notice hereof, thirt-one
additional appeal doc9et fees, but this decision shall nevertheless become 8nal as to each of
the parties herein after 8fteen )+61 das from the respective notices to them hereof in
accordance with the rules.
Costs a(ainst petitioner-appellant PC0B.
0aldi&ar, Castro, )sguerra and *ernandez, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, Antonio, MuHoz Palma and A6uino, JJ., concur in the result.



S+0ara)+ O0(n(ons

2ERN#N$O, J., concurrin(@
0 concur on the basis of the procedural pronouncements in the opinion.
<+ PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
TEE!#N&EE, J., concurrin(@
0 concur in the result of dismissal of the petition for certiorari and prohibition in Cases %-
;.<:- and %-;.<5: and with the aKrmance of the appealed orders of the probate court in
Cases %-;.5,:-,..
0 also concur with the portion of the dispositive part of the !ud(ment penned b Mr. &ustice
Barredo decreein( thelifting of the Court>s writ of preliminar in!unction of Au(ust <, +5:. as
amended on =ctober 4, and 3ecember :, +5:.
1
and orderin( in lieu thereof that the Court>s
resolution of *eptember <, +5.;
2
which directed that petitioner.appellantPC0B as
administrator of C. N. )Charles Newton1 'od(es> estate )*p. Proc. No. +:.; and respondent-
appellee Avelina A. Ma(no as administratri7 of %innie &ane 'od(es> estate )*p. Proc. No.
+,-.1 should act alwas conBointl5 never independentl from each other, as such
administrators, is reiterated and shall continue in force and made part of the !ud(ment.
0t is manifest from the record that petitioner-appellant PC0B>s primal contention in the cases
at bar belatedl Dledb it with this Court on August :, :;?= )over ten )+-1 ears after %innie
&ane 'od(es> death on Ma5 89, :;<= and )over 8ve )61 ears after her husband C.N. 'od(es>
death on 1ecem4er 8<, :;?8 F durin( which time both estates have
been pending settlement and distribution to the decedents> respective ri(htful heirs all this
time up to now1 F that the probate court per its order of 3ecember +4, +56.
)supplementin( an earlier order of Ma ;6, +56.1
6
in (rantin( C. N. 'od(es> motion as
E7ecutor of his wife %innie>s estate to continue their #4usiness of buin( and sellin( personal
and real properties# and approvin( #all sales, conveances, leases and mort(a(es# made
and to be made b him as such e7ecutor under his obli(ation to submit his 5earl5
accounts in e?ect declared him as sole heir of his wife>s estate and nothin( remains to be
done e7cept to formall close her estate )*p. Proc. No. +,-.1 as her estate was thereb
mer(ed with his own so that nothing remains of it that ma be ad!udicated to her brothers
and sisters as her desi(nated heirs after him,

F is wholl untenable and deserves scant
consideration.
Aside from havin( been put forth as an obvious afterthou(ht much too late in the da, this
contention of PC0B that there no lon(er e7ists an separate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es
after the probate court>s order of 3ecember +4, +56. (oes a(ainst the ver acts and
!udicial admissions of C.N. 'od(es as her e7ecutor whereb he consistentl reco(niBed
the separate e3istence and identit5 of his wife>s estate apart from his own separate estate
and from his own share of their con!u(al partnership and estate and #never considered the
whole estate as a sin(le one belon(in( e7clusivel to himself# durin( the entire period that
he survived her for over 8ve )61 ears up to the time of his own death on 3ecember ;6,
+5:;
>
and a(ainst the identical acts and !udicial admissions of PC0B as administrator of C.N.
'od(es> estate until PC0B sou(ht in +5:: to ta9e over 4oth estates as pertainin( to its sole
administration.
PC0B is now barred and estopped from contradictin( or ta9in( a belated position
contradictor to or inconsistent with its previous admissions : )as well as those of C.N.
'od(es himself in his lifetime and of whose estate PC0B is merel an administrator1
reco(niBin( the e7istence and identit of %innie &ane 'od(es> separate estate and the le(al
ri(hts and interests therein of her brothers and sisters as her desi(nated heirs in her will.
PC0B>s petition for certiorari and prohibition to declare all acts of the probate court in %innie
&ane 'od(es> estate subse2uent to its order of 3ecember +4, +56. as #null and void for
havin( been issued without !urisdiction# must therefore be dismissed with the re!ection of its
belated and untenable contention that there is no lon(er an estate of Mrs. 'od(es of which
respondent Avelina Ma(no is the dul appointed and actin( administratri7.
<; PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
PC0B>s appeal
7
from the probate court>s various orders reco(niBin( respondent Ma(no as
administratri7 of %innie>s estate )*p. Proc No. +,-.1 and sanctionin( her acts of
administration of said estate and approvin( the sales contracts e7ecuted b her with the
various individual appellees, which involve basicall the same primal issue raised in the
petition as to whether there still e7ists a separate estate of %innie of which respondent-
appellee Ma(no ma continue to be the administratri7, must necessaril fail F a result of
the Court>s main opinion at bar that there does e7ist such an estate and that the t!o estates
)husband>s and wife>s1 must be administered coBointl5 b their respective administrators
)PC0B and Ma(no1.
'he dispositi&e portion of the main opinion
$he main opinion disposes that@
0N E0EG =/ A%% $'E /=REI=0NI PREM0*E*, !ud(ment is hereb rendered 30*M0**0NI the
petition in I. R. Nos. %-;.<:- and %-;.<5:, and A//0RM0NI, in I. R. Nos. %-;.5,:-,. and the
other thirt-one numbers hereunder ordered to be added after pament of the
correspondin( doc9et fees, all the orders of the trial court under appeal enumerated in detail
on pa(es ,6 to ,. and <- to <; of this decision@
$he e3istence of the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es, with respondent-appellee Avelina
A. Ma(no, as administratri7 thereof is recognized, and
0t is declared that, until 8nal !ud(ment is ultimatel rendered re(ardin( )+1 the manner of
applin( Article +: of the Civil Code of the Philippines to the situation obtainin( in these
cases and );1 the factual and le(al issues of whether or not Charles Newton 'od(es has
e?ectivel and le(all renounced his inheritance under the will of %innie &ane 'od(es, the
said estate consists of one.fourthof the communit properties of the said spouses, as of the
time of the death of the wife on Ma ;,, +56., minus whatever the husband had
alread gratuitousl5 disposed of in favor of third persons from said date until his death,
provided, 8rst, that with respect to remunerati&e dispositions, the proceeds thereof shall
continue to be part of the !ifeEs estate, unless subse2uentl disposed of gratuitousl5 to third
parties b the husband, and second, that should the purported renunciation be declared
le(all e?ective, no deduction whatsoever are to be made from said estate"
0n conse2uence, the preliminar5 inBunction of Au(ust <, +5:., as amended on =ctober 4 and
3ecember :, +5:., is lifted and the resolution of *eptember <, +5.;, directin( that
petitioner-appellant PC0B, as Administrator of the $estate Estate of Charles Newton 'od(es
in *pecial Proceedin(s +:.;, and respondent-appellee Avelina A. Ma(no, as Administratri7 of
the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-., should act thenceforth
alwas conBointl5, never independentl from each other, as such administrators,
is reiterated, and the same is made part of this Budgment and shall continue in
force, pending the li6uidation of the con!u(al partnership of the deceased spouses and
the determination and segregation from each other of their respective estates" provided,
that upon the 8nalit of this !ud(ment, the trial court should immediatel proceed to
the partition of the presentl combined estates of the spouses, to the end that the one.
half share thereof of Mrs. 'od(es ma be properl and clearl identi8ed"
'hereafter, the trial court should forthwith se(re(ate the remainder of the one.fourth herein
ad!ud(ed to be her estate and cause the same to be turned over or delivered to respondent
for her e3clusi&e administration in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-., while the other one.fourth shall
remain under the !oint administrative of said respondent and petitioner under a Boint
proceedings in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-. and +:.;, whereas the half un2uestionabl
<, PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
pertainin( to (odges shall be administered bpetitioner e3clusi&el5 in *pecial Proceedin(s
+:.;, without pre!udice to the resolution b the trial court of the pending motions for its
remo&al as administrator"
And this arran(ement shall be maintained until the Dnal resolution of the two issues
of ren&oi andrenunciation hereb reserved for further hearin( and determination, and the
correspondin( completese(re(ation and partition of the two estates in the proportions that
ma result from the said resolution.
Ienerall and in all other respects, the parties and the court a 6uo are directed to adhere
henceforth, in all their actuations in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-. and +:.;, to the views passed
and ruled upon b the Court in the fore(oin( opinion.
8
Minimum estimate of Mrs. (odgesE estateI
"ne.fourth of conBugal properties.
$he main opinion in declarin( the e7istence of a separate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es which
shall pass to her brothers and sisters with ri(ht of representation )b their heirs1 as her dul
desi(nated heirs declares that her estate consists as a minimum )i.e. assuming )+1 that
under Article +: of the Philippine Civil Code C. N. 'od(es as survivin( husband was entitled
to one-half of her estate as legitime and );1 that he had not e?ectivel and
le(allrenounced his inheritance under her will1 of #one.fourth of the communit properties
of the said spouses, as of the time of the death of the wife on Ma ;,, +56., minus whatever
the husband had alread gratuitousl5 disposed of in favor of third persons from said date
until his death,# with the proviso that proceeds of remunerati&e dispositions or sales for
valuable consideration made b C. N. 'od(es after his wife %innie>s death shall continue to
be part of her estate unless subse2uentl disposed of b him gratuitousl5 to third parties
sub!ect to the condition, however, that if he is held to have validl and
e?ectivel renounced his inheritance under his wife>s will, no deductions of an dispositions
made b 'od(es even if gratuitousl5 are to be made from his wife %innie>s estate which shall
passintact to her brothers and sisters as her desi(nated heirs called in her will to succeed to
her estate upon the death of her husband C. N. 'od(es.
1iFerences !ith the main opinion
0 do not share the main opinion>s view that %innie &ane 'od(es instituted her husband as her
heir under her will #to have dominion over all her estate durin( his lifetime ... as a4solute
o!ner of the properties ...#
9
and that she be2ueathed #the whole of her estate to be owned
and en!oed b him as universal and sole heir with a4solute dominion over them onl durin(
his lifetime, which means that while he could completel and absolutel dispose of an
portion thereof inter &i&os to anone other than himself, he was not free to do so mortis
causa, and all his ri(hts to what mi(ht remain upon his death would cease entirel upon the
occurrence of that contin(enc, inasmuch as the ri(ht of his brothers and sisters-in-law to
the inheritance, althou(h vested alread upon the death of Mrs. 'od(es, would
automaticall become operative upon the occurrence of the death of 'od(es in the event of
actual e7istence of an remainder of her estate then.#
10
As will be ampli8ed hereinafter, 0 do not subscribe to such a view that %innie &ane 'od(es
willed #full and absolute ownership# and #absolute dominion# over her estate to her
husband, but rather that she named her husband C. N. 'od(es and her brothers and sisters
as instituted heirs !ith a term under Article <<6 of our Civil Code, to wit, 'od(es as
instituted heir with a resolutor5 term whereunder his ri(ht to the succession ceased
in diem upon arrival of the resolutor5 term of his death on 3ecember ;6, +5:; and her
<4 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
brothers and sisters as instituted heirs with asuspensi&e term whereunder their ri(ht to the
succession commenced e3 die upon arrival of the suspensive term of the death of C. N.
