 HOME

Search...

Home of Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

www.chanrobles.com


 CHANROBLES ON-LINE BAR REVIEW
 THE FIRM
 LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
 JURISPRUDENCE
 US LEGAL RESOURCES
 WORLDWIDE LEGAL RESOURCES

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 183053 : June 15, 2010]

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF

CRISTINA AGUINALDO-SUNTAY; EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY
III, PETITIONER, VS. ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY,
RESPONDENT.

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

Unlike Pope Alexander VI1 who, faced with the impasse

between Spain and Portugal, deftly and literally divided the
exploration, or more appropriately, the riches of the New
World by issuing the Inter Caetera,2 we are confronted with
the difficult, albeit, all too familiar tale of another family
imbroglio over the estate of a decedent.3

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 74949,4 reversing the
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 78,
Malolos, Bulacan, in Special Proceeding Case No. 117-M-95. 5

Before anything else, we disentangle the facts.

On June 4, 1990, the decedent, Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay

(Cristina), married to Dr. Federico Suntay (Federico), died
intestate. In 1979, their only son, Emilio Aguinaldo Suntay
(Emilio I), predeceased both Cristina and Federico. At the
time of her death, Cristina was survived by her husband,
Federico, and several grandchildren, including herein
petitioner Emilio A.M. Suntay III (Emilio III) and respondent
Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay.

During his lifetime, Emilio I was married to Isabel

Cojuangco, and they begot three children, namely: herein
respondent, Isabel; Margarita; and Emilio II, all surnamed
Cojuangco-Suntay. Emilio I's marriage to Isabel Cojuangco
was subsequently annulled. Thereafter, Emilio I had two
children out of wedlock, Emilio III and Nenita Suntay Tañedo
(Nenita), by two different women, Concepcion Mendoza and
Isabel Santos, respectively.

Despite the illegitimate status of Emilio III, he was reared

ever since he was a mere baby, nine months old, by the
spouses Federico and Cristina and was an acknowledged
natural child of Emilio I. Nenita is an acknowledged natural
child of Emilio I and was likewise brought up by the spouses
Federico and Cristina.

As previously adverted to, the marriage between Emilio I

and Isabel was annulled.6 Consequently, respondent and her
siblings Margarita and Emilio II, lived with their mother on
Balete Drive, Quezon City, separately from their father and
paternal grandparents.

Parenthetically, after the death of Emilio I, Federico filed a

petition for visitation rights over his grandchildren:
respondent Isabel, Margarita, and Emilio II. Although the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in Quezon City
granted the petition and allowed Federico one hour of
visitation monthly, initially reduced to thirty minutes, it was
altogether stopped because of a manifestation filed by
respondent Isabel, articulating her sentiments on the
unwanted visits of her grandparents.

Significantly, Federico, after the death of his spouse,

Cristina, or on September 27, 1993, adopted their
illegitimate grandchildren, Emilio III and Nenita.7

On October 26, 1995, respondent filed a petition for the

issuance of letters of administration in her favor, containing
the following allegations:

[A]t the time of [the decedent's] death, [she] was a resident

of the Municipality of Hagonoy, Province of Bulacan; that the
[decedent] left an estate of real and personal properties,
with a probable gross value of P29,000,000.00; that the
names, ages and residences of the surviving heirs of the
[decedent] are: (1) Federico C. Suntay, 89 years old,
surviving spouse and a resident of x x x; (2) Isabel
Cojuangco-Suntay, 36 years old, legitimate granddaughter
and a resident of x x x; (3) Margarita Cojuangco-Suntay, 39
years old, legitimate granddaughter and a resident of x x x;
and (4) Emilio Cojuangco-Suntay, 35 years old, legitimate
grandson and a resident of x x x; and that as far as
[respondent] knew, the decedent left no debts or obligation
at the time of her death.8

Disavowing the allegations in the petition of his grandchild,

respondent Isabel, Federico filed his opposition on December
21, 1995, alleging, among others, that:

[B]eing the surviving spouse of Cristina, he is capable of

administering her estate and he should be the one appointed
as its administrator; that as part owner of the mass of
conjugal properties left by Cristina, he must be accorded
legal preference in the administration thereof; that Isabel
and her family had been alienated from their grandparents
for more than thirty (30) years; that the enumeration of
heirs in the petition was incomplete as it did not mention the
other children of his son[,] namely: Emilio III and Nenita S.
Tañedo; that he is better situated to protect the integrity of
the estate of Cristina as even before the death of his wife[,]
he was already the one who managed their conjugal
properties; that the probable value of the estate as stated in
the petition was grossly overstated (sic); and that Isabel's
allegation that some of the properties are in the hands of
usurpers is untrue.9

Meanwhile, after a failed attempt by the parties to settle the

proceedings amicably, Federico filed a Manifestation dated
March 13, 1999, nominating his adopted son, Emilio III, as
administrator of the decedent's estate on his behalf, in the
event he would be adjudged as the one with a better right to
the letters of administration.

