full text cases on succession

7/18/2019 Full Text Cases on succession

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/full-text-cases-on-succession 1/127

ContentsFlora v Prado........................................................................................................1

De Borja v Vda de Borja.......................................................................................6

Bailon-Casilao v CA............................................................................................ 16Alejandrino v CA.................................................................................................22

Mondonido v Roda.............................................................................................. 30

Barretto v Tuason...............................................................................................31

Tordilla v Tordilla................................................................................................. 60

a!oneta v "ustilo.............................................................................................. 62

#era v Ri$ando................................................................................................. 6%

De "ala v De "ala..............................................................................................66

"ar&ia v 'a&uesta...............................................................................................(0

)RA'*....................................................................................................................... (2

+son v Del Rosario.............................................................................................(2

,!arle v Po.......................................................................................................... (3

#a&ar v #istal.....................................................................................................(%

Torres v 'oe.................................................................................................... /1

Doroteo v CA..................................................................................................10/

Balus v Balus....................................................................................................111

+nion!an v *anti!ane...................................................................................116

Flora v Prado

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 156879. January 20, 2004]

FLORDELIZ !L"#$R FLOR, DO%INDOR !L"#$R an& #O%' !L"#$R,JR., ()*r+ o #O%' !L"#$R, 'R., petitioners, vs. RO-ER#O, ERLIND,DNIEL, GLORI, "#RI!IO, JR. an& EDN, a +urna/)& "RDO an& NR!I'"RDO, respondents.



D E ! I ' I O N

NRE''N#IGO, J .

The property under litigation is the northern half portion of a residential land consisting of 552.20 suare !eters" !ore or less" situated at #$ th %&enue" 'urphy" (ue)on *ity and co&ered

+y Transfer *ertificate of Title No. ,#- issued on %ugust #5" #$/- +y the Register of Deeds of (ue)on *ity in the na!e of Narcisa rado and her children +y her first hus+and" atricio rado"Sr." na!ely" Ro+erto" 1rlinda" Daniel" loria" atricio" 3r. and 1dna" respondents herein.

The pertinent facts are as follo4s

On Dece!+er #$" #$5$" atricio rado" Sr. died. Narcisa su+seuently !arried 6onifacio*alpatura. In order to support her !inor children 4ith her first hus+and" Narcisa and her +rother7in7la4" To!as *alpatura" Sr." e8ecuted on %pril 2/" #$/9 an Agreement of Purchase and Sale 4here+y the for!er agreed to sell to the latter the northern half portion of the property for the su! of #0"500.00.:#; On 3uly 29" #$,-" Narcisa e8ecuted a Deed of Absolute Sale in fa&or of To!as o&er the said property.:2;

In #$,/" To!as daughter" Flordeli)a *alpatura Flora" +uilt a t4o7storey duple8 4ithfire4all:-; on the northern half portion of the property. Respondents" 4ho occupied the southernhalf portion of the land" did not o+<ect to the construction. Flordeli)a Flora and her hus+and=ilfredo declared the property for ta8ation purposes:; and paid the corresponding ta8esthereon.:5;>i?e4ise" 'a8i!o *alpatura" the son of To!as cousin" +uilt a s!all house on thenorthern portion of the property.

On %pril 9" #$$#" respondents filed a co!plaint for declaration of nullity of sale and deli&eryof possession of the northern half portion of the su+<ect property against petitioners Flordeli)a*alpatura Flora" Do!inador *alpatura and To!as *alpatura" 3r. +efore the Regional Trial *ourtof (ue)on *ity" 6ranch #00" doc?eted as *i&il *ase No. (7$#790.:/;Respondents alleged thatthe transaction e!+odied in the Agreement to Purchase and Sale +et4een Narcisa and To!as4as one of !ortgage and not of sale@ that Narcisas children tried to redee! the !ortgaged

property +ut they learned that the +lan? docu!ent 4hich their !other had signed 4astransfor!ed into a Deed of Absolute Sale@ that Narcisa could not ha&e sold the northern half portion of the property considering that she 4as prohi+ited fro! selling the sa!e 4ithin a periodof 25 years fro! its acuisition" pursuant to the condition annotated at the +ac? of the title@ :,; thatNarcisa" as natural guardian of her children" had no authority to sell the northern half portion of the property 4hich she and her children co7o4ned@ and that only 5"000.00 out of theconsideration of #0"500.00 4as paid +y To!as.

In their ans4er" petitioners countered that Narcisa o4ned $A# of the property" consisting of as her share in the con<ugal partnership 4ith her first hus+and and #A, as her share in the estateof her deceased hus+and@ that the consideration of the sale in the a!ount of #0"500.00 had+een fully paid as of %pril #" #$/9@ that Narcisa sold her con<ugal share in order to support her !inor children@ that Narcisas clai! 4as +arred +y laches and prescription@ and that thehilippine Bo!esite and Bousing *orporation" not the respondents" 4as the real party ininterest to uestion the sale 4ithin the prohi+ited period.

On %pril 2" #$$," the court a quo:9; dis!issed the co!plaint. It found that the sale 4as &alid@that the Agreement to Purchase and Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale 4ere duly e8ecuted@that the su! of #0"500.00 as selling price for the su+<ect property 4as fully paid there +eing node!and for the pay!ent of the re!aining +alance@ that the introduction of i!pro&e!entsthereon +y the petitioners 4as 4ithout o+<ection fro! the respondents@ and that Ro+erto and

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/156879.htm#_ftn1




















1rlinda failed to contest the transaction 4ithin four years after the disco&ery of the alleged fraudand reaching the !a<ority age in &iolation of %rticle #-$# of the *i&il *ode. :$;

etitioners appealed the decision to the *ourt of %ppeals" 4here it 4as doc?eted as *%7.R. *V No. 5/9-. On Octo+er -" 2002" a decision :#0; 4as rendered +y the *ourt of %ppealsdeclaring that respondents 4ere co7o4ners of the su+<ect property" thus the sale 4as &alid only

insofar as Narcisas #A, undi&ided share thereon 4as concerned. The dispositi&e portion of thesaid decision reads

=B1R1FOR1" the appealed Decision is %FFIR'1D" 4ith the 'ODIFI*%TION that the sale indispute is declared &alid only 4ith respect to the one7se&enth C#A, share of plaintiff7appellantN%R*IS% B. R%DO in the su+<ect property" 4hich is eui&alent to ,9.995, suare !eters. Inall other respects" the sa!e decision stands. No pronounce!ent as to costs.