'od(es on 3ecember ;6, +5:;.
'ence, while a(reein( with the main opinion that the proceeds of all remunerative
dispositions made b C. N. 'od(es after his wife>s death remain an inte(ral part of his wife>s
estate which she willed to her brothers and sisters, 0 submit that C. N. 'od(es
could not validl ma9e gratuitous dispositions of an part or all of his wife>s estate F
#completel and absolutel dispose of an portion thereof inter &i&os to anone other than
himself# in the lan(ua(e of the main opinion, supra F and thereb render ine?ectual and
nu(ator her institution of her brothers and sisters as her desi(nated heirs to succeed to
her !hole estate #at the death of )her1 husband.# 0f accordin( to the main opinion, 'od(es
could not ma9e such (ratuitous #complete and absolute dispositions# of his wife %innie>s
estate #mortis causa,# it would seem that b the same to9en and rationale he was li9ewise
proscribed b the will from ma9in( such dispositions of %innie>s estate inter &i&os.
0 believe that the two 2uestions of ren&oi and renunciation should be
resolved preferentiall5 and e3peditiousl5 b the probate court ahead of the partition and
se(re(ation of the minimum one-fourth of the con!u(al or communit properties constitutin(
%innie &ane 'od(es> separate estate, which tas9 considerin( that it is now seventeen )+.1
ears since %innie &ane 'od(es> death and her con!u(al estate with C. N. 'od(es has
remained unli6uidated up to now mi(ht ta9e a similar number of ears to unravel with the
numerous items, transactions and details of the siBable estates involved.
*uch partition of the minimum one-fourth would not be 8nal, since if the two pre!udicial
2uestions of ren&oi andrenunciation were resolved favorabl to %innie>s estate meanin( to
sa that if it should be held that C. N. 'od(es is not entitled to an le(itime of her estate
and at an rate he had totall renounced his inheritance under the will1, then %innie>s estate
would consist not onl of the minimum one-fourth but one.half of the con!u(al or communit
properties of the 'od(es spouses, which would re2uire a(ain the partition and se(re(ation
of still another one-fourth of said. properties to complete %innie>s separate estate.
M di?erences with the main opinion involve further the le(al concepts, e?ects and
conse2uences of the testamentar dispositions of %innie &ane 'od(es in her will and the
2uestion of the best to reach a solution of the pressin( 2uestion of e7peditin( the closin( of
the estates which after all do not appear to involve an outstandin( debts nor an dispute
between the heirs and should therefore be promptl settled now after all these ears without
an further undue complications and delas and distributed to the heirs for their full
en!oment and bene8t. As no consensus appears to have been reached thereon b a
ma!orit of the Court, 0 propose to state views as concisel as possible with the sole end in
view that the ma be of some assistance to the probate court and the parties in reachin(
an e7peditious closin( and settlement of the estates of the 'od(es spouses.
'!o Assumptions
As indicated above, the declaration of the minimum of Mrs. 'od(es> estate as one-fourth of
the con!u(al properties is based on two assumptions most favorable to C. N. 'od(es> estate
and his heirs, namel )+1 that the probate court must accept the ren&oi or #reference
bac9#
11
alle(edl provided b the laws of the *tate of $e7as )of which state the 'od(es
spouses were citiBens1 whereb the civil laws of the Philippines as the domicile of the
'od(es spouses would (overn their succession not!ithstanding the provisions of Article +:
of our Civil Code )which provides that the national law of the decedents, in this case, of
$e7as, shall (overn their succession1 with the result that her estate would consist of no
morethan one-fourth of the con!u(al properties since the legitime of her husband )the other
<6 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
one-fourth of said con!u(al properties or one-half of her estate, under Article 5-- of our Civil
Code1 could not then be disposed of nor burdened with an condition b her and );1 that
C.N. 'od(es had not e?ectivel and le(all renounced his inheritance under his wife>s will.
$hese two assumptions are of course Matl disputed b respondent-appellee Ma(no as Mrs.
'od(es> administratri7, who avers that the law of the *tate of $e7as (overns her succession
and does not provide for and le(itime, hence, her brothers and sisters are entitled to
succeed to the whole of her share of the con!u(al properties which is one.half thereof and
that in an event, 'od(es had totall renounced all his ri(hts under the will.
$he main opinion concedes that #)01n the interest of settlin( the estates herein involved
soonest, it would be best, indeed, if these conMictin( claims of the parties were determined
in these proceedin(s.# 0t observes however that this cannot be done due to the inade2uac
of the evidence submitted b the parties in the probate court and of the parties>
discussion, &iz, #there is no clear and reliable proof of what the possibl applicable laws of
$e7as are. $hen also, the (enuineness of the documents relied upon b respondent Ma(no
Ore 'od(es> renunciationP is disputed.#
12
'ence, the main opinion e7pressl reserves resolution and determination on these two
conMictin( claims and issues which it deems #are not properl before the Court
now,#
16
and speci8call holds that #)A1ccordin(l, the onl5 2uestion that remains to be
settled in the further proceedin(s hereb ordered to be held in the court below is ho! much
more than as 87ed above is the estate of Mrs. 'od(es, and this would depend on )+1
whether or not the applicable laws of $e7as do provide in e?ect for more, such as, when
there is nolegitime provided therein, and );1 whether or not 'od(es has validl !ai&ed his
whole inheritance from Mrs. 'od(es.#
1
Suggested guidelines
Considerin( that the onl5 unresolved issue has thus been narrowed down and in consonance
with the rulin( spirit of our probate law callin( for the prompt settlement of the estates of
deceased persons for the bene8t of creditors and those entitled to the residue b wa of
inheritance F considerin( that the estates have been lon( pendin( settlement since :;<=
and :;?8, respectivel F it was felt that the Court should la down speci8c (uidelines for
the (uidance of the probate court towards the end that it ma e7pedite the closin( of the
protracted estates proceedin(s below to the mutual satisfaction of the heirs and without
need of a dissatis8ed part elevatin( its resolution of this onl5 remainin( issue once more to
this Court and dra((in( out inde8nitel the proceedin(s.
After all, the onl5 2uestion that remains depends for its determination on the resolution of
the two 2uestions ofren&oi and renunciation, i.e. as to whether C. N. 'od(es can claim
a legitime and !hether he had renounced the inheritance. But as alread indicated above,
the Court without reachin( a consensus which would 8nall resolve the conMictin( claims
here and now in this case opted that #these and other relevant matters should 8rst be
threshed out full in the trial court in the proceedin(s hereinafter to be held for the purpose
of ascertainin( andAor distributin( the estate of Mrs. 'od(es to her heirs in accordance with
her dul probated will.#
1>
$he writer thus feels that lain( down the premises and principles (overnin( the nature,
e?ects and conse2uences of %innie &ane 'od(es> testamentar dispositions in relation to her
con!u(al partnership and co-ownership of properties with her husband C. N. 'od(es and
#thin9in( out# the end results, dependin( on whether the evidence directed to be formall
received b the probate court would bear out that under ren&oi C. N. 'od(es was or was not
<: PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
entitled to claim a le(itime of one-half of his wife %innie>s estate andAor that he had or had
not e?ectivel and validl renounced his inheritance should help clear the dec9s, as it were,
and assist the probate court in resolvin( the onl5 remainin( 2uestion of ho! much
more than the minimum one-fourth of the communit properties of the 'od(es
spouses herein Dnall5 determined should be awarded as the separate estate of %innie,
particularl since the views e7pressed in the main opinion have not (ained a consensus of
the Court. 'ence, the followin( su((ested (uidelines, which needless to state, represent
the personal opinion and views of the writer@
+. $o be(in with, as pointed out in the main opinion, #accordin( to 'od(es> own inventor
submitted b him as e7ecutor of the estate of his wife, practicall all their properties
were conBugal which means that the spouses havee6ual shares therein.#
16
;. Cpon the death of Mrs. 'od(es on Ma5 89, :;<=, and the dissolution thereb of the
marria(e, the law imposed upon 'od(es as survivin( husband the dut of inventorin(,
administerin( and li2uidatin( the con!u(al or communit propert.
17
'od(es failed to
dischar(e this dut of li6uidating the con!u(al partnership and estate. =n the contrar, he
sou(ht and obtained authoriBation from the probate court
to continue the conBugal partnership>s 4usiness of buin( and sellin( real and personal
properties.
0n his annual accounts submitted to the probate court as e3ecutor of Mrs. (odgesE estate,
'od(es thusconsistentl5 reported the considerable com4ined income )in si7 8(ures1 of
the conBugal partnership or coo!nershipand then divided the same e6uall5 between himself
and Mrs. 'od(es> estate and as consistentl 8led separate income ta3 returns and paid the
income ta7es for each resultin( half of such com4ined income correspondin( to his own and
to Mrs. 'od(es> estate. +< )Parentheticall, he could not in law do this, had he ad!udicated
%innie>s entire estate to himself, thus supportin( the view advanced even in the main
opinion that #'od(es !ai&ed not onl his ri(hts to the fruits but to the properties
themselves.#
19
B operation of the law of trust
20
as well as b his own ac9nowled(ment and acts, therefore,
all transactions made b 'od(es after his wife>s death were deemed for and on behalf of
their unli6uidated conBugal partnership and communit5 estate and were so reported and
treated b him.
,. Gith this premise established that all transactions of 'od(es after his wife>s death were
for and on behalf of their unli6uidated con!u(al partnership and communit estate, share
and share ali9e, it should be clear that nogratuitous dispositions, if an, made b C. N.
'od(es from his wife %innie>s estate should be deducted from herseparate estate as held in
the main opinion. =n the contrar, an such (ratuitous dispositions should be char(ed to his
own share of the con!u(al estate since he had no authorit or ri(ht to ma9e
an gratuitous dispositions of %innie>s properties to the preBudice of her brothers and sisters
whom she called to her succession upon his death, not to mention that the ver authorit
obtained b him from the probate court per its orders of Ma ;6, and 3ecember +4, +56.
was to continue the con!u(al partnership>s business of buin( and sellin( real properties for
the account of their unli2uidated con!u(al estate and co-ownership, share and share ali9e
and not to ma9e anfree dispositions of %innie>s estate.
4. All transactions as well after the death on 1ecem4er 8<, :;?8 of 'od(es himself appear
perforce and necessaril to have been conducted, on the same premise, for and on behalf of
their unli6uidated conBugal partnership andAor co-ownership, share and share alike F since
the con!u(al partnership remained unli2uidated F which is another wa of sain( that such
transactions, purchases and sales, mostl the latter, must be deemed in e?ect to have been
<. PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
made for the respective estates of C. N. 'od(es and of his wife %innie &ane 'od(es, as both
estates continued to have an e2ual sta9e and share in the con!u(al partnership which was
not onl leftunli6uidated 4ut continued as a co-ownership or !oint business with the probate
court>s approval b 'od(es durin( the 8ve-ear period that he survived his wife.