Subsequently, the trial court granted Emilio III's Motion for

Leave to Intervene considering his interest in the outcome of
the case. Emilio III filed his Opposition-In-Intervention,
which essentially echoed the allegations in his grandfather's
opposition, alleging that Federico, or in his stead, Emilio III,
was better equipped than respondent to administer and
manage the estate of the decedent, Cristina. Additionally,
Emilio III averred his own qualifications that: "[he] is
presently engaged in aquaculture and banking; he was
trained by the decedent to work in his early age by involving
him in the activities of the Emilio Aguinaldo Foundation
which was established in 1979 in memory of her
grandmother's father; the significant work experiences
outside the family group are included in his curriculum vitae;
he was employed by the oppositor [Federico] after his
graduation in college with management degree at F.C.E.
Corporations and Hagonoy Rural Bank; x x x."10

In the course of the proceedings, on November 13, 2000,

Federico died.

After the testimonies of both parties' witnesses were heard

and evidence on their respective allegations were adduced,
the trial court rendered a decision on November 9, 2001,
appointing herein petitioner, Emilio III, as administrator of
decedent Cristina's intestate estate, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the petition of Isabel Cojuangco[-]Suntay is

DENIED and the Opposition[-]in[-]Intervention is GRANTED.

Accordingly, the Intervenor, Emilio A.M. Suntay, III is

hereby appointed administrator of the estate of the decedent
Cristina Aguinaldo Suntay, who shall enter upon the
execution of his trust upon the filing of a bond in the amount
of P200,000.00, conditioned as follows:

(1) To make and return within three (3) months, a true and
complete inventory;

(2) To administer the estate and to pay and discharge all

debts, legatees, and charge on the same, or dividends
thereon;

(3) To render a true and just account within one (1) year,
and at any other time when required by the court, and

(4) To perform all orders of the Court.

Once the said bond is approved by the court, let Letters of

Administration be issued in his favor.

SO ORDERED.11

Aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal before the CA, which

reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC, revoked the
Letters of Administration issued to Emilio III, and appointed
respondent as administratrix of the intestate estate of the
decedent, Cristina, to wit:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the assailed

decision dated November 9, 2001 of Branch 78, Regional
Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan in SPC No. 117-M-95
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the letters of
administration issued by the said court to Emilio A.M. Suntay
III, if any, are consequently revoked. Petitioner Isabel
Cojuangco[-]Suntay is hereby appointed administratrix of
the intestate estate of Cristina Aguinaldo Suntay. Let letters
of administration be issued in her favor upon her filing of a
bond in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand
(P200,000.00) Pesos.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.12

The motion for reconsideration of Emilio III having been

denied, he appeals by certiorari to this Court, raising the
following issues:
A. IN THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE UNDER SECTION 6 OF RULE 78 OF THE RULES OF
COURT, WHETHER ARTICLE 992 OF THE CIVIL CODE
APPLIES; and

B. UNDER THE UNDISPUTED FACTS WHERE HEREIN

PETITIONER WAS REARED BY THE DECEDENT AND HER
SPOUSE SINCE INFANCY, WHETHER ARTICLE 992 OF THE
NEW CIVIL CODE APPLIES SO AS TO BAR HIM FROM BEING
APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DECEDENT'S
ESTATE.13

In ruling against the petition of herein respondent, the RTC

ratiocinated, thus:

Evidence objectively assessed and carefully evaluated, both

testimonial and documentary, the court opines that it is to
the best interest of the estate of the decedent and all
claimants thereto, that the Intervenor, Emilio A.M. Suntay
III, be appointed administrator of the estate in the above-
entitled special proceedings.

Based on the evidence and demeanor of the parties in court,

[respondent's immediate] family and that of the decedent
are apparently estranged. The root cause of which, is not for
this court to ascertain nor is this the right time and the
proper forum to dwell upon. What matters most at this time
is the welfare of the estate of the decedent in the light of
such unfortunate and bitter estrangement.

The Court honestly believes that to appoint the petitioner

would go against the wishes of the decedent who raised
[Emilio III] from infancy in her home in Baguio City as her
own child. Certainly, it would go against the wishes of the
surviving spouse x x x who nominated [Emilio III] for
appointment as administrator.