SO ORD1R1D.:##;

etitioner filed a !otion for reconsideration 4hich 4as denied in a Resolution dated3anuary #" 200-.:#2; Bence this petition for re&ie4 on the follo4ing assigned errors

I

TB1 BONOR%6>1 *OERT OF %1%>S *O''ITT1D % R%V1 %6ES1 OF DIS*R1TIONIN 'ODIFIN TB1 D1*ISION R1ND1R1D 6 TB1 R1ION%> TRI%> *OERT =ITBOETT%GIN INTO *ONSID1R%TION TB%T" %SID1 FRO' TB1 D1*>%R%TION OF TB1 V%>IDITOF TB1 S%>1" TB1 1TITION1RS B1R1IN B%V1 T%G1N %*TE%> OSS1SSION OF TB1S%ID ON17B%>F C#A2 TO TB1 1H*>ESION OF TB1 R1SOND1NTS %ND INTRODE*1DI'ROV1'1NTS TB1R1ON.

II

TB1 BONOR%6>1 *OERT OF %1%>S *O''ITT1D % R%V1 %6ES1 OF DIS*R1TIONIN 'ODIFIN TB1 D1*ISION R1ND1R1D 6 TB1 R1ION%> TRI%> *OERT =ITBOETT%GIN INTO *ONSID1R%TION TB1 *>1%R %ND EN1(EIVO*%> ST%T1'1NT IN TB1S%>1 TB%T TB1 S%'1 1RT%INS TO TB1 *ON3E%> SB%R1 OF R1SOND1NTN%R*IS% R%DO %ND TB1 OTB1R R1SOND1NTS B%D NO FIN%N*I%> *%%*IT TO

%*(EIR1 TB1 S%ID RO1RT SIN*1 TB1 =1R1 'INORS TB1N %T TB1 ISSE%N*1OF TB1 S%ID T*T NO. ,#- ON %EEST #5" #$/-.

III

TB1 BONOR%6>1 *OERT OF %1%>S *O''ITT1D % R%V1 %6ES1 OF DIS*R1TIONIN NOT D1*>%RIN TB1 B1R1IN R1SOND1NTS EI>T OF >%*B1S IN FI>IN TB1

INST%NT *%S1 ON> ON %RI> 9" #$$#" TB%T IS #9 1%RS %FT1R TB1 S%ID S%>1 =ITBTB1 1TITION1RS T%GIN %*TE%> OSS1SSION OF S%ID ORTION OF TB1RO1RT.

I3

TB%T TB1 D1*ISION OF TB1 BON. *OERT OF %1%>S =I>> ENDE> 1NRI*B TB1R1SOND1NTS %T TB1 1H1NS1 OF TB1 B1R1IN 1TITION1RS.:#-;













%t the outset" it !ust +e stressed that only uestions of la4 !ay +e raised in petitions for re&ie4 +efore this *ourt under Rule 5 of the Rules of *ourt. :#; It 4as thus error for petitionersto ascri+e to the *ourt of %ppeals gra&e a+use of discretion. This procedural lapsenot4ithstanding" in the interest of <ustice" this *ourt shall treat the issues as cases of re&ersi+leerror.:#5;

The issues for resolution are C# Is the su+<ect property con<ugal or paraphernal C2 Is thetransaction a sale or a !ortgage C- %ssu!ing that the transaction is a sale" 4hat 4as the areaof the land su+<ect of the sale

%rticle #/0 of the *i&il *ode" 4hich 4as in effect at the ti!e the sale 4as entered into"pro&ides that all property of the !arriage is presu!ed to +elong to the con<ugal partnershipunless it is pro&ed that it pertains e8clusi&ely to the hus+and or to the 4ife. roof of acuisitionduring the !arriage is a condition sine qua non in order for the presu!ption in fa&or of con<ugalo4nership to operate.:#/;

In the instant case" 4hile Narcisa testified during cross7e8a!ination that she +ought thesu+<ect property fro! eoples Bo!esite Bousing *orporation 4ith her o4n funds":#,; she"ho4e&er ad!itted in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale that

the property 4as her con<ugal share 4ith her first hus+and" atricio" Sr .:#9;

% &er+al assertion thatshe +ought the land 4ith her o4n funds is inad!issi+le to ualify the ter!s of a 4rittenagree!ent under the parole e&idence rule.:#$; The so7called parole evidence rule for+ids anyaddition to or contradiction of the ter!s of a 4ritten instru!ent +y testi!ony or other e&idencepurporting to sho4 that" at or +efore the e8ecution of the parties 4ritten agree!ent" other or different ter!s 4ere agreed upon +y the parties" &arying the purport of the 4rittencontract. =hate&er is not found in the 4riting is understood to ha&e +een 4ai&ed anda+andoned.:20;

%nent the second issue" the Deed of Absolute Sale e8ecuted +y Narcisa in fa&or of To!asis contained in a notari)ed :2#; docu!ent. In Spouses Alfarero, et al. v. Spouses Sevilla, et al .":22; it4as held that a pu+lic docu!ent e8ecuted and attested through the inter&ention of a notarypu+lic is e&idence of the facts in a clear" uneui&ocal !anner therein e8pressed. Other4ise

stated" pu+lic or notarial docu!ents" or those instru!ents duly ac?no4ledged or pro&ed andcertified as pro&ided +y la4" !ay +e presented in e&idence 4ithout further proof" the certificateof ac?no4ledg!ent +eing prima facie e&idence of the e8ecution of the instru!ent or docu!entin&ol&ed. In order to contradict the presu!ption of regularity of a pu+lic docu!ent" e&idence!ust +e clear" con&incing" and !ore than !erely preponderant.

It is 4ell7settled that in ci&il cases" the party that alleges a fact has the +urden of pro&ing it.:2-; 18cept for the +are allegation that the transaction 4as one of !ortgage and not of sale"respondents failed to adduce e&idence in support thereof. Respondents also failed to contro&ertthe presu!ption that pri&ate transactions ha&e +een fair and regular.:2;

Further!ore" Narcisa" in fact did not deny that she e8ecuted an %ffida&it allo4ing spouses=ilfredo and Flordeli)a Flora to construct a fire4all +et4een the t4o7storey duple8 and her house so!eti!e in #$,/. The duple8 4as !ade of strong !aterials" the roofing +einggal&ani)ed sheets. =hile the deed of sale +et4een To!as and Narcisa 4as ne&er registerednor annotated on the title" respondents had ?no4ledge of the possession of petitioners of thenorthern half portion of the property. O+&iously" respondents recogni)ed the o4nership of To!as" petitioners predecessor7in7interest.

Respondents +elatedly clai!ed that only 5"000.00 out of the #0"500.00 consideration4as paid. 6oth the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale state that













http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/142974.htm




















said consideration 4as paid in full. 'oreo&er" the presu!ption is that there 4as sufficientconsideration for a 4ritten contract.:25;

The property +eing con<ugal" upon the death of atricio rado" Sr." one7half of the su+<ectproperty 4as auto!atically reser&ed to the sur&i&ing spouse" Narcisa" as her share in thecon<ugal partnership. articios rights to the other half" in turn" 4ere trans!itted upon his death

to his heirs" 4hich includes his 4ido4 Narcisa" 4ho is entitled to the sa!e share as that of eachof the legiti!ate children. Thus" as a result of the death of atricio" a regi!e of co7o4nershiparose +et4een Narcisa and the other heirs in relation to the property. The re!aining one7half 4as trans!itted to his heirs +y intestate succession. 6y the la4 on intestate succession" his si8children and Narcisa rado inherited the sa!e at one7se&enth C#A, each pro indiviso.:2/;Inas!uch as Narcisa inherited one7se&enth C#A, of her hus+andJs con<ugal share in the saidproperty and is the o4ner of one7half C#A2 thereof as her con<ugal share" she o4ns a total of $A# of the su+<ect property. Bence" Narcisa could &alidly con&ey her total undi&ided share inthe entire property to To!as. Narcisa and her children are dee!ed co7o4ners of the su+<ectproperty.