$his e7plains the probate court>s action of re2uirin( that deeds of sale e7ecuted b PC0B as
'od(es> estate>s administrator be #signed Bointl5# b respondent Ma(no as Mrs. 'od(es>
estate>s administratri7, as well as its order authoriBin( pament b lot purchasers from the
'od(es to either estate, since #there is as et no !udicial declaration of heirs nor distribution
of properties to whomsoever are entitled thereto.#
22
And this e2uall furnishes the rationale of the main opinion for continued con!oint
administration b the administrators of the two estates of the deceased spouses, >pending
the li6uidation of the conBugal partnership,>
26
since #it is but lo(ical that both estates should
be administered !ointl b the representatives of both, pendin( their se(re(ation from each
other. Particularl ... because the actuations so far of PC0B evince a determined, albeit
(roundless, intent to e7clude the other heirs of Mrs. 'od(es from their inheritance.# ;4 6.
Antl b the representatives of both, pendin( their se(re(ation from each other.
Particularl ... because the actuations so far of PC0B evince a determined, albeit (roundless,
intent to e7clude the other heirs of Mrs. 'od(es from their inheritance.#
2
6. As stressed in the main opinion, the determination of the onl5 unresolved issue of how
much more than the minimum of one.fourth of the communit or con!u(al properties of the
'od(es spouses pertains to Mrs. 'od(es> estate depends on the twin 2uestions
of renunciation and ren&oi. 0t directed conse2uentl that #a !oint hearin( of the two probate
proceedin(s herein involved# be held b the probate court for the reception of #further
evidence# in order to 8nall resolved these twin 2uestions.
2>
)a1 =n the 2uestion of renunciation, it is believed that all that the probate court has to do is
to receive formall in evidence the various documents anne7ed to respondent Ma(no>s
answer at bar,
26
namel@ Cop of the C.*. Estate $a7 Return 8led on Au(ust <, +56< b C. N.
'od(es for his wife %innie>s estate wherein he purportedl declared that he
wasrenouncing his inheritance under his wife>s will in favor of her brothers and sisters as co-
heirs desi(nated with him and that it was his #intention )as1 survivin( husband of the
deceased to distribute the remainin( propert and interests of the deceased in their
communit estate to the de&isee and legatees named in the !ill when the debts, liabilities,
ta7es and e7penses of administration are 8nall determined and paid"#
27
and
$he aKdavit of ratiDcation of such renunciation )which places him in estoppel1 alle(edl
e7ecuted on Au(ust 5, +5:; b C. N. 'od(es in 0loilo Cit wherein he reaKrmed that #...
on August J, :;<J, 0 renounced and disclaimed an and all ri(ht to receive the rents,
emoluments and income from said estate# and further declared that #)$1he purpose of this
aKdavit is to ratif5 and conDrm, and 0 do hereb ratif and con8rm, the declaration made in
schedule M of said return and hereb formall disclaim and renounce an5 right on m5 part
to recei&e an5 of the said rents, emoluments and income from the estate of m deceased
wife, %innie &ane 'od(es. $his aKdavit is made to a4sol&e me or m5 estate from an liabilit
for the pament of income ta7es on income which has accrued to the estate of innie Jane
(odges since the death of the said %innie &ane 'od(es on Ma ;,, +56..#
28
)b1 =n the 2uestion of renvoi, all that remains for the probate court to do is to formall
receive in evidence dul authenticated copies of the laws of the *tate of $e7as (overnin( the
succession of %innie &ane 'od(es and her husband C. N. 'od(es as citiBens of said *tate at
the time of their respective deaths on Ma5 89, :;<= and1ecem4er 8<, :;?8.
29
<< PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
:. $he te7t and tenor of the declarations b C. N. 'od(es of renunciation of his inheritance
from his wife in favor of her other named heirs in her will )her brothers and sisters and their
respective heirs1 as rati8ed and reiteratede3pressl5 in his aKdavit of renunciation e7ecuted
four ears later for the avowed purpose of not bein( held liable for pament of income ta7es
on income which has accrued to his wife>s estate since her death indicate a valid and
e?ective renunciation.
=nce the evidence has been formall admitted and its (enuineness and le(al e?ectivit
established b the probate court, the renunciation b C. N. 'od(es must be (iven due e?ect
with the result that C. N. 'od(es therefore ac2uired no part of his wife>s one.half share of
the communit properties since he removed himself as an heir b virtue of his renunciation.
B simple substitution then under Articles <6. and <65 of our Civil Code
60
and b virtue of
the will>s institution of heirs, since #the heir ori(inall instituted C. N. 'od(es1 does not
become an heir#
61
b force of his renunciation, Mrs. 'od(es> brothers and sisters whom she
desi(nated as her heirs upon her husband>s death are called immediatel to her succession.
Conse2uentl, the said communit and con!u(al properties would then pertain pro indi&iso
share and share ali9e to their respective estates, with each estate, however, shoulderin( its
own e7penses of administration, estate and inheritance ta7es, if an remain unpaid,
attornes> fees and other li9e e7penses and the net remainder to be ad!udicated directl to
the decedents> respective brothers and sisters )and their heirs1 as the heirs dul desi(nated
in their respective wills. $he 2uestion of ren&oi becomes immaterial since most laws and our
lawspermit such renunciation of inheritance.
.. 0f there were no renunciation )or the same ma somehow be declared to have not been
valid and e?ective1 b C. N. 'od(es of his inheritance from his wife, however, what would be
the conse2uenceS
)a1 0f the laws on succession of the *tate of $e7as do provide for ren&oi or #reference bac9#
to Philippine law as the domiciliar law of the 'od(es> spouses (overnin( their succession,
then petitioners> view that Mrs. 'od(es> estate would consist onl of the minimum of #one.
fourth of the communit properties of the said spouses, as of the time of )her1 death on Ma
;,, +56.# would have to be sustained and C. N. 'od(es> estate would consist of three.
fourths of the communit properties, comprisin( his own one-half )or two-fourths1 share and
the other fourth of Mrs. 'od(es> estate as the le(itime (ranted him as sur&i&ing
spouse b Philippine la! )Article 5-- of the Civil Code1 which could not be disposed of nor
burdened with an condition b Mrs. 'od(es as testatri7.
)b1 0f the laws on succession of the *tate of $e7as do not provide for such ren&oi and
respondent Ma(no>s assertion is correct that the $e7as law which would then prevail,
provides for no legitime for C. N. 'od(es as the survivin( spouse, then respondent Ma(no>s
assertion that Mrs. 'od(es> estate would consist of one-half of the communit properties
)with the other half pertainin( to C. N. 'od(es1 would have to be sustained. $he communit
and con!u(al properties would then pertain share and share alike to their respective estates,
with each estate shoulderin( its own e7penses of administration in the same manner stated
in the last para(raph of para(raph : hereof. .
<. As to the nature of the institution of heirs made b Mrs. 'od(es in her will, the main
opinion holds that #)$1he brothers and sisters of Mrs. 'od(es are not su4stitutes for 'od(es"
rather, the are also heirs institutedsimultaneousl5 with 'od(es,# but (oes further and holds
that #it was not the usufruct alone of her estate ... that she be2ueathed to 'od(es during his
lifetime, but the full o!nership thereof, although the same !as to last also during his
lifetime onl5, even as there was no restriction a(ainst his disposin( or convein( the whole
or an portion thereof an54od5 other than himself# and describes 'od(es #as uni&ersal and
<5 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
sole heir with a4solute dominion over Mrs. 'od(es> estate )e7cept over their %ubboc9, $e7as
propert 1,
62
addin( that #'od(es was not obli(ed to preserve anthin( for them# )referrin(
to Mrs. 'od(es> brothers and sisters as instituted co-heirs1.
66
Contrar to this view of the main opinion, the writer submits that the provisions of Mrs.
'od(es> will did not (rant to C.N. 'od(es #full ownership# nor #absolute dominion# over her
estate, such that he could as #universal and sole heir# b the mere e7pedient
of gratuitousl5 disposin( to third persons her !hole estate durin( his lifetime nullif5 her
institution of her brothers and sisters as his co-heirs to succeed to her !hole estate #at the
death of @herA hus4and,# depri&e them of an inheritance and ma9e his own brothers and
sisters in e?ect sole heirs not onl of his own estate but of his !ifeEs estate as well.
$hus, while %innie &ane 'od(es did not e7pressl name her brothers and sisters as
substitutes for 'od(es because she willed that the would enter into the succession upon
his death, still it cannot be (ainsaid, as the main opinion concedes, #that the are
also heirs instituted simultaneousl5 with 'od(es, sub!ect however to certain conditions,
partiall resolutor5 insofar as 'od(es was concerned and correspondin(l suspensi&e with
reference to his brothers and sisters-in-law.#
6
'ence, if 'od(es is found to have validl renounced his inheritance, there would be a
substitution of heirs in fact and in law since %innie>s brothers and sisters as the heirs
#simultaneousl instituted# with a suspensi&e term would be called immediatel5 to her
succession instead of waitin( for the arrival of suspensi&e term of 'od(es> death, since as
the heir ori(inall instituted he does not become an heir b force of his renunciation and
therefore the would #enter into the inheritance in default of the heir ori(inall instituted#
)'od(es1 under the provisions of Article <6. and <65 of our Civil Code, supra,
6>
thus
acceleratin( their succession to her estate as a conse2uence of 'od(es> renunciation.
Conse2uentl, %innie &ane 'od(es willed that her husband C.N. 'od(es would #durin( his
natural lifetime ...manage, control, use and enBo5 said estate# and that onl #all rents,
emoluments and income# alone shall belon( to him. *he further willed that while he
could sell and purchase properties of her estate, and #use an part of the principal estate,#
such principal notwithstandin( #an changes in the ph5sical properties of said estate#)i.e.
new properties ac2uired or e7chan(ed1 would still pertain to her estate, which at the time
of his death would pass in full dominion to her brothers and sisters as the ultimate sole and
uni&ersal heirs of her estate.
