51. de borja vs de borja

26
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-6622 July 31, 1957 Intestate Estate of the deceased MARCELO DE BORJA. CRISANTO DE BORJA, administrator-appellant, vs. JUAN DE BORJA, ET AL., oppositors-appellees. E. V. Filamor for appellant. Juan de Borja for himself and co-appellees. FELIX, J.: The case. — Quintin, Francisco, Crisanta and Juliana, all surnamed de Borja, are legitimate children of Marcelo de Borja who, upon his demise sometime in 1924 or 1925, left a considerable amount of property. Intestate proceedings must have followed, and the pre-war records of the case either burned, lost or destroyed during the last war, because the record shows that in 1930 Quintin de Borja was already the administrator of the Intestate Estate of Marcelo de Borja. In the early part of 1938, Quintin de Borja died and Crisanto de Borja, son of Francisco de Borja, was appointed and took over as administrator of the Estate. Francisco de Borja, on the other hand, assumed his duties as executor of the will of Quintin de Borja, but upon petition of the heirs of said deceased on the ground that his interests were conflicting with that of his brother's estate he was later required by the Court to resign as such executor and was succeeded by Rogelio Limaco, a son-in-law of Quintin de Borja. It also appears that on February 16, 1940, at the hearing set for the approval of the statement of accounts of the late administrator of the Intestate Estate of Marcelo de Borja, then being opposed by Francisco de Borja, the parties submitted an agreement, which was approved by the Court (Exh. A). Said agreement, translated into English, reads as follows: 1. All the accounts submitted and those that are to be submitted corresponding to this year will be considered approved; 2. No heir shall claim anything of the harvests from the lands in Cainta that came from Exequiel Ampil, deceased, nor from the land in Tabuatin, Nueva Ecija;