Neither can the respondents in&o?e the proscription of encu!+ering the property 4ithin 25years fro! acuisition. In Sarmiento, et al. v. Salud, et al.":2,; it 4as held that

888 The condition that the appellees Sar!iento spouses could not resell the property e8cept tothe eoples Bo!esite and Bousing *orporation CBB* for short 4ithin the ne8t 25 years after appellees purchasing the lot is !anifestly a condition in fa&or of the BB*" and not one in fa&or of the Sar!iento spouses. The condition conferred no actiona+le right on appellees herein"since it operated as a restriction upon their jus disponendi of the property they +ought" and thusli!ited their right of o4nership. It follo4s that on the assu!ption that the !ortgage to appelleeSalud and the foreclosure sale &iolated the condition in the Sar!iento contract" only the BB*4as entitled to in&o?e the condition afore!entioned" and not the Sar!ientos. The &alidity or in&alidity of the sheriffJs foreclosure sale to appellant Salud thus depended e8clusi&ely on theBB*@ the latter could attac? the sale as &iolati&e of its right of e8clusi&e reacuisition@ +ut itCBB* also could 4ai&e the condition and treat the sale as good" in 4hich e&ent" the sale can

not +e assailed for +reach of the condition aforestated.

Finally" no particular portion of the property could +e identified as yet and delineated as theo+<ect of the sale considering that the property had not yet +een partitioned in accordance 4iththe Rules of *ourt.:29; =hile Narcisa could &alidly sell one half of the su+<ect property" her share+eing $A# of the sa!e" she could not ha&e particularly con&eyed the northern portion thereof +efore the partition" the ter!s of 4hich 4as still to +e deter!ined +y the parties +efore the trialcourt.

(EREFORE" the Decision of the *ourt of %ppeals on Octo+er -" 2002" as 4ell as theResolution dated 3anuary #" 200- is %RT> %FFIR'1D su+<ect to the follo4ing'ODIFI*%TIONS

# Narcisa rado is entitled to $A# of the residential land consisting of 552.20 suare!eters" !ore or less" situated at #$th %&enue" 'urphy" (ue)on *ity and co&ered +yTransfer *ertificate of Title No. ,#-@

2 the sale of the undi&ided one half portion thereof +y Narcisa rado in fa&or of To!as*alpatura" Sr. is &alid.












Further!ore" the case is R1'%ND1D to the court of origin" only for the purpose of deter!iningthe specific portion +eing con&eyed in fa&or of To!as *alpatura" Sr. pursuant to the partitionthat 4ill +e agreed upon +y the respondents.

'O ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

De Borja v Vda de BorjaG.R. No. L28040 uu+ 18, 1972

#E'##E E'##E OF JO'EF #NG!O, JO'E DE -ORJ, a&/*n*+raora))) JO'E DE

-ORJ, a+ a&/*n*+raor, !E#NO DE -ORJ, %#ILDE DE -ORJ an& !RI'N#O DE

-ORJ &):)a+)&; a+ !<*&r)n o Jo+)a #an:o, appellees"&s.#'IN 3D. DE DE -ORJ, '):*a &/*n*+rar*= o <) #)+a) E+a) o Fran:*+:o &)

-or>a,appellant. .

G.R. No L28568 uu+ 18, 1972

#E'##E E'##E OF #(E L#E FRN!I'!O DE -ORJ, #'IN O. 3D. DE DE -ORJ "special %d!inistratri8 appellee"&s.JO'E DE -ORJ, oppositor7appellant.

G.R. No. L28611 uu+ 18, 1972

#'IN 0. 3D. DE -ORJ, a+ &/*n*+rar*= o <) #)+a) E+a) o <) a) Fran:*+:o &)-or>a,plaintiff7appellee"&s.JO'E DE -ORJ, a+ &/*n*+raor o <) #)+a) E+a) o <) a) Jo+)a #an:o, defendant7appellant.

!"#$%$

Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir for administrator!appellee.

'uiogue & 'uiogue for appellee (atilde de )orja.

Andres (atias for appellee Ca*etano de )orja.

Sevilla & Aquino for appellant.

!"#+#

Sevilla & Aquino for special administratri-!appellee.



Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir for oppositor!appellant.

!"#

Sevilla & Aquino for plaintiff!appellee.

Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir and David /ueverra for defendant!appellant.

REE', J.-.L., J.: p

Of these cases" the first" nu!+ered >72900 is an appeal +y Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de 6or<a"special ad!inistratri8 of the testate estate of Francisco de 6or<a" 1 fro! the appro&al of a co!pro!iseagree!ent +y the *ourt of First Instance of Ri)al" 6ranch I" in its Special roceeding No. R7,9//" entitled"KTestate 1state of 3osefa Tangco" 3ose de 6or<a" %d!inistratorK.

*ase No. >7295/9 is an appeal +y ad!inistrator 3ose 6or<a fro! the disappro&al of the sa!eco!pro!ise agree!ent +y the *ourt of First Instance of Nue&a 1ci<a" 6ranch II" in its Specialroceeding No. 9-2" entitled" KTestate 1state of Francisco de 6or<a" Tasiana O. Vda. de de 6or<a"Special %d!inistratri8K.

%nd *ase No. >729/## is an appeal +y ad!inistrator 3ose de 6or<a fro! the decision of the *ourt of First Instance of Ri)al" 6ranch H" in its *i&il *ase No. ,52" declaring the Bacienda 3ala<alao+lacion" 4hich is the !ain o+<ect of the aforesaid co!pro!ise agree!ent" as the separate ande8clusi&e property of the late Francisco de 6or<a and not a con<ugal asset of the co!!unity 4ith hisfirst 4ife" 3osefa Tangco" and that said hacienda pertains e8clusi&ely to his testate estate" 4hich isunder ad!inistrator in Special roceeding No. 9-2 of the *ourt of First Instance of Nue&a 1ci<a"6ranch II.