66
$he testatri7 %innie &ane 'od(es in her will thus principall provided that #0 (ive, devise and
be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m estate, both personal and real ... to m
beloved hus4and, Charles Newton 'od(es, to have and to hold with him ... during his
natural lifetime"#
67
that #)he1 shall have the ri(ht to manage, control, use and enBo5 said
estate during his lifetime, ... to ma9e an changes in the ph5sical properties of said estate,
bsale ... and the purchase of an other or additional propert as he ma thin9 best ... . All
rents, emoluments and incomefrom said estate shall 4elong to him and he is further
authoriBed to use an part of the principal of said estate as he ma need or desire, ... he
shall not sell or otherwise dispose of an of the improved propert now owned b us, located
at ... Cit of %ubboc9, $e7as ... . 'e shall have the ri(ht to su4di&ide an farm land and sell
lots therein, and ma sell unimpro&ed to!nlots"#
68
that #@AAt the death of m5 said hus4and,
Charles Newton, 0 (ive, devise and be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m
estate, both personal and real, ... to be e6uall5 di&ided amon( m brothers and
sisters, share and share alike, namel@ Esta 'i(don, Emma 'owell, %eonard 'i(don, Ro
'i(don, *adie Rascoe, Era Roman and Nimro 'i(don"#
69
and that #@IAn case of the death of
an5 of m brothers andAor sisters ... prior to the death of m husband ... the heirs of such
5- PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
deceased 4rother or sister shall ta9e Bointl5 the share which would have (one to such
brother or sister had she or he survived.#
0
*uch provisions are wholl consistent with the view alread full e7pounded above that all
transactions and sales made b 'od(es after his wife %innie>s death were b operation of
the law of trust as well as b his ownackno!ledgment and acts deemed for and on behalf of
their unli6uidated con!u(al partnership and communit estate, share and share ali9e, with
the e7press authorization of the probate court per its orders of Ma ;6, and 3ecember +4,
+56. (rantin( 'od(es> motion to continue the con!u(al partnership business of buin( and
sellin( real estate even after her death. B the same to9en, 'od(es could not conceivabl be
deemed to have had an authorit or ri(ht to dispose gratuitousl5 of an portion of her
estate to whose succession she had called her brothers and sisters upon his death.
5. *uch institutions of heirs !ith a term are e7pressl reco(niBed and permitted under Boo9
000, Chapter ;, section 4 of our Civil Code dealin( with #conditional testamentar dispositions
and testamentar dispositions !ith a term.#
1
$hus, Article <<6 of our Civil Code e7pressl provides that@
AR$ <<6. $he desi(nation of the da or time when the e?ects of the institution of an heir
shallcommence or cease shall be &alid.
0n both cases, the le(al heir shall be considered as called to the succession until the arrival
of the period or its e7piration. But in the 8rst case he shall not enter into possession of the
propert until after havin( (iven suKcient securit, with the intervention of the instituted
heir.
Accordin(l, under the terms of Mrs. 'od(es> will, her husband>s ri(ht to the succession as
the instituted heir ceased in diem, i.e. upon the arrival of the resolutor5 term of his death on
3ecember ;6, +5:;, while her brothers> and sisters> ri(ht to the succession also as instituted
heirs commenced e3 die, i.e. upon the e7piration of the suspensive term )as far as the were
concerned1 of the death of C. N. 'od(es on 3ecember ;6, +5:; .
2
As stated in Padilla>s treatise on the Civil Code, #A term is a period whose arrival is certain
althou(h the e7act date thereof ma be uncertain. A term ma have either a suspensive or a
resolutor e?ect. $he desi(nation of the da when the le(ac #shall commence# is e3 die, or
a term with a suspensive e?ect, from a certain da. $he desi(nation of the da when the
le(ac #shall cease# is in diem or a term with a resolutor e?ect, until a certain da.# 'e
adds that #A le(ac based upon a certain a(e or upon the death of a person is not a
condition but aterm. 0f the arrival of the term would commence the ri(ht of the heir, it is
suspensive. 0f the arrival of the term would terminate his ri(ht, it is resolutor# and that
#upon the arrival of the period, in case of a suspensive term, theinstituted heir is entitled to
the succession, and in case of a resolutor term, his ri(ht terminates.#
6
+-. $he siBable estates herein involved have now been pendin( settlement for a
considerabl protracted period )of seventeen ears counted from %innie>s death in +56.1,
and all that is left to be done is to resolve the onl5remainin( issue )involvin( the two
2uestions of renunciation and ren&oi1 hereinabove discussed in order to close up the estates
and 8nall e?ect distribution to the deceased spouses> respective brothers and sisters and
their heirs as the heirs dul instituted in their wills lon( admitted to probate. 'ence, it is
advisable for said instituted heirs and their heirs in turn

to come to terms for the
ad!udication and distribution to them pro-indiviso of the up to now unli2uidated communit
properties of the estates of the 'od(es spouses )derived from their unli6uidated con!u(al
5+ PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
partnership1 rather than to (et bo((ed down with the formidable tas9 of ph5sicall5
segregating and partitioning the two estates with the numerous transactions, items and
details and phsical chan(es of properties involved. $he estates proceedin(s would thus be
closed and the could then name their respective attornes-in-fact to wor9 out the details of
se(re(atin(, dividin( or partitionin( the unli6uidated communit properties or li2uidatin(
them F which can be done then on their own without further need of intervention on the
part of the probate court as well as allow them meanwhile to en!o and ma9e use of the
income and cash and li2uid assets of the estates in such manner as ma be a(reed upon
between them.
*uch a settlement or modus &i&endi between the heirs of the unli2uidated two estates for
the mutual bene8t of all of them should not prove diKcult, considerin( that it appears as
stated in the main opinion that ;;.5:<+45L of the share or undivided estate of C. N. 'od(es
have alread been ac2uired b the heirs of %innie &ane 'od(es from certain heirs of her
husband, while certain other heirs representin( +..,4,.6L of 'od(es> estate were !oinin(
cause with %innie>s heirs in their pendin( and unresolved motion for the removal of
petitioner PC0B as administrator of 'od(es> estate,
>
apparentl impatient with the situation
which has apparentl de(enerated into a runnin( battle between the administrators of the
two estates to the common pre!udice of all the heirs.
++. As earlier stated, the writer has ta9en the pain of su((estin( these (uidelines which ma
serve to (uide the probate court as well as the parties towards e7peditin( the windin( up
and closin( of the estates and the distribution of the net estates to the instituted heirs and
their successors dul entitled thereto. $he probate court should e7ert all e?ort towards this
desired ob!ective pursuant to the mandate of our probate law, bearin( in mind the Court>s
admonition in previous cases that #courts of 8rst instance should e7ert themselves to close
up estate within twelve months from the time the are presented, and the5 ma5 refuse to
allo! an5 compensation to e7ecutors and administrators !ho do not acti&el5 la4or to that
end, and the ma even adopt harsher measures.#
6
'imeliness of appeals and imposition of
thirt5.one @9:A additional docket fees
$wo appeals were doc9eted with this Court, as per the two records on appeal submitted )one
with a (reen cover and the other with a ellow cover1. As stated at the outset, these appeals
involve basicall the same primal issue raised in the petition for certiorari as to whether
there still e7ists a separate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es which has to continue to be
administered b respondent Ma(no. Considerin( the main opinion>s rulin( in the aKrmative
and that her estate and that of her husband )since the !ointl
comprise unli6uidated communit properties1 must be administered conBointl5 b their
respective administrators )PC0B and Ma(no1, the said appeals )involvin( thirt-three di?erent
orders of the probate court approvin( sales contracts and other acts of administration
e7ecuted and performed b respondent Ma(no on behalf of %innie>s estate1 have been
necessaril overruled b the Court>s decision at bar.
)a1 $he #priorit 2uestion# raised b respondent Ma(no as to the patent failure of the two
records on appeal to show on their face and state the material data that the appeals were
timel ta9en within the ,--da re(lamentar period as re2uired b Rule 4+, section : of the
Rules of Court, has been brushed aside b the main opinion with the statement that it is #not
necessar to pass upon the timeliness of an of said appeals# since the #revolve around
practicall the same main issues and ... it is admitted that some of them have been timel
ta9en.#
7
$he main opinion thus proceeded with the determination of the thirt-three
appealed orders despite the (rave defect of the appellant PC0B>s records on appeal and their
failure to state the re2uired material data showin( the timeliness of the appeals.
5; PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
*uch disposition of the 2uestion of timeliness deemed as #mandator and !urisdictional# in a
number of cases merits the writer>s concurrence in that the 2uestion raised has been
subordinated to the paramount considerations of substantial !ustice and a #liberal
interpretation of the rules# applied so as not to dero(ate and detract from the primar intent
and purpose of the rules, &iz #the proper and !ust determination of a liti(ation#
8
F which
calls for #adherence to a liberal construction of the procedural rules in order to attain their
ob!ective of substantial !ustice and of avoidin( denials of substantial !ustice due to
procedural technicalities.#
9
$hus, the main opinion in consonance with the same paramount considerations of
substantial !ustice has li9ewise overruled respondents> ob!ection to petitioner>s ta9in( the
recourse of #the present remed of certiorari and prohibition# F #despite the conceded
availabilit of appeal# F on the (round that #there is a common thread amon( the basic
issues involved in all these thirt-three appeals F )which1 deal with practicall the same
basic issues that can be more e7peditiousl resolved or determined in a sin(le special civil
action . . . #
>0
)b1 *ince the basic issues have been in e?ect resolved in the special civil action at bar )as
above stated1 with the dismissal of the petition b virtue of the Court>s !ud(ment as to the
continued e7istence of a separate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and the a#rmance as a
necessar conse2uence of the appealed orders approvin( and sanctionin( respondent
Ma(no>s sales contracts and acts of administration, some doubt would arise as to the
propriet of the main opinion re2uirin( the pament b PC0B of thirt-one
),+1 additional appeal doc9et fees. $his doubt is further enhanced b the 2uestion of
whether it would ma9e the cost of appeal undul e7pensive or prohibitive b re2uirin( the
pament of a separate appeal doc9et fee for each incidental order 2uestioned when the
resolution of all such incidental 2uestioned orders involve basicall one and the same main
issue )in this case, the e7istence of a separate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es1 and can be
more e7peditiousl resolved or determined in a single special civil action# )for which
a single doc9et fee is re2uired1 as stated in the main opinion.
>1
Considerin( the importance
of the basic issues and the ma(nitude of the estates involved, however, the writer has pro
hac &ice (iven his concurrence to the assessment of the said thirt-one ),+1 additional
appeal doc9et fees.
M#&#L"NT#L, C.J., concurrin(@
0 concur in the separate opinion of &ustice $eehan9ee, which in turn a(rees with the
dispositive portion of the main opinion of &ustice Barredo insofar as it dismisses the petition
for certiorari and prohibition in Cases %-;.<:- and %-;.<5: and aKrms the appealed orders
of the probate court in cases %-;.5,:-,..
'owever, 0 wish to ma9e one brief observation for the sa9e of accurac. Re(ardless of
whether or not C. N. 'od(es was entitled to a le(itime in his deceased wife>s estate F which
2uestion, still to be decided b the said probate court, ma depend upon what is the law of
$e7as and upon its applicabilit in the present case F the said estate consists of one-half,
not one-fourth, of the con!u(al properties. $here is neither a minimum of one-fourth nor a
ma7imum beond that. 0t is important to bear this in mind because the estate of %innie
'od(es consists of her share in the con!u(al properties, is still under administration and until
now has not been distributed b order of the court.
$he reference in both the main and separate opinions to a one-fourth portion of the con!u(al
properties as %innie 'od(es> minimum share is a misnomer and is evidentl meant onl to
indicate that if her husband should eventuall be declared entitled to a le(itime, then the
disposition made b %innie 'od(es in favor of her collateral relatives would be valid onl as
5, PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
to one-half of her share, or one-fourth of the con!u(al properties, since the remainder, which
constitutes such le(itime, would necessaril (o to her husband in absolute ownership,
unburdened b an substitution, term or condition, resolutor or otherwise. And until the
estate is 8nall settled and ad!udicated to the heirs who ma be found entitled to it, the
administration must continue to cover %innie>s entire con!u(al share.


