You are on page 1of 8

8/9/2016

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 22

80

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Reganon vs. Imperial

No. L­24434. January 17, 1968.
HEIRS OF PEDRO REGANON, JOVENCIA REGANON,
MENCIA REGANON, JOSEFA REGANON, VIOLETA
REGANON, and FLORA REGANON, plaintiffs­appellees,
vs. RUFINO IMPERIAL, defendant­appellant.
Remedial law; Attachment; Property in custodia legis is now
subject to attachment; Reversal of the former ruling.—It is true
that in Asia Banking Corp. vs. Elser, 54 Phil. 994, it was held that
property under custodia legis can not be attached. But this was
under the old Rules of Court. The new Rules of Court (Sec. 7, Rule
57) now specifically provides for the procedure to be followed in
case what is attached is in custodia legis. The clear import of this
new provision is that property under custodia legis is now
attachable, subject to the mode set forth in said rule.
Same; Interest of an heir in the estate of a deceased is
attachable.—That the interest of an heir in the estate of a
deceased person may be attached for purposes of execution, even
if the estate is in the process of settlement before the courts, is
already a settled matter in this jurisdiction.
81

VOL. 22, JANUARY 17, 1968

81

Reganon vs. Imperial

Same; Exemption from execution of pension of U.S. Veterans
is personal.—Any pension, annuity, or gratuity granted by a
Government to its officers or employees in recognition of past
services rendered, is primordially aimed at tiding them over
during their old age and/or disability. This is therefore a right
personalissima, purely personal because founded on necessity. It
requires no argument to show that where the recipient dies, the
necessity motivating or underlying its grant necessarily ceases to
be.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f17bb7e76d6b41e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

1/8

82 82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Reganon vs. On April 23. Lacaya for defendant­appellant. against Rufino Imperial. 1963 filed a motion to declare the former in default.9954 hectares). 1963. 4952.. rendered a decision declaring the plaintiffs lawful owners of the land in question and entitled to its peaceful possession and enjoyment; ordering defendant immediately to vacate the portion occupied by him and to restore the peaceful possession thereof to plaintiffs; and sentencing defendant to pay plaintiffs the amount of P1. ownership.central. the plaintiffs presented their evidence ex parte before the Clerk of Court acting as Commissioner. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f17bb7e76d6b41e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8 . Imperial The court a quo on May 6. said heir immediately succeeds. The trial court granted the motion in its order dated April 10. and consequently stands legally in the shoes of the latter (Cuevas v. July 14. and where the heir is of legal age and the estate is not burdened with any debts. to the dominion. The facts of the case are admitted by both parties.1963.1963. 1964.P.: This is an appeal from the orders dated June 9. BENGZON. Galon for plaintiffs­appellees. 147).929. No. and possession of the properties of his predecessor.—The rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of death. situated at Miasi.com. respectively. with an area of 7.20 and the costs. APPEAL from the orders of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte. by force of law. 1964 and August 11.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 22 Civil law; Succession; Rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of death.      V.C. 1 or Lot No. http://www. Zamboanga del Norte. 1964. covered by O. Polanco. Defendant not having filed an answer within the reglementary period. 71 Phil. On February 22. J. of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte (Dipolog. with damages. /.T. the heirs of Pedro Reganon filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of about one­hectare portion of a parcel of land (Lot No. 1963. 1447.      Torcuato L. Abesames. the plaintiffs on April 8. Branch II).