It is uncontested that Francisco de 6or<a" upon the death of his 4ife 3osefa Tangco on / Octo+er #$0" filed a petition for the pro+ate of her 4ill 4hich 4as doc?eted as Special roceeding No. R7,9// of the *ourt of First Instance of Ri)al" 6ranch I. The 4ill 4as pro+ated on 2 %pril #$#. In #$/"Francisco de 6or<a 4as appointed e8ecutor and ad!inistrator in #$52" their son" 3ose de 6or<a" 4asappointed co7ad!inistrator. =hen Francisco died" on # %pril #$5" 3ose +eca!e the solead!inistrator of the testate estate of his !other" 3osefa Tangco. =hile a 4ido4er Francisco de 6or<aallegedly too? unto hi!self a second 4ife" Tasiana Ongsingco. Epon FranciscoJs death" Tasianainstituted testate proceedings in the *ourt of First Instance of Nue&a 1ci<a" 4here" in #$55" she 4asappointed special ad!inistratri8. The &alidity of TasianaJs !arriage to Francisco 4as uestioned insaid proceeding.

The relationship +et4een the children of the first !arriage and Tasiana Ongsingco has +een plagued4ith se&eral court suits and counter7suits@ including the three cases at +ar" so!e eighteen C#9 casesre!ain pending deter!ination in the courts. The testate estate of 3osefa Tangco alone has +eenunsettled for !ore than a uarter of a century. In order to put an end to all these litigations" aco!pro!ise agree!ent 4as entered into on #2 Octo+er #$/-" 2 +y and +et4een K:T;he heir and son of Francisco de 6or<a +y his first !arriage" na!ely" 3ose de 6or<a personally and as ad!inistrator of theTestate 1state of 3osefa Tangco"K and K:T;he heir and sur&i&ing spouse of Francisco de 6or<a +y his



second !arriage" Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de 6or<a" assisted +y her la4yer" %tty. >uis anaguiton 3r.K Theter!s and conditions of the co!pro!ise agree!ent are as follo4s

% R 1 1 ' 1 N T

TBIS %R11'1NT !ade and entered into +y and +et4een

The heir and son of Francisco de 6or<a +y his first !arriage" na!ely" 3ose de 6or<apersonally and as ad!inistrator of the Testate 1state of 3osefa Tangco"

% N D

The heir and sur&i&ing spouse of Francisco de 6or<a +y his second !arriage" TasianaOngsingco Vda. de 6or<a" assisted +y her la4yer" %tty. >uis anaguiton 3r.

= I T N 1 S S 1 T B

TB%T it is the !utual desire of all the parties herein ter!inate and settle" 4ith finality"the &arious court litigations" contro&ersies" clai!s" counterclai!s" etc." +et4een the!in connection 4ith the ad!inistration" settle!ent" partition" ad<udication anddistri+ution of the assets as 4ell as lia+ilities of the estates of Francisco de 6or<a and3osefa Tangco" first spouse of Francisco de 6or<a.

TB%T 4ith this end in &ie4" the parties herein ha&e agreed &oluntarily and 4ithoutany reser&ations to enter into and e8ecute this agree!ent under the follo4ing ter!sand conditions

#. That the parties agree to sell the o+lacion portion of the 3ala<ala propertiessituated in 3ala<ala" Ri)al" presently under ad!inistration in the Testate 1state of

3osefa Tangco CSp. roc. No. ,9//" Ri)al" !ore specifically descri+ed as follo4s

>inda al Norte con el Rio u4ang ue la separa de la <urisdiccion del'unicipio de ililla de la ro&incia de Ri)al" y con el pico del 'onteLa!+rano@ al Oeste con >aguna de 6ay@ por el Sur con losherederos de 'arcelo de 6or<a@ y por el 1ste con los terrenos de laFa!ilia 'aronilla

4ith a segregated area of appro8i!ately #"-#- hectares at the a!ount of 0.-0 per suare !eter.

2. That 3ose de 6or<a agrees and o+ligates hi!self to pay Tasiana Ongsingco Vda.de de 6or<a the total a!ount of 1ight Bundred Thousand esos C900"000hilippine *urrency" in cash" 4hich represent 200"000 as his share in the pay!entand /00"000 as pro7rata shares of the heirs *risanto" *ayetano and 'atilde" allsurna!ed de 6or<a and this shall +e considered as full and co!plete pay!ent andsettle!ent of her hereditary share in the estate of the late Francisco de 6or<a as 4ellas the estate of 3osefa Tangco" Sp. roc. No. 9-27Nue&a 1ci<a and Sp. roc. No.,9//7Ri)al" respecti&ely" and to any properties +eueathed or de&ised in her fa&or +ythe late Francisco de 6or<a +y >ast =ill and Testa!ent or +y Donation Inter Vi&os or



'ortis *ausa or purportedly con&eyed to her for consideration or other4ise. Thefunds for this pay!ent shall +e ta?en fro! and shall depend upon the receipt of fullpay!ent of the proceeds of the sale of 3ala<ala" Ko+lacion.K

-. That Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de 6or<a here+y assu!es pay!ent of thatparticular o+ligation incurred +y the late Francisco de 6or<a in fa&or of the

Reha+ilitation Finance *orporation" no4 De&elop!ent 6an? of the hilippines"a!ounting to appro8i!ately -0"000.00 and also assu!es pay!ent of her #A5 shareof the 1state and Inheritance ta8es on the 1state of the late Francisco de 6or<a or the su! of -"500.00" !ore or less" 4hich shall +e deducted +y the +uyer of 3ala<ala"Ko+lacionK fro! the pay!ent to +e !ade to Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de 6or<a under paragraph 2 of this %gree!ent and paid directly to the De&elop!ent 6an? of thehilippines and the heirs7children of Francisco de 6or<a.

. Thereafter" the +uyer of 3ala<ala Ko+lacionK is here+y authori)ed to pay directly toTasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de 6or<a the +alance of the pay!ent due her under paragraph 2 of this %gree!ent Cappro8i!ately ,//"500.00 and issue in the na!eof Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de 6or<a" corresponding certified chec?sAtreasury4arrants" 4ho" in turn" 4ill issue the corresponding receipt to 3ose de 6or<a.

5. In consideration of a+o&e pay!ent to Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de 6or<a" 3osede 6or<a personally and as ad!inistrator of the Testate 1state of 3osefa Tangco" andTasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de 6or<a" for the!sel&es and for their heirs" successors"e8ecutors" ad!inistrators" and assigns" here+y fore&er !utually renounce" 4ithdra4"4ai&e" re!ise" release and discharge any and all !anner of action or actions" causeor causes of action" suits" de+ts" su! or su!s of !oney" accounts" da!ages" clai!sand de!ands 4hatsoe&er" in la4 or in euity" 4hich they e&er had" or no4 ha&e or !ay ha&e against each other" !ore specifically Sp. roceedings Nos. ,9// and#$55" *FI7Ri)al" and Sp. roc. No. 9-27Nue&a 1ci<a" *i&il *ase No. -0--" *FI

Nue&a 1ci<a and *i&il *ase No. ,527*FI" Ri)al" as 4ell as the case filed against'anuel (ui<al for per<ury 4ith the ro&incial Fiscal of Ri)al" the intention +eing toco!pletely" a+solutely and finally release each other" their heirs" successors" andassigns" fro! any and all lia+ility" arising 4holly or partially" directly or indirectly" fro!the ad!inistration" settle!ent" and distri+ution of the assets as 4ell as lia+ilities of the estates of Francisco de 6or<a and 3osefa Tangco" first spouse of Francisco de6or<a" and lastly" Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de 6or<a e8pressly and specificallyrenounce a+solutely her rights as heir o&er any hereditary share in the estate of Francisco de 6or<a.