Upload: zahramina

Post on 19-Aug-2015

42 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

Business Organizations - Assigned Case

TRANSCRIPT

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. L-6622 July 31, 1957Int!t"t E!t"t o# t$ %&"!% M'RCELO (E )ORJ'. CRIS'NTO (E )ORJ', administrator-appellant, vs.JU'N (E )ORJ', ET 'L., oppositors-appellees.E. V. Filamor for appellant.Juan de Borja for himself and co-appellees.*ELI+, J.,The case.!uintin, "rancisco, Crisanta and #uliana, all surnamed de Bor$a, are le%itimate children of Marcelo de Bor$a &ho, upon his demise sometime in '()* or '()+, left a considerable amount of propert,. -ntestate proceedin%s must have follo&ed, and the pre-&ar records of the case either burned, lost or destro,ed durin% the last &ar, because the record sho&s that in '(./ !uintin de Bor$a &as alread,the administrator of the -ntestate Estate of Marcelo de Bor$a.-n the earl, part of '(.0, !uintin de Bor$a died and Crisanto de Bor$a, son of "rancisco de Bor$a, &as appointed and too1 over as administrator of the Estate. "rancisco de Bor$a, on the other hand, assumed his duties as e2ecutor of the &ill of !uintin de Bor$a, but upon petition of the heirs of said deceased on the%round that his interests &ere conflictin% &ith that of his brother3s estate he &as later re4uired b, the Court to resi%n as such e2ecutor and &as succeeded b, Ro%elio 5imaco, a son-in-la& of !uintin de Bor$a.-t also appears that on "ebruar, '6, '(*/, at the hearin% set for the approval of the statement of accountsof the late administrator of the -ntestate Estate of Marcelo de Bor$a, then bein% opposed b, "rancisco de Bor$a, the parties submitted an a%reement, &hich &as approved b, the Court 7E2h. A8. 9aid a%reement, translated into En%lish, reads as follo&s:'. All the accounts submitted and those that are to be submitted correspondin% to this ,ear &ill beconsidered approved;). No heir shall claim an,thin% of the harvests from the lands in Cainta that came from E2e4uiel Ampil, deceased, nor from the land in Tabuatin, Nueva Eci$a;.. That the amounts of mone, ta1en b, each heir shall be considered as deposited in con$unction&ith the other properties of the intestate and shall form part of the mass &ithout dra&in% an, interest;*. That it shall be understood as included in this mass the sum of t&elve thousand pesos 7P'),///8 that the sisters Crisanta and #uliana de Bor$a paid of their o&n mone, as part of the price the lands and three thousand pesos 7P.,///8 the price of the machiner, for irri%ation;+. The ri%ht, interests or participation that the deceased !uintin de Bor$a has or ma, have in Civil Case No. 6'(/ of the Court of "irst -nstance of Nueva Eci$a, shall be li1e&ise included in the totalmass of the inheritance of the -ntestate;6. Not onl, the lands in Tabuatin but also those in Cainta comin% from the no& deceased E2e4uiel Ampil shall also from part of the total mass of the inheritance of the -ntestate of the late Marcelo de Bor$a;a. #uliana de Bor$a, and >a. Crisanta de Bor$a, in e4ual parts. 7TRAN95AT-=N8The -ntestate remained under the administration of Crisanto de Bor$a until the then outbrea1 of the &ar. "rom then on and until the termination of the &ar, there &as a lull and state of inaction in 9pecial proceedin% No. )*'* of the Court of "irst -nstance of Ri?al, Pasi% branch 7-n the Matter of the -ntestate Estate of Marcelo de Bor$a8, until upon petition filed b, Mi%uel B. >a,co, as administrator of the estate of his deceased mother, Crisanta de Bor$a, &ho is one of heirs, for reconstitution of the records of this case, the Court on >ecember '', '(*+, ordered the reconstitution of the same, re4uirin% the administrator to submit his report and a cop, of the pro$ect of partition.=n #anuar, ., '(*6, the administrator, >r. Crisanto de Bor$a, filed his accounts for the period ran%in% from March ' to >ecember )), '(*+, &hich accordin% to the heirs of !uintin de Bor$a &ere so inade4uateand %eneral that on "ebruar, )0, '(*6, the, filed a motion for specification. =n April ./, '(*6, the, also filed their opposition to said statement of accounts alle%in% that the income reported in said statement &as ver, much less than the true and actual income of the estate and that the e2penses appearin% therein &ere e2a%%erated and@or not actuall, incurred, and pra,ed that the statement of accounts submitted b, the administrator be disapproved.The administrator later filed another report of his administration, dated Au%ust (, '(*(, correspondin% to the period lapsed from >ecember )., '(*+, to #ul, .', '(*(, sho&in% a cash balance of Pr. Crisanto de Bor$a to verif, the loss and therefore pra,ed that the administrator be ordered to deposit &ith the Cler1 of Court all boo1s, receipts, accounts and other papers pertainin% to the Estate of Marcelo de Bor$a. This motion &as ans&ered b, theadministrator contendin% that the Report referred to &as alread, clear and enou%h, the income as &ell as the e2penditures bein% specified therein; that he had to spend for the repairs of the properties of the Estate dama%ed durin% the #apanese occupation; that the alle%ation that durin% the administration of !uintin de Boria the Estate reali?ed a profit of P'//,/// &as not true, because instead of %ain there &as even a shorta%e in the funds althou%h said administrator had collected all his fees 7honorarios8 and commissions correspondin% to the entire period of his incumbenc,; that the obli%ations mentioned in said report &ill be li4uidated before the termination of the proceedin%s in the same manner as it is done in an, other intestate case; that he &as &illin% to submit all the receipts of the accounts for the e2amination of the interested parties before the Cler1 or before the Court itself; that this -ntestate could be terminated, the pro$ect of partition havin% been allo&ed and confirmed b, the 9upreme Court and that the Administrator &as also desirous of terminatin% it definitel, for the benefit of all the parties.=n 9eptember '*, '(*(, the administrator filed another statement of accounts coverin% the period of fromMarch ', '(*+, to #ul, .', '(*(, &hich sho&ed a cash balance of Pa,co filed a motion informin% the Court that the t&o parcels of land located in Cabanatuan, Nueva Eci$a, produced some )',.