On June 17.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f17bb7e76d6b41e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8 . the plaintiffs filed on June 5. executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition of the residuary estate. 22. pursuant to an order of Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte in Sp. 1964. This was granted by the trial court in its order of December 9. appearing for the first time before the trial court. shares and participation that defendant may have over the residuary estate of the late Eulogio Imperial.1964. Lacaya. On March 13. through counsel. to hold the share of defendant and deliver the same to the provincial sheriff of the province to be applied to the satisfaction of the balance of the money judgment. Polanco.97 as defendant Rufino Imperial' s shar Informed of this development. Proc. JANUARY 17. or the representative.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 22 On November 29.central. plaintiffs' counsel Atty. for P500. the Deputy Provincial Sheriff issued a sheriff's notification for levy addressed to defendant. 1964 a sheriff's return of proceedings reporting the garnishment and sale of a carabao and goat belonging to defendant for P153. This was granted by the trial court (Branch II) in its order dated June 9.com. Eulogio Imperial. Imperial giving notice of the garnishment of the rights.80.303. 1963.471. Zamboanga del Norte. interests. one of whom is defendant. Vic T. 4694. No. The Deputy Provincial Sheriff submitted on February 8. Defendant. On http://www. in the sum of P10. the plaintiffs filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution. consisting of the money deposited in the Philippine National Bank­ Dipolog Branch. the heirs of said Eulogio Imperial. 1964. On May 25. and the attachment and sale of defendant's parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 1964 an ex parte motion for issuance of an alias writ of execution and of an order directing the manager. 1964 filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dated June 9. R­145. to which plaintiffs filed their opposition on July 6. 83 VOL. the Philippine National Bank deposited in the Philippine National Bank­Dipolog Branch the residuary estate of its former ward. 1968 83 Reganon vs. 1964. situated in Sicet. 1964.00. 1963. 1964. and to quash the alias writ of execution issued pursuant to it. of the Philippine National BankDipolog Branch. wherein was apportioned P1. on June 24.00—both sales having been made to the only bidder.

1964. Defendant's second motion for reconsideration likewise having denied by the trial court in its order of August 11. raising the following issues: (1) Upon the death of a ward. 3 "If the property sought to be attached is in custodia.central. 54 Phil. 1964.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f17bb7e76d6b41e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8 .8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 22 July 14. copy of the order of attachment shall be f iled with the proper court and notice of the attachment served upon the custodian of such property. the guardianship proceedings no longer subsist: "The death of the ward necessarily terminates the guardianship. Imperial clear import of this new provision is that property under custodia legis is now attachable. veteran. still considered in custodia legis and therefore cannot be attached? (2) Is the residuary estate of a U. legis. exempt from execution? Defendant­appellant argues that the property of an incompetent under guardianship is in custodia legis and therefore can not be attached.com. But this2 was under the old Rules of Court. which consists in the aggregate accumulated sum from the monthly allowances given him by the United States Veterans Administration (USVA) during his lifetime. Besides. The new Rules of Court now specifically provides for the procedure3 to be followed in case what is attached is in custodia. is the money accumulated in his guardianship proceedings and deposited in a bank. 7. new Rules of Court) 84 84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Reganon vs. except http://www." (Rule 57.S. 1 It is true that in a former case it was held that property under custodia legis can not be attached. 1964. subject to the mode set forth. the ward having died. 994. T _____________ 1 Asia Banking Corporation v.. and thereupon all powers and duties of the guardian cease. defendant appealed to Us. in said rule. last par. Elser. the trial court denied defendant's aforesaid motion. Sec. 2 Effective January 1. legis.

defendant­appellant herein. For." And the condition has long been fulfilled. JANUARY 17.W. 7 See Art. "The rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of death. Proc. and upon proof of deposit of said residuary estate." As a matter of fact.1964.com.1962. et al.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f17bb7e76d6b41e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8 .central. 5 Pp. one of 7whom is his son and heir. Craig. where it stated— "In the meantime.. 308. 85 VOL. S. This automatic transmission can not but proceed with greater ease and certainty than in this case where the parties agree that the residuary estate is not burdened with any debt. Imperial is of legal age and the estate is not burdened with any debts. in its order of February 8. and Greever et al. pp. vs. the heir _____________ 4 39 C. this province. evidenced 6by a receipt attached to the records in Sp. 777. When Eulogio Imperial died on September 13. http://www. 1968 85 Reganon vs. Feb. 289. 586.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 22 the duty. 316 Mo.S. New Civil Code; Butte v. 6 Pp. the guardian Philippine National Bank is hereby directed to deposit the residuary estate of said ward with its bank agency in Dipolog. Record on Appeal; italics Ours. to the dominion. said heir immediately succeeds. which remains. as in this case. because on March 13.556.W. and where. the rights to his succession—from the moment of his death— were transmitted to his heirs. 5and this proceedings shall be considered closed and terminated. in the name of the estate of the deceased ward Eulogio Imperial. 22. Uy & Sons. the guardianship proceedings was ordered conditionally closed by Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte in which it was pending.82­83. R­145. preparatory to the eventual distribution of the same to the heirs when the latter shall be known. 61­62; citing Armon vs. L15499. 1962. by force of law. the guardian Philippine National Bank shall forthwith be relieved from any responsibility as such. Record on Appeal. No. 42­43. 28. to make a proper accounting and 4 settlement in the probate court. Barker.J. 1964 the Philippine National Bank­Manila deposited the residuary estate of the ward with the Philippine National Bank­Dipolog Branch. 203 lowa 1338. 214 N.