As between [respondent] and the oppositor [Federico], the

latter is accorded preference as the surviving spouse under
Sec 6(a), Rule 78, Rules of Court. On the basis of such
preference, he vigorously opposed the appointment of the
petitioner and instead nominated [Emilio III], his grandchild
and adopted child. Such nomination, absent any valid and
justifiable reason, should not be imperiously set aside and
insouciantly ignored, even after the oppositor [Federico] has
passed away, in order to give effect to the order of
preference mandated by law. Moreover, from the viewpoint
of the estate, the nomination of [Emilio III] appear[s]
intrinsically meritorious. For the benefit of the estate and its
claimants, creditors, as well as heirs, the administrator
should be one who is prepared, academically and by
experience, for the demands and responsibilities of the
position. While [respondent], a practicing physician, is not
unqualified, it is clear to the court that when it comes to
management of real estate and the processing and payment
of debts, [Emilio III], a businessman with an established
track record as a manager has a decided edge and
therefore, is in a position to better handle the preservation
of the estate.14

In marked contrast, the CA zeroed in on Emilio III's status

as an illegitimate child of Emilio I and, thus, barred from
representing his deceased father in the estate of the latter's
legitimate mother, the decedent. On the whole, the CA
pronounced that Emilio III, who was merely nominated by
Federico, and which nomination hinged upon the latter's
appointment as administrator of the decedent's estate,
cannot be appointed as the administrator of the decedent's
estate for the following reasons:15

1. The appointment of Emilio III was subject to a suspensive

condition, i.e., Federico's appointment as administrator of
the estate, he being the surviving spouse of Cristina, the
decedent. The death of Federico before his appointment
as administrator of Cristina's estate rendered his
nomination of Emilio III inoperative;

2. As between the legitimate offspring (respondent) and

illegitimate offspring (Emilio III) of decedent's son, Emilio
I, respondent is preferred, being the "next of kin" referred
to by Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, and
entitled to share in the distribution of Cristina's estate as
an heir;

3. Jurisprudence has consistently held that Article 99216 of

the Civil Code bars the illegitimate child from inheriting ab
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his
father or mother. Thus, Emilio III, who is barred from
inheriting from his grandmother, cannot be preferred over
respondent in the administration of the estate of their
grandmother, the decedent; and
4. Contrary to the RTC's finding, respondent is as much
competent as Emilio III to administer and manage the
subject estate for she possesses none of the
disqualifications specified in Section 1,17

Rule 78 of the Rules of Court.

The pivotal issue in this case turns on who, as between

Emilio III and respondent, is better qualified to act as
administrator of the decedent's estate.

We cannot subscribe to the appellate court's ruling excluding

Emilio III in the administration of the decedent's undivided
estate. Mistakenly, the CA glosses over several undisputed
facts and circumstances:

1. The underlying philosophy of our law on intestate

succession is to give preference to the wishes and
presumed will of the decedent, absent a valid and
effective will;

2. The basis for Article 992 of the Civil Code, referred to as

the iron curtain bar rule,18 is quite the opposite scenario in
the facts obtaining herein for the actual relationship
between Federico and Cristina, on one hand, and Emilio
III, on the other, was akin to the normal relationship of
legitimate relatives;

3. Emilio III was reared from infancy by the decedent,

Cristina, and her husband, Federico, who both
acknowledged him as their grandchild;

4. Federico claimed half of the properties included in the

estate of the decedent, Cristina, as forming part of their
conjugal partnership of gains during the subsistence of
their marriage;

5. Cristina's properties forming part of her estate are still

commingled with that of her husband, Federico, because
her share in the conjugal partnership, albeit terminated
upon her death, remains undetermined and unliquidated;
and

6. Emilio III is a legally adopted child of Federico, entitled to

share in the distribution of the latter's estate as a direct
heir, one degree from Federico, not simply representing
his deceased illegitimate father, Emilio I.
From the foregoing, it is patently clear that the CA erred in
excluding Emilio III from the administration of the
decedent's estate. As Federico's adopted son, Emilio III's
interest in the estate of Cristina is as much apparent to this
Court as the interest therein of respondent, considering that
the CA even declared that "under the law, [Federico], being
the surviving spouse, would have the right of succession
over a portion of the exclusive property of the
decedent, aside from his share in the conjugal
partnership." Thus, we are puzzled why the CA resorted to
a strained legal reasoning - Emilio III's nomination was
subject to a suspensive condition and rendered inoperative
by reason of Federico's death - wholly inapplicable to the
case at bar.

Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court lists the order of

preference in the appointment of an administrator of an
estate:

SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration

granted. - If no executor is named in the will, or the
executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or
fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, administration
shall be granted:

(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or

next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such
person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin,
requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to
serve;

(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be,

or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be
incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or
next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of
the person to apply for administration or to request that
administration be granted to some other person, it may be
granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if
competent and willing to serve;

(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to

serve, it may be granted to such other person as the court
may select.

However, the order of preference is not absolute for it

depends on the attendant facts and circumstances of each
case.19 Jurisprudence has long held that the selection of an
administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial
court.20 In the main, the attendant facts and circumstances
of this case necessitate, at the least, a joint administration
by both respondent and Emilio III of their grandmother's,
Cristina's, estate.

In the case of Uy v. Court of Appeals,21 we upheld the

appointment by the trial court of a co-administration
between the decedent's son and the decedent's brother, who
was likewise a creditor of the decedent's estate. In the same
vein, we declared in Delgado Vda. de De la Rosa v. Heirs of
Marciana Rustia Vda. de Damian22 that:

[i]n the appointment of an administrator, the principal

consideration is the interest in the estate of the one to be
appointed. The order of preference does not rule out the
appointment of co-administrators, specially in cases where
justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions
be represented in the management of the estates, a
situation which obtains here.

Similarly, the subject estate in this case calls to the

succession other putative heirs, including another
illegitimate grandchild of Cristina and Federico, Nenita
Tañedo, but who was likewise adopted by Federico, and the
two (2) siblings of respondent Isabel, Margarita and Emilio
II. In all, considering the conflicting claims of the putative
heirs, and the unliquidated conjugal partnership of Cristina
and Federico which forms part of their respective estates,
we are impelled to move in only one direction, i.e., joint
administration of the subject estate.

One final note. Counsel for petitioner meticulously argues

that Article 992 of the Civil Code, the successional bar
between the legitimate and illegitimate relatives of a
decedent, does not apply in this instance where facts
indubitably demonstrate the contrary - Emilio III, an
illegitimate grandchild of the decedent, was actually treated
by the decedent and her husband as their own son, reared
from infancy, educated and trained in their businesses, and
eventually legally adopted by decedent's husband, the
original oppositor to respondent's petition for letters of
administration.
We are not unmindful of the critiques of civilists of a conflict
and a lacuna in the law concerning the bone of contention
that is Article 992 of the Civil Code, beginning with the
eminent Justice J.B.L. Reyes:

In the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 the right of representation

was admitted only within the legitimate family; so much so
that Article 943 of that Code prescribed that an illegitimate
child can not inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children
and relatives of his father and mother. The Civil Code of the
Philippines apparently adhered to this principle since it
reproduced Article 943 of the Spanish Code in its own Art.
992, but with fine inconsistency, in subsequent articles (990,
995 and 998) our Code allows the hereditary portion of the
illegitimate child to pass to his own descendants, whether
legitimate or illegitimate. So that while Art. 992 prevents the
illegitimate issue of a legitimate child from representing him
in the intestate succession of the grandparent, the
illegitimates of an illegitimate child can now do so. This
difference being indefensible and unwarranted, in the future
revision of the Civil Code we shall have to make a choice
and decide either that the illegitimate issue enjoys in all
cases the right of representation, in which case Art. 992
must be suppressed; or contrariwise maintain said article
and modify Articles 995 and 998. The first solution would be
more in accord with an enlightened attitude vis-á -
vis illegitimate children.23

Manresa explains the basis for the rules on intestate

succession:

The law [of intestacy] is founded... on the presumed will of

the deceased... Love, it is said, first descends, then ascends,
and, finally, spreads sideways. Thus, the law first calls the
descendants, then the ascendants, and finally the
collaterals, always preferring those closer in degree to those
of remoter degrees, on the assumption that the deceased
would have done so had he manifested his last will... Lastly,
in default of anyone called to succession or bound to the
decedent by ties of blood or affection, it is in accordance
with his presumed will that his property be given to
charitable or educational institutions, and thus contribute to
the welfare of humanity.24

Indeed, the factual antecedents of this case accurately

reflect the basis of intestate succession, i.e., love first
descends, for the decedent, Cristina, did not distinguish
between her legitimate and illegitimate grandchildren.
Neither did her husband, Federico, who, in fact, legally
raised the status of Emilio III from an illegitimate grandchild
to that of a legitimate child. The peculiar circumstances of
this case, painstakingly pointed out by counsel for petitioner,
overthrow the legal presumption in Article 992 of the Civil
Code that there exist animosity and antagonism between
legitimate and illegitimate descendants of a deceased.