S+0ara)+ O0(n(ons
2ERN#N$O, J., concurrin(@
0 concur on the basis of the procedural pronouncements in the opinion.
TEE!#N&EE, J., concurrin(@
0 concur in the result of dismissal of the petition for certiorari and prohibition in Cases %-
;.<:- and %-;.<5: and with the aKrmance of the appealed orders of the probate court in
Cases %-;.5,:-,..
0 also concur with the portion of the dispositive part of the !ud(ment penned b Mr. &ustice
Barredo decreein( thelifting of the Court>s writ of preliminar in!unction of Au(ust <, +5:. as
amended on =ctober 4, and 3ecember :, +5:.
1
and orderin( in lieu thereof that the Court>s
resolution of *eptember <, +5.;
2
which directed that petitioner.appellantPC0B as
administrator of C. N. )Charles Newton1 'od(es> estate )*p. Proc. No. +:.; and respondent-
appellee Avelina A. Ma(no as administratri7 of %innie &ane 'od(es> estate )*p. Proc. No.
+,-.1 should act alwas conBointl5 never independentl from each other, as such
administrators, is reiterated and shall continue in force and made part of the !ud(ment.
0t is manifest from the record that petitioner-appellant PC0B>s primal contention in the cases
at bar belatedl Dledb it with this Court on August :, :;?= )over ten )+-1 ears after %innie
&ane 'od(es> death on Ma5 89, :;<= and )over 8ve )61 ears after her husband C.N. 'od(es>
death on 1ecem4er 8<, :;?8 F durin( which time both estates have
been pending settlement and distribution to the decedents> respective ri(htful heirs all this
time up to now1 F that the probate court per its order of 3ecember +4, +56.
)supplementin( an earlier order of Ma ;6, +56.1
6
in (rantin( C. N. 'od(es> motion as
E7ecutor of his wife %innie>s estate to continue their #4usiness of buin( and sellin( personal
and real properties# and approvin( #all sales, conveances, leases and mort(a(es# made
and to be made b him as such e7ecutor under his obli(ation to submit his 5earl5
accounts in e?ect declared him as sole heir of his wife>s estate and nothin( remains to be
done e7cept to formall close her estate )*p. Proc. No. +,-.1 as her estate was thereb
mer(ed with his own so that nothing remains of it that ma be ad!udicated to her brothers
and sisters as her desi(nated heirs after him,

F is wholl untenable and deserves scant
consideration.
Aside from havin( been put forth as an obvious afterthou(ht much too late in the da, this
contention of PC0B that there no lon(er e7ists an separate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es
after the probate court>s order of 3ecember +4, +56. (oes a(ainst the ver acts and
!udicial admissions of C.N. 'od(es as her e7ecutor whereb he consistentl reco(niBed
the separate e3istence and identit5 of his wife>s estate apart from his own separate estate
and from his own share of their con!u(al partnership and estate and #never considered the
54 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
whole estate as a sin(le one belon(in( e7clusivel to himself# durin( the entire period that
he survived her for over 8ve )61 ears up to the time of his own death on 3ecember ;6,
+5:;
>
and a(ainst the identical acts and !udicial admissions of PC0B as administrator of C.N.
'od(es> estate until PC0B sou(ht in +5:: to ta9e over 4oth estates as pertainin( to its sole
administration.
PC0B is now barred and estopped from contradictin( or ta9in( a belated position
contradictor to or inconsistent with its previous admissions : )as well as those of C.N.
'od(es himself in his lifetime and of whose estate PC0B is merel an administrator1
reco(niBin( the e7istence and identit of %innie &ane 'od(es> separate estate and the le(al
ri(hts and interests therein of her brothers and sisters as her desi(nated heirs in her will.
PC0B>s petition for certiorari and prohibition to declare all acts of the probate court in %innie
&ane 'od(es> estate subse2uent to its order of 3ecember +4, +56. as #null and void for
havin( been issued without !urisdiction# must therefore be dismissed with the re!ection of its
belated and untenable contention that there is no lon(er an estate of Mrs. 'od(es of which
respondent Avelina Ma(no is the dul appointed and actin( administratri7.
PC0B>s appeal
7
from the probate court>s various orders reco(niBin( respondent Ma(no as
administratri7 of %innie>s estate )*p. Proc No. +,-.1 and sanctionin( her acts of
administration of said estate and approvin( the sales contracts e7ecuted b her with the
various individual appellees, which involve basicall the same primal issue raised in the
petition as to whether there still e7ists a separate estate of %innie of which respondent-
appellee Ma(no ma continue to be the administratri7, must necessaril fail F a result of
the Court>s main opinion at bar that there does e7ist such an estate and that the t!o estates
)husband>s and wife>s1 must be administered coBointl5 b their respective administrators
)PC0B and Ma(no1.
'he dispositi&e portion of the main opinion
$he main opinion disposes that@
0N E0EG =/ A%% $'E /=REI=0NI PREM0*E*, !ud(ment is hereb rendered 30*M0**0NI the
petition in I. R. Nos. %-;.<:- and %-;.<5:, and A//0RM0NI, in I. R. Nos. %-;.5,:-,. and the
other thirt-one numbers hereunder ordered to be added after pament of the
correspondin( doc9et fees, all the orders of the trial court under appeal enumerated in detail
on pa(es ,6 to ,. and <- to <; of this decision@
$he e3istence of the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es, with respondent-appellee Avelina
A. Ma(no, as administratri7 thereof is recognized, and
0t is declared that, until 8nal !ud(ment is ultimatel rendered re(ardin( )+1 the manner of
applin( Article +: of the Civil Code of the Philippines to the situation obtainin( in these
cases and );1 the factual and le(al issues of whether or not Charles Newton 'od(es has
e?ectivel and le(all renounced his inheritance under the will of %innie &ane 'od(es, the
said estate consists of one.fourthof the communit properties of the said spouses, as of the
time of the death of the wife on Ma ;,, +56., minus whatever the husband had
alread gratuitousl5 disposed of in favor of third persons from said date until his death,
provided, 8rst, that with respect to remunerati&e dispositions, the proceeds thereof shall
continue to be part of the !ifeEs estate, unless subse2uentl disposed of gratuitousl5 to third
parties b the husband, and second, that should the purported renunciation be declared
le(all e?ective, no deduction whatsoever are to be made from said estate"
56 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
0n conse2uence, the preliminar5 inBunction of Au(ust <, +5:., as amended on =ctober 4 and
3ecember :, +5:., is lifted and the resolution of *eptember <, +5.;, directin( that
petitioner-appellant PC0B, as Administrator of the $estate Estate of Charles Newton 'od(es
in *pecial Proceedin(s +:.;, and respondent-appellee Avelina A. Ma(no, as Administratri7 of
the $estate Estate of %innie &ane 'od(es in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-., should act thenceforth
alwas conBointl5, never independentl from each other, as such administrators,
is reiterated, and the same is made part of this Budgment and shall continue in
force, pending the li6uidation of the con!u(al partnership of the deceased spouses and
the determination and segregation from each other of their respective estates" provided,
that upon the 8nalit of this !ud(ment, the trial court should immediatel proceed to
the partition of the presentl combined estates of the spouses, to the end that the one.
half share thereof of Mrs. 'od(es ma be properl and clearl identi8ed"
'hereafter, the trial court should forthwith se(re(ate the remainder of the one.fourth herein
ad!ud(ed to be her estate and cause the same to be turned over or delivered to respondent
for her e3clusi&e administration in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-., while the other one.fourth shall
remain under the !oint administrative of said respondent and petitioner under a Boint
proceedings in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-. and +:.;, whereas the half un2uestionabl
pertainin( to (odges shall be administered bpetitioner e3clusi&el5 in *pecial Proceedin(s
+:.;, without pre!udice to the resolution b the trial court of the pending motions for its
remo&al as administrator"
And this arran(ement shall be maintained until the Dnal resolution of the two issues
of ren&oi andrenunciation hereb reserved for further hearin( and determination, and the
correspondin( completese(re(ation and partition of the two estates in the proportions that
ma result from the said resolution.
Ienerall and in all other respects, the parties and the court a 6uo are directed to adhere
henceforth, in all their actuations in *pecial Proceedin(s +,-. and +:.;, to the views passed
and ruled upon b the Court in the fore(oin( opinion.
8
Minimum estimate of Mrs. (odgesE estateI
"ne.fourth of conBugal properties.
$he main opinion in declarin( the e7istence of a separate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es which
shall pass to her brothers and sisters with ri(ht of representation )b their heirs1 as her dul
desi(nated heirs declares that her estate consists as a minimum )i.e. assuming )+1 that
under Article +: of the Philippine Civil Code C. N. 'od(es as survivin( husband was entitled
to one-half of her estate as legitime and );1 that he had not e?ectivel and
le(allrenounced his inheritance under her will1 of #one.fourth of the communit properties
of the said spouses, as of the time of the death of the wife on Ma ;,, +56., minus whatever
the husband had alread gratuitousl5 disposed of in favor of third persons from said date
until his death,# with the proviso that proceeds of remunerati&e dispositions or sales for
valuable consideration made b C. N. 'od(es after his wife %innie>s death shall continue to
be part of her estate unless subse2uentl disposed of b him gratuitousl5 to third parties
sub!ect to the condition, however, that if he is held to have validl and
e?ectivel renounced his inheritance under his wife>s will, no deductions of an dispositions
made b 'od(es even if gratuitousl5 are to be made from his wife %innie>s estate which shall
passintact to her brothers and sisters as her desi(nated heirs called in her will to succeed to
her estate upon the death of her husband C. N. 'od(es.
1iFerences !ith the main opinion
5: PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
0 do not share the main opinion>s view that %innie &ane 'od(es instituted her husband as her
heir under her will #to have dominion over all her estate durin( his lifetime ... as a4solute
o!ner of the properties ...#
9
and that she be2ueathed #the whole of her estate to be owned
and en!oed b him as universal and sole heir with a4solute dominion over them onl durin(
his lifetime, which means that while he could completel and absolutel dispose of an
portion thereof inter &i&os to anone other than himself, he was not free to do so mortis
causa, and all his ri(hts to what mi(ht remain upon his death would cease entirel upon the
occurrence of that contin(enc, inasmuch as the ri(ht of his brothers and sisters-in-law to
the inheritance, althou(h vested alread upon the death of Mrs. 'od(es, would
automaticall become operative upon the occurrence of the death of 'od(es in the event of
actual e7istence of an remainder of her estate then.#
10
As will be ampli8ed hereinafter, 0 do not subscribe to such a view that %innie &ane 'od(es
willed #full and absolute ownership# and #absolute dominion# over her estate to her
husband, but rather that she named her husband C. N. 'od(es and her brothers and sisters
as instituted heirs !ith a term under Article <<6 of our Civil Code, to wit, 'od(es as
instituted heir with a resolutor5 term whereunder his ri(ht to the succession ceased
in diem upon arrival of the resolutor5 term of his death on 3ecember ;6, +5:; and her
brothers and sisters as instituted heirs with asuspensi&e term whereunder their ri(ht to the
succession commenced e3 die upon arrival of the suspensive term of the death of C. N.