Abesamis.00 by one Gloria Gomez by authority of Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte. 10 See Sec. a former U. ore estate for all practical purposes have been settled. Finally. having been set aside from the monthly allowances given him by the United States Veterans Administration (USVA) during his lifetime. Aug. however. L­14851. does not detract any from the fact that the guardianship proceedings is closed and terminated and the residuary ­ estate no longer under custodia legis. This instru­ ment suffices to settle the entire estate of the decedent—provided all the requisites for its validity are 10 fulfilled —even without the approval of the court. or gratuity granted by a Government to its officers or employees in recognition of past services rendered. it is defendant­appellant's position that the residuary estate of Eulogio Imperial. v. have on May 25. annuity. The heirs are at full liberty to withdraw the residuary estate from the Philippine National Bank­Dipolog Branch and divide it among themselves. Imperial http://www. 9 De Borja.central.com. 1. purely personal because _______________ 8 Cuevas v. even if the estate is in the process of settlement before the courts. is exempt from execution. which incident is now on appeal before the Court of Appeals.S. Theref ore. Rule 74. 1964 executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition. new Rules of Court. This is therefore a right personalissima.. 9 is already a settled matter in this jurisdiction. 31." That the interest of an heir in the estate of a deceased person may be attached for purposes of execution. is primordially aimed at tiding them over during their old age and/or disability. veteran. Any pension. including herein defendant­appellant. This appeal. and possession of the properties of his predecessor and 8 consequently stands legally in the shoes of the latter. 1961.080. De Borja. 147. et al.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 22 ownership. 86 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Reganon vs. It is admitted that the heirs of Eulogio Imperial. et al.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f17bb7e76d6b41e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8 . The only reason they have not done so is because of the alleged illegal withdrawal from said estate of the amount of P1. 71 Phil.

. concur. the sale made by an heir of his share in an inheritance. Makalintal. Rafols.B. one of the heirs can not therefore secure the appointment of an administrator to take charge of and administer the estate or a part thereof. albeit indeterminable before the liquidation of the estate under judicial administration. yet.. Sanchez. approved June 9. citing Jacosalem vs. 12 Alcala v. whether it 12 remains undivided or not. as earlier stated. L­20609. have already executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition—the end result of which is that the property is no longer the property of the estate but of the individual heirs. that it would be effective only as to the portion to be adjudicated to the vendor upon the partition of the property under administration. Even more so 11 in this case where the law providing for the exemption is calculated to benefit U. Under the same principle and subject to the same condition. So ordered." (Borja vs. with the understanding. Di zon. and is therefore merely a manifestation of comity.. J. L.com. Register of Deeds of Tayabas. Mencias. one of whom is appellant. 360. .central. in no wise the way of such administration and is. the participation of an heir. http://www. Castro. et al. Nov.—"While ordinary execution of property in custodia legis is prohibited in order to avoid interference with the possession by the court. 1949. Zaldivar. Orders affirmed. 19 Phil. And it is settled that: "When the heirs by mutual agreement have divided the estate among themselves.S. 59 _______________ 11 Republic Act No. 520; italics Ours. the orders appealed from are hereby affirmed. 628). 21 SCRA 1133. 29. The property is no longer the.1967.           Concepcion. may be attached and sold (Gotauco & Co. with costs against defendant­appellant. vs. Note.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f17bb7e76d6b41e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8 .8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 22 founded on necessity. but of the individual heirs. subject to the result of the pending administration. It requires no argument to show that where the recipient dies. the heirs of Eulogio Imperial. Angeles and Fernando. therefore. veterans residing here.J. property of the estate. valid. Pabalan. JJ. Reye s. 73 Phil. the necessity motivating or underlying its grant necessarily ceases to be. C." WHEREFORE. Besides. however.

______________ © Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply.com. http://www.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f17bb7e76d6b41e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8 . supra). 756. Inc. JANUARY 17.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 22 87 VOL. 22. Asistio Phil. 1968 87 Falcotelo vs. All rights reserved.central. Mencias. cited in Borja vs.