/. That Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de 6or<a" upon receipt of the pay!ent under paragraph hereof" shall deli&er to the heir 3ose de 6or<a all the papers" titles and

docu!ents +elonging to Francisco de 6or<a 4hich are in her possession and saidheir 3ose de 6or<a shall issue in turn the corresponding recei&e thereof.

,. That this agree!ent shall ta?e effect only upon the fulfill!ent of the sale of theproperties !entioned under paragraph # of this agree!ent and upon receipt of thetotal and full pay!ent of the proceeds of the sale of the 3ala<ala property Ko+lacionK"other4ise" the non7fulfill!ent of the said sale 4ill render this instru!ent NE>> %NDVOID %ND =ITBOET 1FF1*T TB1R1%FT1R.



IN =ITN1SS =B1R1OF" the parties hereto ha&e her unto set their hands in the *ityof 'anila" hilippines" the #2th of Octo+er" #$/-.

On #/ 'ay #$//" 3ose de 6or<a su+!itted for *ourt appro&al the agree!ent of #2 Octo+er #$/- tothe *ourt of First Instance of Ri)al" in Special roceeding No. R7,9//@ and again" on 9 %ugust #$//"to the *ourt of First Instance of Nue&a 1ci<a" in Special roceeding No. 9-2. Tasiana Ongsingco

Vda. de de 6or<a opposed in +oth instances. The Ri)al court appro&ed the co!pro!ise agree!ent"+ut the Nue&a 1ci<a court declared it &oid and unenforcea+le. Special ad!inistratri8 TasianaOngsingco Vda. de de 6or<a appealed the Ri)al *ourtJs order of appro&al Cno4 Supre!e *ourt .R.case No. >72900" 4hile ad!inistrator 3ose de 6or<a appealed the order of disappro&al C.R. caseNo. >7295/9 +y the *ourt of First Instance of Nue&a 1ci<a.

The genuineness and due e8ecution of the co!pro!ised agree!ent of #2 Octo+er #$/- is notdisputed" +ut its &alidity is" ne&ertheless" attac?ed +y Tasiana Ongsingco on the ground that C# theheirs cannot enter into such ?ind of agree!ent 4ithout first pro+ating the 4ill of Francisco de 6or<a@C2 that the sa!e in&ol&es a co!pro!ise on the &alidity of the !arriage +et4een Francisco de 6or<aand Tasiana Ongsingco@ and C- that e&en if it 4ere &alid" it has ceased to ha&e force and effect.

In assailing the &alidity of the agree!ent of #2 Octo+er #$/-" Tasiana Ongsingco and the ro+ate*ourt of Nue&a 1ci<a rely on this *ourtJs decision in /uevara vs. /uevara. , hil. ,$" 4herein the*ourtJs !a<ority held the &ie4 that the presentation of a 4ill for pro+ate is !andatory and that thesettle!ent and distri+ution of an estate on the +asis of intestacy 4hen the decedent left a 4ill" isagainst the la4 and pu+lic policy. It is li?e4ise pointed out +y appellant Tasiana Ongsingco thatSection # of Rule , of the Re&ised Rules e8plicitly conditions the &alidity of an e8tra<udicialsettle!ent of a decedentJs estate +y agree!ent +et4een heirs" upon the facts that KCif thedecedentleft no 0ill and no de+ts" and the heirs are all of age" or the !inors are represented +y their

<udicial and legal representati&es ...K The 4ill of Francisco de 6or<a ha&ing +een su+!itted to theNue&a 1ci<a *ourt and still pending pro+ate 4hen the #$/- agree!ent 4as !ade" thosecircu!stances" it is argued" +ar the &alidity of the agree!ent.

Epon the other hand" in clai!ing the &alidity of the co!pro!ise agree!ent" 3ose de 6or<a stressesthat at the ti!e it 4as entered into" on #2 Octo+er #$/-" the go&erning pro&ision 4as Section #" Rule, of the original Rules of *ourt of #$0" 4hich allo4ed the e8tra<udicial settle!ent of the estate of adeceased person regardless of 4hether he left a 4ill or not. Be also relies on the dissenting opinionof 3ustice 'oran" in /uevara vs. /uevara" , hil. ,$" 4herein 4as e8pressed the &ie4 that if theparties ha&e already di&ided the estate in accordance 4ith a decedentJs 4ill" the pro+ate of the 4ill isa useless cere!ony@ and if they ha&e di&ided the estate in a different !anner" the pro+ate of the 4illis 4orse than useless.

The doctrine of /uevara vs. /uevara" ante" is not applica+le to the case at +ar. This is apparent fro!an e8a!ination of the ter!s of the agree!ent +et4een 3ose de 6or<a and Tasiana Ongsingco.

aragraph 2 of said agree!ent specifically stipulates that the su! of 900"000 paya+le to TasianaOngsingco M

shall +e considered as full M co!plete pay!ent M settle!ent of her hereditaryshare in the estate of the late Francisco de 6or<a as 4ell as the estate of 3osefaTangco" ... and to any properties +eueathed or de&ised in her fa&or +y the lateFrancisco de 6or<a +y >ast =ill and Testa!ent or +y Donation Inter Vi&os or 'ortis*ausa or purportedly con&eyed to her for consideration or other4ise.



This pro&ision e&idences +eyond dou+t that the ruling in the ue&ara case is not applica+le to thecases at +ar. There 4as here no atte!pt to settle or distri+ute the estate of Francisco de 6or<aa!ong the heirs thereto +efore the pro+ate of his 4ill. The clear o+<ect of the contract 4as !erelythe con&eyance +y Tasiana Ongsingco of any and all her indi&idual share and interest" actual or e&entual in the estate of Francisco de 6or<a and 3osefa Tangco. There is no stipulation as to anyother clai!ant" creditor or legatee. %nd as a hereditary share in a decedentJs estate is trans!itted or

&ested i!!ediately fro! the !o!ent of the death of such causante or predecessor in interest C*i&il*ode of the hilippines" %rt. ,,, ? there is no legal +ar to a successor C4ith reuisite contractingcapacity disposing of her or his hereditary share i!!ediately after such death" e&en if the actual e8tentof such share is not deter!ined until the su+seuent liuidation of the estate. 4 Of course" the effect of such alienation is to +e dee!ed li!ited to 4hat is ulti!ately ad<udicated to the &endor heir. Bo4e&er" thealeatory character of the contract does not affect the &alidity of the transaction@ neither does thecoetaneous agree!ent that the nu!erous litigations +et4een the parties Cthe appro&ing order of the Ri)al*ourt enu!erates fourteen of the!" Rec. %pp. pp. ,$792 are to +e considered settled and should +edis!issed" although such stipulation" as noted +y the Ri)al *ourt" gi&es the contract the character of aco!pro!ise that the la4 fa&ors" for o+&ious reasons" if only +ecause it ser&es to a&oid a !ultiplicity of suits.