'od(es on 3ecember ;6, +5:;.
'ence, while a(reein( with the main opinion that the proceeds of all remunerative
dispositions made b C. N. 'od(es after his wife>s death remain an inte(ral part of his wife>s
estate which she willed to her brothers and sisters, 0 submit that C. N. 'od(es
could not validl ma9e gratuitous dispositions of an part or all of his wife>s estate F
#completel and absolutel dispose of an portion thereof inter &i&os to anone other than
himself# in the lan(ua(e of the main opinion, supra F and thereb render ine?ectual and
nu(ator her institution of her brothers and sisters as her desi(nated heirs to succeed to
her !hole estate #at the death of )her1 husband.# 0f accordin( to the main opinion, 'od(es
could not ma9e such (ratuitous #complete and absolute dispositions# of his wife %innie>s
estate #mortis causa,# it would seem that b the same to9en and rationale he was li9ewise
proscribed b the will from ma9in( such dispositions of %innie>s estate inter &i&os.
0 believe that the two 2uestions of ren&oi and renunciation should be
resolved preferentiall5 and e3peditiousl5 b the probate court ahead of the partition and
se(re(ation of the minimum one-fourth of the con!u(al or communit properties constitutin(
%innie &ane 'od(es> separate estate, which tas9 considerin( that it is now seventeen )+.1
ears since %innie &ane 'od(es> death and her con!u(al estate with C. N. 'od(es has
remained unli6uidated up to now mi(ht ta9e a similar number of ears to unravel with the
numerous items, transactions and details of the siBable estates involved.
*uch partition of the minimum one-fourth would not be 8nal, since if the two pre!udicial
2uestions of ren&oi andrenunciation were resolved favorabl to %innie>s estate meanin( to
sa that if it should be held that C. N. 'od(es is not entitled to an le(itime of her estate
and at an rate he had totall renounced his inheritance under the will1, then %innie>s estate
would consist not onl of the minimum one-fourth but one.half of the con!u(al or communit
properties of the 'od(es spouses, which would re2uire a(ain the partition and se(re(ation
of still another one-fourth of said. properties to complete %innie>s separate estate.
M di?erences with the main opinion involve further the le(al concepts, e?ects and
conse2uences of the testamentar dispositions of %innie &ane 'od(es in her will and the
2uestion of the best to reach a solution of the pressin( 2uestion of e7peditin( the closin( of
the estates which after all do not appear to involve an outstandin( debts nor an dispute
5. PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
between the heirs and should therefore be promptl settled now after all these ears without
an further undue complications and delas and distributed to the heirs for their full
en!oment and bene8t. As no consensus appears to have been reached thereon b a
ma!orit of the Court, 0 propose to state views as concisel as possible with the sole end in
view that the ma be of some assistance to the probate court and the parties in reachin(
an e7peditious closin( and settlement of the estates of the 'od(es spouses.
'!o Assumptions
As indicated above, the declaration of the minimum of Mrs. 'od(es> estate as one-fourth of
the con!u(al properties is based on two assumptions most favorable to C. N. 'od(es> estate
and his heirs, namel )+1 that the probate court must accept the ren&oi or #reference
bac9#
11
alle(edl provided b the laws of the *tate of $e7as )of which state the 'od(es
spouses were citiBens1 whereb the civil laws of the Philippines as the domicile of the
'od(es spouses would (overn their succession not!ithstanding the provisions of Article +:
of our Civil Code )which provides that the national law of the decedents, in this case, of
$e7as, shall (overn their succession1 with the result that her estate would consist of no
morethan one-fourth of the con!u(al properties since the legitime of her husband )the other
one-fourth of said con!u(al properties or one-half of her estate, under Article 5-- of our Civil
Code1 could not then be disposed of nor burdened with an condition b her and );1 that
C.N. 'od(es had not e?ectivel and le(all renounced his inheritance under his wife>s will.
$hese two assumptions are of course Matl disputed b respondent-appellee Ma(no as Mrs.
'od(es> administratri7, who avers that the law of the *tate of $e7as (overns her succession
and does not provide for and le(itime, hence, her brothers and sisters are entitled to
succeed to the whole of her share of the con!u(al properties which is one.half thereof and
that in an event, 'od(es had totall renounced all his ri(hts under the will.
$he main opinion concedes that #)01n the interest of settlin( the estates herein involved
soonest, it would be best, indeed, if these conMictin( claims of the parties were determined
in these proceedin(s.# 0t observes however that this cannot be done due to the inade2uac
of the evidence submitted b the parties in the probate court and of the parties>
discussion, &iz, #there is no clear and reliable proof of what the possibl applicable laws of
$e7as are. $hen also, the (enuineness of the documents relied upon b respondent Ma(no
Ore 'od(es> renunciationP is disputed.#
12
'ence, the main opinion e7pressl reserves resolution and determination on these two
conMictin( claims and issues which it deems #are not properl before the Court
now,#
16
and speci8call holds that #)A1ccordin(l, the onl5 2uestion that remains to be
settled in the further proceedin(s hereb ordered to be held in the court below is ho! much
more than as 87ed above is the estate of Mrs. 'od(es, and this would depend on )+1
whether or not the applicable laws of $e7as do provide in e?ect for more, such as, when
there is nolegitime provided therein, and );1 whether or not 'od(es has validl !ai&ed his
whole inheritance from Mrs. 'od(es.#
1
Suggested guidelines
Considerin( that the onl5 unresolved issue has thus been narrowed down and in consonance
with the rulin( spirit of our probate law callin( for the prompt settlement of the estates of
deceased persons for the bene8t of creditors and those entitled to the residue b wa of
inheritance F considerin( that the estates have been lon( pendin( settlement since :;<=
and :;?8, respectivel F it was felt that the Court should la down speci8c (uidelines for
the (uidance of the probate court towards the end that it ma e7pedite the closin( of the
5< PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
protracted estates proceedin(s below to the mutual satisfaction of the heirs and without
need of a dissatis8ed part elevatin( its resolution of this onl5 remainin( issue once more to
this Court and dra((in( out inde8nitel the proceedin(s.
After all, the onl5 2uestion that remains depends for its determination on the resolution of
the two 2uestions ofren&oi and renunciation, i.e. as to whether C. N. 'od(es can claim
a legitime and !hether he had renounced the inheritance. But as alread indicated above,
the Court without reachin( a consensus which would 8nall resolve the conMictin( claims
here and now in this case opted that #these and other relevant matters should 8rst be
threshed out full in the trial court in the proceedin(s hereinafter to be held for the purpose
of ascertainin( andAor distributin( the estate of Mrs. 'od(es to her heirs in accordance with
her dul probated will.#
1>
$he writer thus feels that lain( down the premises and principles (overnin( the nature,
e?ects and conse2uences of %innie &ane 'od(es> testamentar dispositions in relation to her
con!u(al partnership and co-ownership of properties with her husband C. N. 'od(es and
#thin9in( out# the end results, dependin( on whether the evidence directed to be formall
received b the probate court would bear out that under ren&oi C. N. 'od(es was or was not
entitled to claim a le(itime of one-half of his wife %innie>s estate andAor that he had or had
not e?ectivel and validl renounced his inheritance should help clear the dec9s, as it were,
and assist the probate court in resolvin( the onl5 remainin( 2uestion of ho! much
more than the minimum one-fourth of the communit properties of the 'od(es
spouses herein Dnall5 determined should be awarded as the separate estate of %innie,
particularl since the views e7pressed in the main opinion have not (ained a consensus of
the Court. 'ence, the followin( su((ested (uidelines, which needless to state, represent
the personal opinion and views of the writer@
+. $o be(in with, as pointed out in the main opinion, #accordin( to 'od(es> own inventor
submitted b him as e7ecutor of the estate of his wife, practicall all their properties
were conBugal which means that the spouses havee6ual shares therein.#
16
;. Cpon the death of Mrs. 'od(es on Ma5 89, :;<=, and the dissolution thereb of the
marria(e, the law imposed upon 'od(es as survivin( husband the dut of inventorin(,
administerin( and li2uidatin( the con!u(al or communit propert.
17
'od(es failed to
dischar(e this dut of li6uidating the con!u(al partnership and estate. =n the contrar, he
sou(ht and obtained authoriBation from the probate court
to continue the conBugal partnership>s 4usiness of buin( and sellin( real and personal
properties.
0n his annual accounts submitted to the probate court as e3ecutor of Mrs. (odgesE estate,
'od(es thusconsistentl5 reported the considerable com4ined income )in si7 8(ures1 of
the conBugal partnership or coo!nershipand then divided the same e6uall5 between himself
and Mrs. 'od(es> estate and as consistentl 8led separate income ta3 returns and paid the
income ta7es for each resultin( half of such com4ined income correspondin( to his own and
to Mrs. 'od(es> estate. +< )Parentheticall, he could not in law do this, had he ad!udicated
%innie>s entire estate to himself, thus supportin( the view advanced even in the main
opinion that #'od(es !ai&ed not onl his ri(hts to the fruits but to the properties
themselves.#
19
B operation of the law of trust
20
as well as b his own ac9nowled(ment and acts, therefore,
all transactions made b 'od(es after his wife>s death were deemed for and on behalf of
their unli6uidated conBugal partnership and communit5 estate and were so reported and
treated b him.
55 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
,. Gith this premise established that all transactions of 'od(es after his wife>s death were
for and on behalf of their unli6uidated con!u(al partnership and communit estate, share
and share ali9e, it should be clear that nogratuitous dispositions, if an, made b C. N.
'od(es from his wife %innie>s estate should be deducted from herseparate estate as held in
the main opinion. =n the contrar, an such (ratuitous dispositions should be char(ed to his
own share of the con!u(al estate since he had no authorit or ri(ht to ma9e
an gratuitous dispositions of %innie>s properties to the preBudice of her brothers and sisters
whom she called to her succession upon his death, not to mention that the ver authorit
obtained b him from the probate court per its orders of Ma ;6, and 3ecember +4, +56.
was to continue the con!u(al partnership>s business of buin( and sellin( real properties for
the account of their unli2uidated con!u(al estate and co-ownership, share and share ali9e
and not to ma9e anfree dispositions of %innie>s estate.
4. All transactions as well after the death on 1ecem4er 8<, :;?8 of 'od(es himself appear
perforce and necessaril to have been conducted, on the same premise, for and on behalf of
their unli6uidated conBugal partnership andAor co-ownership, share and share alike F since
the con!u(al partnership remained unli2uidated F which is another wa of sain( that such
transactions, purchases and sales, mostl the latter, must be deemed in e?ect to have been
made for the respective estates of C. N. 'od(es and of his wife %innie &ane 'od(es, as both
estates continued to have an e2ual sta9e and share in the con!u(al partnership which was
not onl leftunli6uidated 4ut continued as a co-ownership or !oint business with the probate
court>s approval b 'od(es durin( the 8ve-ear period that he survived his wife.