Nonetheless, it must be pointed out that judicial restraint

impels us to refrain from making a final declaration of
heirship and distributing the presumptive shares of the
parties in the estates of Cristina and Federico, considering
that the question on who will administer the properties of
the long deceased couple has yet to be settled.

Our holding in Capistrano v. Nadurata25 on the same issue

remains good law:

[T]he declaration of heirs made by the lower court is

premature, although the evidence sufficiently shows who are
entitled to succeed the deceased. The estate had hardly
been judicially opened, and the proceeding has not as yet
reached the stage of distribution of the estate which must
come after the inheritance is liquidated.

Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court does not depart

from the foregoing admonition:

Sec. 1. When order for distribution of residue is made. - x x

x. If there is a controversy before the court as to who are
the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the
distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the
law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in
ordinary cases.

No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the

obligations above mentioned has been made or provided for,
unless the distributees, or any of them, give a bond, in a
sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of
said obligations within such time as the court directs.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 74949
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Letters of Administration
over the estate of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay shall
issue to both petitioner Emilio A.M. Suntay III and
respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay upon payment by each
of a bond to be set by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78,
Malolos, Bulacan, in Special Proceeding Case No. 117-M-95.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Malolos, Bulacan is
likewise directed to make a determination and to declare the
heirs of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay according to the
actual factual milieu as proven by the parties, and all other
persons with legal interest in the subject estate. It is further
directed to settle the estate of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-
Suntay with dispatch. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad, and Perez,* JJ.,

concur.

Endnotes:

*
 Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose C.
Mendoza per Special Order No. 842 dated June 3, 2010.

1
 Formerly Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, before ascending to the
religious title of Pope and assuming the name Alexander VI.

2
 The Papal Bull which drew a longitudinal line (one hundred
leagues west of the Azores and Cape Verde Islands) and
bestowed all non-Christian lands west thereof to Spain, and
east of the line to Portugal.

3
 In The Family, a book with a factual core on the Borgia
family of 15th Century Rome, Mario Puzo recounts that the
ostensibly fair and just papal ruling actually favored Spain
and placed Portugal at a disadvantage because papal
intervention and arbitration of the matter was made at the
behest of King Ferdinand of Spain. More importantly, Pope
Alexander VI was originally a Catalan who, at the start of his
career as a cleric in Italy, conveniently changed his name
from the Spanish "Borja" to the Italian "Borgia" to gain
acceptance and credibility as an authentic Roman clergy.

4
 Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with
Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of
this Court) and Noel G. Tijam, concurring; rollo, pp. 20-32.

5
 Penned by Judge Gregorio S. Sampaga; rollo, pp. 35-60.

6
 Rollo, p. 43.

7
 Id. at 137-138.

8
 Id. at 35.

9
 Id. at 21-22.

10
 Id. at 58.

11
 Id. at 60.

12
 Id. at 31-32.

13
 Memorandum of petitioner; id. at 195.

14
 Rollo, pp. 59-60.

15
 Id. at 25-31.

16
 Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his
father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit
in the same manner from the illegitimate child.

17
 Sec.1. Who are incompetent to serve as executors or
administrators. - No person is competent to serve as
executor or administrator who:

(a) Is a minor;

(b) Is not a resident of the Philippines; and

(c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties

of the trust by reason of drunkenness, improvidence, or
want of understanding or integrity, or by reason of
conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude.

18
 Called as such because the law does not recognize the
natural tie of blood and is based on the presumed
 intervening antagonism and incompatibility between the
legitimate and illegitimate family of a deceased. See Diaz v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-66574, June 17,
1987, 150 SCRA 645.

19
 See Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167979, March 16,
2006, 484 SCRA 699; Gabriel v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
101512, August 7, 1992, 212 SCRA 413; Capistrano v.
Nadurata, 46 Phil. 726 (1922).

20
 See Uy v. Court of Appeals, supra; Gabriel v. Court
of Appeals, supra; Capistrano v. Nadurata, supra.

21
 Supra note 19.

22
 G.R. No. 155733, January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 334, 360.
(Citations omitted.)

23
 Reflections on the Reform of Hereditary
Succession, JOURNAL of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, First Quarter (1976), Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 40-41;
cited in Diaz v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
66574, February 21, 1990, 182 SCRA 427, 434; and Diaz v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, supra note 18, at 651.

24
 Cited in BALANE, Jottings and Jurisprudence (1998), p.
368.

25
 Supra note at 19, at 728.

Top of Page
 The Firm
 The Law Library
 The Legal Materials
 The Firm
Copyright © 1998 - 2022: ReDiaz