It is li?e4ise 4orthy of note in this connection that as the sur&i&ing spouse of Francisco de 6or<a"Tasiana Ongsingco 4as his co!pulsory heir under article $$5 et seq. of the present *i&il *ode.=herefore" +arring un4orthiness or &alid disinheritance" her successional interest e8istedindependent of Francisco de 6or<aJs last 4ill and testa!ent and 4ould e8ist e&en if such 4ill 4erenot pro+ated at all. Thus" the prereuisite of a pre&ious pro+ate of the 4ill" as esta+lished in theue&ara and analogous cases" can not apply to the case of Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de 6or<a.

Since the co!pro!ise contract %nne8 % 4as entered into +y and +et4een K3ose de 6or<a personallyand as ad!inistrator of the Testate 1state of 3osefa TangcoK on the one hand" and on the other" Ktheheir and sur&i&ing spouse of Francisco de 6or<a +y his second !arriage" Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. dede 6or<aK" it is clear that the transaction 4as +inding on +oth in their indi&idual capacities" upon theperfection of the contract" e&en 4ithout pre&ious authority of the *ourt to enter into the sa!e. The

only difference +et4een an e8tra<udicial co!pro!ise and one that is su+!itted and appro&ed +y the*ourt" is that the latter can +e enforced +y e8ecution proceedings. %rt. 20-, of the *i&il *ode ise8plicit on the point

9. %rt. 20-,. % co!pro!ise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res

judicata@ +ut there shall +e no e8ecution e8cept in co!pliance 4ith a <udicialco!pro!ise.

It is argued +y Tasiana Ongsingco that 4hile the agree!ent %nne8 % e8pressed nodefinite period for its perfor!ance" the sa!e 4as intended to ha&e a resolutoryperiod of /0 days for its effecti&eness. In support of such contention" it is a&erred that

such a li!it 4as e8pressly stipulated in an agree!ent in si!ilar ter!s entered into +ysaid Ongsingco 4ith the +rothers and sister of 3ose de 6or<a" to 4it" *risanto" 'atildeand *ayetano" all surna!ed de 6or<a" e8cept that the consideration 4as fi8ed at/00"000 COpposition" %nne8ARec. of %ppeal" >72900" pp. -$7 / and 4hichcontained the follo4ing clause

III. That this agree!ent shall ta?e effect only upon the consu!!ation of the sale of the property !entioned herein and upon receipt of the total and full pay!ent of theproceeds of the sale +y the herein o4ner heirs7children of Francisco de 6or<a"



na!ely" *risanto" *ayetano and 'atilde" all surna!ed de 6or<a@ ro&ided that if nosale of the said property !entioned herein is consu!!ated" or the non7receipt of thepurchase price thereof +y the said o4ners 4ithin the period of si8ty C/0 days fro!the date hereof" this agree!ent 4ill +eco!e null and &oid and of no further effect.

OngsingcoJs argu!ent loses &alidity 4hen it is considered that 3ose de 6or<a 4as not a party to this

particular contract C%nne8 #" and that the sa!e appears not to ha&e +een finali)ed" since it +ears nodate" the day +eing left +lan? Kthis M day of Octo+er #$/-K@ and 4hile signed +y the parties" it 4asnot notari)ed" although plainly intended to +e so done" since it carries a proposed notarial ratificationclause. Further!ore" the co!pro!ise contract 4ith 3ose de 6or<a C%nne8 %" pro&ides in its par. 2heretofore transcri+ed that of the total consideration of 900" 000 to +e paid to Ongsingco" /00"000represent the Kprorata share of the heirs *risanto" *ayetano and 'atilde all surna!ed de 6or<aK4hich corresponds to the consideration of /00"000 recited in %nne8 #" and that circu!stance isproof that the duly notari)ed contract entered into 4it 3ose de 6or<a under date #2 Octo+er #$/-C%nne8 %" 4as designed to a+sor+ and supersede the separate unfor!ali)e agree!ent 4ith theother three 6or<a heirs. Bence" the /0 days resolutory ter! in the contract 4ith the latter C%nne8 #not +eing repeated in %nne8 %" can not apply to the for!al co!pro!ise 4ith 3ose de 6or<a. It is!oreo&er !anifest that the stipulation that the sale of the Bacienda de 3ala<ala 4as to +e !ade4ithin si8ty days fro! the date of the agree!ent 4ith 3ose de 6or<aJs co7heirs C%nne8 # 4as plainlyo!itted in %nne8 % as i!proper and ineffecti&e" since the Bacienda de 3ala<ala Co+lacion that 4asto +e sold to raise the 900"000 to +e paid to Ongsingco for her share for!ed part of the estate of Francisco de 6or<a and could not +e sold until authori)ed +y the ro+ate *ourt. The *ourt of FirstInstance of Ri)al so understood it" and in appro&ing the co!pro!ise it fi8ed a ter! of #20 dayscounted fro! the finality of the order no4 under appeal" for the carrying out +y the parties for theter!s of the contract.

This +rings us to the plea that the *ourt of First Instance of Ri)al had no <urisdiction to appro&e theco!pro!ise 4ith 3ose de 6or<a C%nne8 % +ecause Tasiana Ongsingco 4as not an heir in the estateof 3osefa Tangco pending settle!ent in the Ri)al *ourt" +ut she 4as an heir of Francisco de 6or<a"

4hose estate 4as the o+<ect of Special roceeding No. 9-2 of the *ourt of First Instance of Nue&a1ci<a. This circu!stance is irrele&ant" since 4hat 4as sold +y Tasiana Ongsingco 4as only her e&entual share in the estate of her late hus+and" not the estate itself@ and as already sho4n" thate&entual share she o4ned fro! the ti!e of FranciscoJs death and the *ourt of Nue&a 1ci<a could not+ar her selling it. %s o4ner of her undi&ided hereditary share" Tasiana could dispose of it in fa&or of 4ho!soe&er she chose. Such alienation is e8pressly recogni)ed and pro&ided for +y article #099 of the present *i&il *ode

%rt. #099. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger +efore thepartition" any or all of the co7heirs !ay +e su+rogated to the rights of the purchaser +y rei!+ursing hi! for the price of the sale" pro&ided they do so 4ithin the period of one !onth fro! the ti!e they 4ere notified in 4riting of the sale of the &endor.

If a sale of a hereditary right can +e !ade to a stranger" then a fortiori sale thereof to a coheir couldnot +e for+idden.