$his e7plains the probate court>s action of re2uirin( that deeds of sale e7ecuted b PC0B as
'od(es> estate>s administrator be #signed Bointl5# b respondent Ma(no as Mrs. 'od(es>
estate>s administratri7, as well as its order authoriBin( pament b lot purchasers from the
'od(es to either estate, since #there is as et no !udicial declaration of heirs nor distribution
of properties to whomsoever are entitled thereto.#
22
And this e2uall furnishes the rationale of the main opinion for continued con!oint
administration b the administrators of the two estates of the deceased spouses, >pending
the li6uidation of the conBugal partnership,>
26
since #it is but lo(ical that both estates should
be administered !ointl b the representatives of both, pendin( their se(re(ation from each
other. Particularl ... because the actuations so far of PC0B evince a determined, albeit
(roundless, intent to e7clude the other heirs of Mrs. 'od(es from their inheritance.# ;4 6.
Antl b the representatives of both, pendin( their se(re(ation from each other.
Particularl ... because the actuations so far of PC0B evince a determined, albeit (roundless,
intent to e7clude the other heirs of Mrs. 'od(es from their inheritance.#
2
6. As stressed in the main opinion, the determination of the onl5 unresolved issue of how
much more than the minimum of one.fourth of the communit or con!u(al properties of the
'od(es spouses pertains to Mrs. 'od(es> estate depends on the twin 2uestions
of renunciation and ren&oi. 0t directed conse2uentl that #a !oint hearin( of the two probate
proceedin(s herein involved# be held b the probate court for the reception of #further
evidence# in order to 8nall resolved these twin 2uestions.
2>
)a1 =n the 2uestion of renunciation, it is believed that all that the probate court has to do is
to receive formall in evidence the various documents anne7ed to respondent Ma(no>s
answer at bar,
26
namel@ Cop of the C.*. Estate $a7 Return 8led on Au(ust <, +56< b C. N.
'od(es for his wife %innie>s estate wherein he purportedl declared that he
wasrenouncing his inheritance under his wife>s will in favor of her brothers and sisters as co-
heirs desi(nated with him and that it was his #intention )as1 survivin( husband of the
deceased to distribute the remainin( propert and interests of the deceased in their
+-- PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
communit estate to the de&isee and legatees named in the !ill when the debts, liabilities,
ta7es and e7penses of administration are 8nall determined and paid"#
27
and
$he aKdavit of ratiDcation of such renunciation )which places him in estoppel1 alle(edl
e7ecuted on Au(ust 5, +5:; b C. N. 'od(es in 0loilo Cit wherein he reaKrmed that #...
on August J, :;<J, 0 renounced and disclaimed an and all ri(ht to receive the rents,
emoluments and income from said estate# and further declared that #)$1he purpose of this
aKdavit is to ratif5 and conDrm, and 0 do hereb ratif and con8rm, the declaration made in
schedule M of said return and hereb formall disclaim and renounce an5 right on m5 part
to recei&e an5 of the said rents, emoluments and income from the estate of m deceased
wife, %innie &ane 'od(es. $his aKdavit is made to a4sol&e me or m5 estate from an liabilit
for the pament of income ta7es on income which has accrued to the estate of innie Jane
(odges since the death of the said %innie &ane 'od(es on Ma ;,, +56..#
28
)b1 =n the 2uestion of renvoi, all that remains for the probate court to do is to formall
receive in evidence dul authenticated copies of the laws of the *tate of $e7as (overnin( the
succession of %innie &ane 'od(es and her husband C. N. 'od(es as citiBens of said *tate at
the time of their respective deaths on Ma5 89, :;<= and1ecem4er 8<, :;?8.
29
:. $he te7t and tenor of the declarations b C. N. 'od(es of renunciation of his inheritance
from his wife in favor of her other named heirs in her will )her brothers and sisters and their
respective heirs1 as rati8ed and reiteratede3pressl5 in his aKdavit of renunciation e7ecuted
four ears later for the avowed purpose of not bein( held liable for pament of income ta7es
on income which has accrued to his wife>s estate since her death indicate a valid and
e?ective renunciation.
=nce the evidence has been formall admitted and its (enuineness and le(al e?ectivit
established b the probate court, the renunciation b C. N. 'od(es must be (iven due e?ect
with the result that C. N. 'od(es therefore ac2uired no part of his wife>s one.half share of
the communit properties since he removed himself as an heir b virtue of his renunciation.
B simple substitution then under Articles <6. and <65 of our Civil Code
60
and b virtue of
the will>s institution of heirs, since #the heir ori(inall instituted C. N. 'od(es1 does not
become an heir#
61
b force of his renunciation, Mrs. 'od(es> brothers and sisters whom she
desi(nated as her heirs upon her husband>s death are called immediatel to her succession.
Conse2uentl, the said communit and con!u(al properties would then pertain pro indi&iso
share and share ali9e to their respective estates, with each estate, however, shoulderin( its
own e7penses of administration, estate and inheritance ta7es, if an remain unpaid,
attornes> fees and other li9e e7penses and the net remainder to be ad!udicated directl to
the decedents> respective brothers and sisters )and their heirs1 as the heirs dul desi(nated
in their respective wills. $he 2uestion of ren&oi becomes immaterial since most laws and our
lawspermit such renunciation of inheritance.
.. 0f there were no renunciation )or the same ma somehow be declared to have not been
valid and e?ective1 b C. N. 'od(es of his inheritance from his wife, however, what would be
the conse2uenceS
)a1 0f the laws on succession of the *tate of $e7as do provide for ren&oi or #reference bac9#
to Philippine law as the domiciliar law of the 'od(es> spouses (overnin( their succession,
then petitioners> view that Mrs. 'od(es> estate would consist onl of the minimum of #one.
fourth of the communit properties of the said spouses, as of the time of )her1 death on Ma
;,, +56.# would have to be sustained and C. N. 'od(es> estate would consist of three.
fourths of the communit properties, comprisin( his own one-half )or two-fourths1 share and
+-+ PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
the other fourth of Mrs. 'od(es> estate as the le(itime (ranted him as sur&i&ing
spouse b Philippine la! )Article 5-- of the Civil Code1 which could not be disposed of nor
burdened with an condition b Mrs. 'od(es as testatri7.
)b1 0f the laws on succession of the *tate of $e7as do not provide for such ren&oi and
respondent Ma(no>s assertion is correct that the $e7as law which would then prevail,
provides for no legitime for C. N. 'od(es as the survivin( spouse, then respondent Ma(no>s
assertion that Mrs. 'od(es> estate would consist of one-half of the communit properties
)with the other half pertainin( to C. N. 'od(es1 would have to be sustained. $he communit
and con!u(al properties would then pertain share and share alike to their respective estates,
with each estate shoulderin( its own e7penses of administration in the same manner stated
in the last para(raph of para(raph : hereof. .
<. As to the nature of the institution of heirs made b Mrs. 'od(es in her will, the main
opinion holds that #)$1he brothers and sisters of Mrs. 'od(es are not su4stitutes for 'od(es"
rather, the are also heirs institutedsimultaneousl5 with 'od(es,# but (oes further and holds
that #it was not the usufruct alone of her estate ... that she be2ueathed to 'od(es during his
lifetime, but the full o!nership thereof, although the same !as to last also during his
lifetime onl5, even as there was no restriction a(ainst his disposin( or convein( the whole
or an portion thereof an54od5 other than himself# and describes 'od(es #as uni&ersal and
sole heir with a4solute dominion over Mrs. 'od(es> estate )e7cept over their %ubboc9, $e7as
propert 1,
62
addin( that #'od(es was not obli(ed to preserve anthin( for them# )referrin(
to Mrs. 'od(es> brothers and sisters as instituted co-heirs1.
66
Contrar to this view of the main opinion, the writer submits that the provisions of Mrs.
'od(es> will did not (rant to C.N. 'od(es #full ownership# nor #absolute dominion# over her
estate, such that he could as #universal and sole heir# b the mere e7pedient
of gratuitousl5 disposin( to third persons her !hole estate durin( his lifetime nullif5 her
institution of her brothers and sisters as his co-heirs to succeed to her !hole estate #at the
death of @herA hus4and,# depri&e them of an inheritance and ma9e his own brothers and
sisters in e?ect sole heirs not onl of his own estate but of his !ifeEs estate as well.
$hus, while %innie &ane 'od(es did not e7pressl name her brothers and sisters as
substitutes for 'od(es because she willed that the would enter into the succession upon
his death, still it cannot be (ainsaid, as the main opinion concedes, #that the are
also heirs instituted simultaneousl5 with 'od(es, sub!ect however to certain conditions,
partiall resolutor5 insofar as 'od(es was concerned and correspondin(l suspensi&e with
reference to his brothers and sisters-in-law.#
6
'ence, if 'od(es is found to have validl renounced his inheritance, there would be a
substitution of heirs in fact and in law since %innie>s brothers and sisters as the heirs
#simultaneousl instituted# with a suspensi&e term would be called immediatel5 to her
succession instead of waitin( for the arrival of suspensi&e term of 'od(es> death, since as
the heir ori(inall instituted he does not become an heir b force of his renunciation and
therefore the would #enter into the inheritance in default of the heir ori(inall instituted#
)'od(es1 under the provisions of Article <6. and <65 of our Civil Code, supra,
6>
thus
acceleratin( their succession to her estate as a conse2uence of 'od(es> renunciation.
Conse2uentl, %innie &ane 'od(es willed that her husband C.N. 'od(es would #durin( his
natural lifetime ...manage, control, use and enBo5 said estate# and that onl #all rents,
emoluments and income# alone shall belon( to him. *he further willed that while he
could sell and purchase properties of her estate, and #use an part of the principal estate,#
such principal notwithstandin( #an changes in the ph5sical properties of said estate#)i.e.
new properties ac2uired or e7chan(ed1 would still pertain to her estate, which at the time
+-; PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
of his death would pass in full dominion to her brothers and sisters as the ultimate sole and
uni&ersal heirs of her estate.
66
$he testatri7 %innie &ane 'od(es in her will thus principall provided that #0 (ive, devise and
be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m estate, both personal and real ... to m
beloved hus4and, Charles Newton 'od(es, to have and to hold with him ... during his
natural lifetime"#
67
that #)he1 shall have the ri(ht to manage, control, use and enBo5 said
estate during his lifetime, ... to ma9e an changes in the ph5sical properties of said estate,
bsale ... and the purchase of an other or additional propert as he ma thin9 best ... . All
rents, emoluments and incomefrom said estate shall 4elong to him and he is further
authoriBed to use an part of the principal of said estate as he ma need or desire, ... he
shall not sell or otherwise dispose of an of the improved propert now owned b us, located
at ... Cit of %ubboc9, $e7as ... . 'e shall have the ri(ht to su4di&ide an farm land and sell
lots therein, and ma sell unimpro&ed to!nlots"#
68
that #@AAt the death of m5 said hus4and,
Charles Newton, 0 (ive, devise and be2ueath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m
estate, both personal and real, ... to be e6uall5 di&ided amon( m brothers and
sisters, share and share alike, namel@ Esta 'i(don, Emma 'owell, %eonard 'i(don, Ro
'i(don, *adie Rascoe, Era Roman and Nimro 'i(don"#
69
and that #@IAn case of the death of
an5 of m brothers andAor sisters ... prior to the death of m husband ... the heirs of such
deceased 4rother or sister shall ta9e Bointl5 the share which would have (one to such
brother or sister had she or he survived.#
0
*uch provisions are wholl consistent with the view alread full e7pounded above that all
transactions and sales made b 'od(es after his wife %innie>s death were b operation of
the law of trust as well as b his ownackno!ledgment and acts deemed for and on behalf of
their unli6uidated con!u(al partnership and communit estate, share and share ali9e, with
the e7press authorization of the probate court per its orders of Ma ;6, and 3ecember +4,
+56. (rantin( 'od(es> motion to continue the con!u(al partnership business of buin( and
sellin( real estate even after her death. B the same to9en, 'od(es could not conceivabl be
deemed to have had an authorit or ri(ht to dispose gratuitousl5 of an portion of her
estate to whose succession she had called her brothers and sisters upon his death.