// cavans of pala,, amountin% to P)'.,/// at P'/ per cavan, &hich &ere en$o,ed b, some heirs; that the administrator Crisanto de Bor$a had not ta1en possession of the same for circumstances be,ond his control; and that there also e2isted the sum of Pa,co made mention of certain properties alle%edl, belon%in% to the -ntestate, said petitionshould properl, be considered to %ather &ith the final accounts of the administrator.The administrator raised the matter b, certiorari to this Tribunal, &hich &as, doc1eted as C.R. No. 5-*'eposit No. )''*6*( &ith the Cler1 of Court, after the oppositors had sho&n that durin% the hearin% of that incident, the parties a%reed to abide b, &hatever resolution the Court &ould ma1e on the o&nership of the funds covered b, that deposit.The issues.Reducin% the issues to bare essentials, the 4uestions left for our determination are: 7'8 &hether the counsel for a part, in a case ma, be included as a defendant in a counterclaim; 7)8 &hether aclaim for moral dama%es ma, be entertained in a proceedin% for the settlement of an estate; 7.8 &hat ma,be considered as acts of maladministration and &hether an administrator, as the one in the case at bar, ma, be held accountable for an, loss or dama%e that the estate under his administration ma, incur b, reason of his ne%li%ence, bad faith or acts of maladministration; and 7*8 in the case at bar has the -ntestate or an, of the heirs suffered an, loss or dama%e b, reason of the administrator3s ne%li%ence, bad faith or maladministrationG -f so, &hat is the amount of such loss or dama%eG-.9ection ', Rule '/, of the Rules of Court defines a counterclaim as:9ECT-=N '. Counterclaim Defined.A counterclaim is any claim, &hether for mone, or other&ise, which a party may have aainst the opposin party. A counterclaim need not dismiss or defeat the recover, sou%ht b, the opposin% part,, but ma, claim relief e2ceedin% in amount or different in 1ind from that sou%ht b, the opposin% part,3s claim.-t is an elementar, rule of procedure that a counterclaim is a relief available to a part,-defendant a%ainst the adverse part, &hich ma, or ma, not be independent from the main issue. There is no controvers, in the case at bar, that the acts, manifestations and actuations alle%ed to be defamator, and upon &hich thecounterclaim &as based &ere done or prepared b, counsel for oppositors; and the administrator contendsthat as the ver, oppositors manifested that &hatever civil liabilit, arisin% from acts, actuations, pleadin%s and manifestations attributable to their la&,er is enforceable a%ainst said la&,er, the amended counterclaim &as filed a%ainst the latter not in his individual or personal capacit, but as counsel for the oppositors. -t is his stand, therefore, that the lo&er erred in den,in% admission to said pleadin%. De differ from the vie& ta1en b, the administrator. The appearance of a la&,er as counsel for a part, and his participation in a case as such counsel does not ma1e him a part, to the action. The fact that he represents the interests of his client or that he acts in their behalf &ill not hold him liable for or ma1e him entitled to an, a&ard that the Court ma, ad$udicate to the parties, other than his professional fees. The principle that a counterclaim cannot be filed a%ainst persons &ho are actin% in representation of another such as trusteesin their individual capacities 7Chambers vs. Cameron, ) "ed. Rules 9ervice, p. '++; )( ". 9upp. ecember, '(*( 0,0*/.// ')).ecember, '(+/ 6,/6/.// '0*.'6Total P*/,)(+.//The oppositors, in disputin% this record income, presented at the &itness stand 5auro A%uila, a la&,er &ho occupied the basement of >oor No. '+*' and the &hole of >oor No. '+*. from '(*+ to November '+, '(*(, and &ho testified that he paid rentals on said apartments as follo&s:'(*+>oor No. '+*' 7basement8"ebruar, P)/.//>oor No. '+*.March )/.// "or < months at P.//April 6/.// a month P),'//.//Ma,->ecember 0//.//Total P(//.//'(*6#anuar,->ecember P',)//.// #anuar,->ecember P*,/0/.//'(*oor No. '+*'. These fi%ures &ere not controverted or disputed b, the administrator but claim that said tenant subleased the apartments occupied b, Pedro Enri4ue? and 9oledad 9odora and paid the said rentals, not to the administrator, but to said Enri4ue?. The transcript of the testimon, of this &itness reall, bolster this contentionthat 5auro A%uila tal1ed &ith said Pedro Enri4ue? &hen he leased the aforementioned apartments and admitted pa,in% the rentals to the latter and not to the administrator. -t is interestin% to note that Pedro Enri4ue? is the same person &ho appeared to be the administrator3s collector, dul, authori?ed to receive the rentals from this A?carra%a propert, and for &hich services, said Enri4ue? received + per cent of the amount he mi%ht be able to collect as commission. -f &e are to believe appellant3s contention, aside from the commission that Pedro Enri4ue? received he also sublet the apartments he &as occup,in% at a ver, much hi%her rate than that he actuall, paid the estate &ithout the 1no&led%e of the administrator or &ith his approval. As the administrator also seemed to possess that peculiar habit of %ivin% little importance to boo11eepin% methods, for he never 1ept a led%er or boo1 of entr, for amounts received for the estate, Defind no record of the rentals the lessees of the other doors &ere pa,in%. -t &as, ho&ever, brou%ht about atthe hearin% that the 6 doors of this buildin% are of the same si?es and construction and the lo&er Court based its computation of the amount this propert, should have earned for the estate on the rental paid b, Att,. A%uila for the ' '@) doors that he occupied. De see no e2cuse &h, the administrator could not have ta1en co%ni?ance of these rates and received the same for the benefit of the estate he &as administerin%,considerin% the fact that he used to ma1e trips to Manila usuall, once a month and for &hich he char%ed to the estate P0 as transportation e2penses for ever, trip.Basin% on the rentals paid b, Att,. A%uila for ' '@) doors, the estate received P''),0// from "ebruar, ', '(*+, to November '+, '(*(, for the 6 doors, but the lo&er Court held him accountable not onl, for the sum of P.*,).+ reported for the period ran%in% from March ', '(*+, to >ecember .', '(*(, but also for a deficit of P(/,+)+ or a total of P')*,oor No. '+*( &as vacant in 9eptember, '(*(, and as Att,. A%uila used to pa, P.(/ a month for the use of an entire apartment from 9eptember to November, '(*(, and he also paid P'6/ for the use of the basement of an apartment 7>oor No. '+*'8, the use, therefore, of said upper floor &ould cost P)./ &hich should be deducted, even if the computation of the lo&er Court &ould have to be follo&ed.There bein% no proper evidence to sho& that the administrator collected more rentals than those reportedb, him, e2cept in the instance alread, mentioned, De are reluctant to bold him accountable in the amountfor &hich he &as held liable b, the lo&er Court, and De thin1 that under the circumstances it &ould be more $ust to add to the sum reported b, the administrator as received b, him as rents for '(*+-'(*( onl,, the difference bet&een the sum reported as paid b, Att,. A%uila and the sum actuall, paid b, the latter as rents of ' '@) of the apartments durin% the said period, or P)+,*+oors Nos. '+*+, '+*