Tasiana Ongsingco further argues that her contract 4ith 3ose de 6or<a C%nne8 K%K is &oid +ecause ita!ounts to a co!pro!ise as to her status and !arriage 4ith the late Francisco de 6or<a. The pointis 4ithout !erit" for the &ery opening paragraph of the agree!ent 4ith 3ose de 6or<a C%nne8 K%Kdescri+es her as Kthe heir and sur&i&ing spouse of Francisco de 6or<a +y his second !arriage"



Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de 6or<aK" 4hich is in itself definite ad!ission of her ci&il status. There isnothing in the te8t of the agree!ent that 4ould sho4 that this recognition of OngsingcoJs status asthe sur&i&ing spouse of Francisco de 6or<a 4as only !ade in consideration of the cession of her hereditary rights.

It is finally charged +y appellant Ongsingco" as 4ell as +y the *ourt of First Instance of Nue&a 1ci<a

in its order of 2# Septe!+er #$/" in Special roceedings No. 9-2 C%!ended Record on %ppeal in>7295/9" page #5," that the co!pro!ise agree!ent of #- Octo+er #$/- C%nne8 K%K had +eena+andoned" as sho4n +y the fact that" after its e8ecution" the *ourt of First Instance of Nue&a 1ci<a"in its order of 2# Septe!+er #$/" had declared that Kno a!ica+le settle!ent had +een arri&ed at +ythe partiesK" and that 3ose de 6or<a hi!self" in a !otion of #, 3une #$/" had stated that theproposed a!ica+le settle!ent Khad failed to !ateriali)eK.

It is difficult to +elie&e" ho4e&er" that the a!ica+le settle!ent referred to in the order and !otiona+o&e7!entioned 4as the co!pro!ise agree!ent of #- Octo+er #$/-" 4hich already had +eenfor!ally signed and e8ecuted +y the parties and duly notari)ed. =hat the record discloses is thatso!e ti!e after its for!ali)ation" Ongsingco had unilaterally atte!pted to +ac? out fro! theco!pro!ise agree!ent" pleading &arious reasons restated in the opposition to the *ourtJs appro&alof %nne8 K%K CRecord on %ppeal" >72090" page 2- that the sa!e 4as in&alid +ecause of the lapseof the allegedly intended resolutory period of /0 days and +ecause the contract 4as not preceded +ythe pro+ate of Francisco de 6or<aJs 4ill" as reuired +y this *ourtJs /uevarra vs. /uevara ruling@ that

%nne8 K%K in&ol&ed a co!pro!ise affecting OngsingcoJs status as 4ife and 4ido4 of Francisco de6or<a" etc." all of 4hich o+<ections ha&e +een already discussed. It 4as natural that in &ie4 of the4ido4Js attitude" 3ose de 6or<a should atte!pt to reach a ne4 settle!ent or no&atory agree!ent+efore see?ing <udicial sanction and enforce!ent of %nne8 K%K" since the latter step !ight ulti!atelyentail a longer delay in attaining final re!edy. That the atte!pt to reach another settle!ent failed isapparent fro! the letter of OngsingcoJs counsel to 3ose de 6or<a uoted in pages -57-/ of the +rief for appellant Ongsingco in .R. No. 2900@ and it is !ore than pro+a+le that the order of 2#Septe!+er #$/ and the !otion of #, 3une #$/ referred to the failure of the partiesJ uest for a

!ore satisfactory co!pro!ise. 6ut the ina+ility to reach a no&atory accord can not in&alidate theoriginal co!pro!ise C%nne8 K%K and <ustifies the act of 3ose de 6or<a in finally see?ing a court order for its appro&al and enforce!ent fro! the *ourt of First Instance of Ri)al" 4hich" as heretoforedescri+ed" decreed that the agree!ent +e ulti!ately perfor!ed 4ithin #20 days fro! the finality of the order" no4 under appeal.

=e conclude that in so doing" the Ri)al court acted in accordance 4ith la4" and" therefore" its order should +e upheld" 4hile the contrary resolution of the *ourt of First Instance of Nue&a 1ci<a should+e" and is" re&ersed.

In her +rief" Tasiana Ongsingco also pleads that the ti!e elapsed in the appeal has affected her unfa&ora+ly" in that 4hile the purchasing po4er of the agreed price of 900"000 has di!inished" the

&alue of the 3ala<ala property has increased. 6ut the fact is that her delay in recei&ing the pay!ent of the agreed price for her hereditary interest 4as pri!arily due to her atte!pts to nullify the agree!entC%nne8 K%K she had for!ally entered into 4ith the ad&ice of her counsel" %ttorney anaguiton. %ndas to the de&aluation de facto of our currency" 4hat =e said in Dizon 1ivera vs. Dizon" >725/#" -03une #$,0" -- S*R% 55" that Kestates 4ould ne&er +e settled if there 4ere to +e a re&aluation 4ithe&ery su+seuent fluctuation in the &alues of currency and properties of the estateK" is particularlyopposite in the present case.



*o!ing no4 to *ase .R. No. >729/##" the issue is 4hether the Bacienda de 3ala<ala Co+lacion"concededly acuired +y Francisco de 6or<a during his !arriage to his first 4ife" 3osefa Tangco" is thehus+andJs pri&ate property Cas contended +y his second spouse" Tasiana Ongsingco" or 4hether itfor!s part of the con<ugal Cganancial partnership 4ith 3osefa Tangco. The *ourt of First Instance of Ri)al C3udge Ber!inio 'ariano" presiding declared that there 4as adeuate e&idence to o&erco!ethe presu!ption in fa&or of its con<ugal character esta+lished +y %rticle #/0 of the *i&il *ode.

=e are of the opinion that this uestion as +et4een Tasiana Ongsingco and 3ose de 6or<a has+eco!e !oot and acade!ic" in &ie4 of the conclusion reached +y this *ourt in the t4o precedingcases C.R. No. >7295/9" upholding as &alid the cession of Tasiana OngsingcoJs e&entual share inthe estate of her late hus+and" Francisco de 6or<a" for the su! of 900"000 4ith the acco!panyingreciprocal uit7clai!s +et4een the parties. 6ut as the uestion !ay affect the rights of possi+lecreditors and legatees" its resolution is still i!perati&e.

It is undisputed that the Bacienda 3ala<ala" of around "-/- hectares" had +een originally acuired <ointly +y Francisco de 6or<a" 6ernardo de 6or<a and 'arcelo de 6or<a and their title thereto 4as dulyregistered in their na!es as co7o4ners in >and Registration *ase No. 529 of the pro&ince of Ri)al".>.R.O. Rec. No. 2/0- CDe 6ar<o &s. 3ugo" 5 hil. /5. Su+seuently" in #$-#" the Bacienda4as partitioned a!ong the co7o4ners the unta section 4ent to 'arcelo de 6or<a@ the 6ago!+ongsection to 6ernardo de 6or<a" and the part in 3ala<ala proper Co+lacion corresponded to Franciscode 6or<a CV. De 6or<a &s. De 6or<a #0# hil. $##" $-2.