5. *uch institutions of heirs !ith a term are e7pressl reco(niBed and permitted under Boo9
000, Chapter ;, section 4 of our Civil Code dealin( with #conditional testamentar dispositions
and testamentar dispositions !ith a term.#
1
$hus, Article <<6 of our Civil Code e7pressl provides that@
AR$ <<6. $he desi(nation of the da or time when the e?ects of the institution of an heir
shallcommence or cease shall be &alid.
0n both cases, the le(al heir shall be considered as called to the succession until the arrival
of the period or its e7piration. But in the 8rst case he shall not enter into possession of the
propert until after havin( (iven suKcient securit, with the intervention of the instituted
heir.
Accordin(l, under the terms of Mrs. 'od(es> will, her husband>s ri(ht to the succession as
the instituted heir ceased in diem, i.e. upon the arrival of the resolutor5 term of his death on
3ecember ;6, +5:;, while her brothers> and sisters> ri(ht to the succession also as instituted
heirs commenced e3 die, i.e. upon the e7piration of the suspensive term )as far as the were
concerned1 of the death of C. N. 'od(es on 3ecember ;6, +5:; .
2
+-, PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
As stated in Padilla>s treatise on the Civil Code, #A term is a period whose arrival is certain
althou(h the e7act date thereof ma be uncertain. A term ma have either a suspensive or a
resolutor e?ect. $he desi(nation of the da when the le(ac #shall commence# is e3 die, or
a term with a suspensive e?ect, from a certain da. $he desi(nation of the da when the
le(ac #shall cease# is in diem or a term with a resolutor e?ect, until a certain da.# 'e
adds that #A le(ac based upon a certain a(e or upon the death of a person is not a
condition but aterm. 0f the arrival of the term would commence the ri(ht of the heir, it is
suspensive. 0f the arrival of the term would terminate his ri(ht, it is resolutor# and that
#upon the arrival of the period, in case of a suspensive term, theinstituted heir is entitled to
the succession, and in case of a resolutor term, his ri(ht terminates.#
6
+-. $he siBable estates herein involved have now been pendin( settlement for a
considerabl protracted period )of seventeen ears counted from %innie>s death in +56.1,
and all that is left to be done is to resolve the onl5remainin( issue )involvin( the two
2uestions of renunciation and ren&oi1 hereinabove discussed in order to close up the estates
and 8nall e?ect distribution to the deceased spouses> respective brothers and sisters and
their heirs as the heirs dul instituted in their wills lon( admitted to probate. 'ence, it is
advisable for said instituted heirs and their heirs in turn

to come to terms for the
ad!udication and distribution to them pro-indiviso of the up to now unli2uidated communit
properties of the estates of the 'od(es spouses )derived from their unli6uidated con!u(al
partnership1 rather than to (et bo((ed down with the formidable tas9 of ph5sicall5
segregating and partitioning the two estates with the numerous transactions, items and
details and phsical chan(es of properties involved. $he estates proceedin(s would thus be
closed and the could then name their respective attornes-in-fact to wor9 out the details of
se(re(atin(, dividin( or partitionin( the unli6uidated communit properties or li2uidatin(
them F which can be done then on their own without further need of intervention on the
part of the probate court as well as allow them meanwhile to en!o and ma9e use of the
income and cash and li2uid assets of the estates in such manner as ma be a(reed upon
between them.
*uch a settlement or modus &i&endi between the heirs of the unli2uidated two estates for
the mutual bene8t of all of them should not prove diKcult, considerin( that it appears as
stated in the main opinion that ;;.5:<+45L of the share or undivided estate of C. N. 'od(es
have alread been ac2uired b the heirs of %innie &ane 'od(es from certain heirs of her
husband, while certain other heirs representin( +..,4,.6L of 'od(es> estate were !oinin(
cause with %innie>s heirs in their pendin( and unresolved motion for the removal of
petitioner PC0B as administrator of 'od(es> estate,
>
apparentl impatient with the situation
which has apparentl de(enerated into a runnin( battle between the administrators of the
two estates to the common pre!udice of all the heirs.
++. As earlier stated, the writer has ta9en the pain of su((estin( these (uidelines which ma
serve to (uide the probate court as well as the parties towards e7peditin( the windin( up
and closin( of the estates and the distribution of the net estates to the instituted heirs and
their successors dul entitled thereto. $he probate court should e7ert all e?ort towards this
desired ob!ective pursuant to the mandate of our probate law, bearin( in mind the Court>s
admonition in previous cases that #courts of 8rst instance should e7ert themselves to close
up estate within twelve months from the time the are presented, and the5 ma5 refuse to
allo! an5 compensation to e7ecutors and administrators !ho do not acti&el5 la4or to that
end, and the ma even adopt harsher measures.#
6
'imeliness of appeals and imposition of
thirt5.one @9:A additional docket fees
+-4 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
$wo appeals were doc9eted with this Court, as per the two records on appeal submitted )one
with a (reen cover and the other with a ellow cover1. As stated at the outset, these appeals
involve basicall the same primal issue raised in the petition for certiorari as to whether
there still e7ists a separate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es which has to continue to be
administered b respondent Ma(no. Considerin( the main opinion>s rulin( in the aKrmative
and that her estate and that of her husband )since the !ointl
comprise unli6uidated communit properties1 must be administered conBointl5 b their
respective administrators )PC0B and Ma(no1, the said appeals )involvin( thirt-three di?erent
orders of the probate court approvin( sales contracts and other acts of administration
e7ecuted and performed b respondent Ma(no on behalf of %innie>s estate1 have been
necessaril overruled b the Court>s decision at bar.
)a1 $he #priorit 2uestion# raised b respondent Ma(no as to the patent failure of the two
records on appeal to show on their face and state the material data that the appeals were
timel ta9en within the ,--da re(lamentar period as re2uired b Rule 4+, section : of the
Rules of Court, has been brushed aside b the main opinion with the statement that it is #not
necessar to pass upon the timeliness of an of said appeals# since the #revolve around
practicall the same main issues and ... it is admitted that some of them have been timel
ta9en.#
7
$he main opinion thus proceeded with the determination of the thirt-three
appealed orders despite the (rave defect of the appellant PC0B>s records on appeal and their
failure to state the re2uired material data showin( the timeliness of the appeals.
*uch disposition of the 2uestion of timeliness deemed as #mandator and !urisdictional# in a
number of cases merits the writer>s concurrence in that the 2uestion raised has been
subordinated to the paramount considerations of substantial !ustice and a #liberal
interpretation of the rules# applied so as not to dero(ate and detract from the primar intent
and purpose of the rules, &iz #the proper and !ust determination of a liti(ation#
8
F which
calls for #adherence to a liberal construction of the procedural rules in order to attain their
ob!ective of substantial !ustice and of avoidin( denials of substantial !ustice due to
procedural technicalities.#
9
$hus, the main opinion in consonance with the same paramount considerations of
substantial !ustice has li9ewise overruled respondents> ob!ection to petitioner>s ta9in( the
recourse of #the present remed of certiorari and prohibition# F #despite the conceded
availabilit of appeal# F on the (round that #there is a common thread amon( the basic
issues involved in all these thirt-three appeals F )which1 deal with practicall the same
basic issues that can be more e7peditiousl resolved or determined in a sin(le special civil
action . . . #
>0
)b1 *ince the basic issues have been in e?ect resolved in the special civil action at bar )as
above stated1 with the dismissal of the petition b virtue of the Court>s !ud(ment as to the
continued e7istence of a separate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es and the a#rmance as a
necessar conse2uence of the appealed orders approvin( and sanctionin( respondent
Ma(no>s sales contracts and acts of administration, some doubt would arise as to the
propriet of the main opinion re2uirin( the pament b PC0B of thirt-one
),+1 additional appeal doc9et fees. $his doubt is further enhanced b the 2uestion of
whether it would ma9e the cost of appeal undul e7pensive or prohibitive b re2uirin( the
pament of a separate appeal doc9et fee for each incidental order 2uestioned when the
resolution of all such incidental 2uestioned orders involve basicall one and the same main
issue )in this case, the e7istence of a separate estate of %innie &ane 'od(es1 and can be
more e7peditiousl resolved or determined in a single special civil action# )for which
a single doc9et fee is re2uired1 as stated in the main opinion.
>1
Considerin( the importance
of the basic issues and the ma(nitude of the estates involved, however, the writer has pro
+-6 PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession
hac &ice (iven his concurrence to the assessment of the said thirt-one ),+1 additional
appeal doc9et fees.
M#&#L"NT#L, C.J., concurrin(@
0 concur in the separate opinion of &ustice $eehan9ee, which in turn a(rees with the
dispositive portion of the main opinion of &ustice Barredo insofar as it dismisses the petition
for certiorari and prohibition in Cases %-;.<:- and %-;.<5: and aKrms the appealed orders
of the probate court in cases %-;.5,:-,..
'owever, 0 wish to ma9e one brief observation for the sa9e of accurac. Re(ardless of
whether or not C. N. 'od(es was entitled to a le(itime in his deceased wife>s estate F which
2uestion, still to be decided b the said probate court, ma depend upon what is the law of
$e7as and upon its applicabilit in the present case F the said estate consists of one-half,
not one-fourth, of the con!u(al properties. $here is neither a minimum of one-fourth nor a
ma7imum beond that. 0t is important to bear this in mind because the estate of %innie
'od(es consists of her share in the con!u(al properties, is still under administration and until
now has not been distributed b order of the court.
$he reference in both the main and separate opinions to a one-fourth portion of the con!u(al
properties as %innie 'od(es> minimum share is a misnomer and is evidentl meant onl to
indicate that if her husband should eventuall be declared entitled to a le(itime, then the
disposition made b %innie 'od(es in favor of her collateral relatives would be valid onl as
to one-half of her share, or one-fourth of the con!u(al properties, since the remainder, which
constitutes such le(itime, would necessaril (o to her husband in absolute ownership,
unburdened b an substitution, term or condition, resolutor or otherwise. And until the
estate is 8nall settled and ad!udicated to the heirs who ma be found entitled to it, the
administration must continue to cover %innie>s entire con!u(al share.
+-: PC0B vs. Escolin
*uccession