The lot allotted to Francisco 4as descri+ed as M

Ena arcela de terreno en o+lacion" 3ala<ala N. uang Ri&er@ 1. Ber!ogenaRo!ero@ S. Beirs of 'arcelo de 6or<a O. >aguna de 6ay@ containing an area of #-"99"9,0 s. !. !ore or less" assessed at 2$,"#0. CRecord on %ppeal" pages ,and #05

On 20 No&e!+er #$/2" Tasiana O. Vda. de 6or<a" as %d!inistratri8 of the Testate 1state of Francisco de 6or<a" instituted a co!plaint in the *ourt of First Instance of Ri)al C*i&il *ase No. ,52against 3ose de 6or<a" in his capacity as %d!inistrator of 3osefa Tangco CFrancisco de 6or<aJs first4ife" see?ing to ha&e the Bacienda a+o&e descri+ed declared e8clusi&e pri&ate property of Francisco" 4hile in his ans4er defendant Cno4 appellant 3ose de 6or<a clai!ed that it 4as con<ugalproperty of his parents CFrancisco de 6or<a and 3osefa Tangco" confor!a+ly to the presu!ptionesta+lished +y %rticle #/0 of the hilippine *i&il *ode Creproducing %rticle #0, of the *i&il *ode of #99$" to the effect that

%rt. #/0. %ll property of the !arriage is presu!ed to +elong to the con<ugalpartnership" unless it +e pro&ed that it pertains e8clusi&ely to the hus+and or to the4ife.

Defendant 3ose de 6or<a further counterclai!ed for da!ages" co!pensatory" !oral and e8e!plary"as 4ell as for attorneyJs fees.

%fter trial" the *ourt of First Instance of Ri)al" per 3udge Ber!inio 'ariano" held that the plaintiff hadadduced sufficient e&idence to re+ut the presu!ption" and declared the Bacienda de 3ala<alaCo+lacion to +e the e8clusi&e pri&ate property of the late Francisco de 6or<a" and his %d!inistratri8"



Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de 6or<a" to +e entitled to its possession. Defendant 3ose de 6or<a thenappealed to this *ourt.

The e&idence re&eals" and the appealed order ad!its" that the character of the Bacienda in uestionas o4ned +y the con<ugal partnership De 6or<a7Tangco 4as sole!nly ad!itted +y the late Franciscode 6or<a no less than t4o ti!es first" in the Rea!ended In&entory that" as e8ecutor of the estate of

his deceased 4ife 3osefa Tangco" he filed in the Special roceedings No. ,9// of the *ourt of FirstInstance of Ri)al on 2- 3uly #$5- C18hi+it K2K@ and again" in the Rea!ended %ccounting of thesa!e date" also filed in the proceedings aforesaid C18hi+it K,K. Si!ilarly" the plaintiff Tasiana O. Vda.de 6or<a" herself" as oppositor in the 1state of 3osefa Tangco" su+!itted therein an in&entory dated ,Septe!+er #$5 C18hi+it K-K listing the 3ala<ala property a!ong the K*on<ugal roperties of theSpouses Francisco de 6or<a and 3osefa TangcoK. %nd once !ore" Tasiana Ongsingco" asad!inistratri8 of the 1state of Francisco de 6or<a" in Special roceedings No. 9-2 of the *ourt of First Instance of Nue&a 1ci<a" su+!itted therein in Dece!+er" #$55" an in&entory 4herein she listedthe 3ala<ala Bacienda under the heading K*on<ugal roperty of the Deceased Spouses Francisco de6or<a and 3osefa Tangco" 4hich are in the possession of the %d!inistrator of the Testate 1state of the Deceased 3osefa Tangco in Special roceedings No. ,9// of the *ourt of First Instance of Ri)alKC18hi+it KK.

Not4ithstanding the four state!ents aforesaid" and the fact that they are plain ad!issions againstinterest !ade +y +oth Francisco de 6or<a and the %d!inistratri8 of his estate" in the course of <udicialproceedings in the Ri)al and Nue&a 1ci<a *ourts" supporting the legal presu!ption in fa&or of thecon<ugal co!!unity" the *ourt +elo4 declared that the Bacienda de 3ala<ala Co+lacion 4as notcon<ugal property" +ut the pri&ate e8clusi&e property of the late Francisco de 6or<a. It did so on thestrength of the follo4ing e&idences Ca the s4orn state!ent +y Francis de 6or<a on / %ugust #$5#C18hi+it KFK that M

Be to!ado possession del peda)o de terreno ya deli!itado Ceui&alente a #A parte"--, hectareas ad<unto a !i terreno personal y e8clusi&o Co+lacion de 3ala<ala"

Ri)al.

and C+ the testi!ony of regorio de 6or<a" son of 6ernardo de 6or<a" that the entire Bacienda had+een +ought at a foreclosure sale for 0"#00.00" of 4hich a!ount 25"#00 4as contri+uted +y6ernardo de 6or<a and #5"000. +y 'arcelo de 6or<a@ that upon receipt of a su+seuent de!andfro! the pro&incial treasurer for realty ta8es the su! of #,"000" 'arcelo told his +rother 6ernardothat Francisco Cson of 'arcelo 4anted also to +e a co7o4ner" and upon 6ernardoJs assent to theproposal" 'arcelo issue a chec? for #,"000.00 to pay the +ac? ta8es and said that the a!ount4ould represent FranciscoJs contri+ution in the purchase of the Bacienda. The 4itness further testified that M

'arcelo de 6or<a said that that !oney 4as entrusted to hi! +y Francisco de

6or<a 0hen he 0as still a bachelor and 4hich he deri&ed fro! his +usinesstransactions. CBearing" 2 Fe+ruary #$/5" t.s.n." pages #-7#5 C1!phasis supplied

The *ourt +elo4" reasoning that not only FranciscoJs s4orn state!ent o&er4eighed the ad!issionsin the in&entories relied upon +y defendant7appellant 3ose de 6or<a since pro+ate courts can notfinally deter!ine uestions of o4nership of in&entoried property" +ut that the testi!ony of regoriode 6or<a sho4ed that Francisco de 6or<a acuired his share of the original Bacienda 4ith his pri&atefunds" for 4hich reason that share can not +e regarded as con<ugal partnership property" +ut as



e8clusi&e property of the +uyer" pursuant to %rticle #-$/C of *i&il *ode of #99$ and %rticle #9Cof the *i&il *ode of the hilippines.

The follo4ing shall +e the e8clusi&e property of each spouse

888 888 888

C That 4hich is purchased 4ith e8clusi&e !oney of the 4ife or of the hus+and.

=e find the conclusions of the lo4er court to +e untena+le. In the first place" 4itness regorio de6or<aJs testi!ony as to the source of the !oney paid +y Francisco for his share 4as plain hearsay"hence inad!issi+le and of no pro+ati&e &alue" since he 4as !erely repeating 4hat 'arcelo de 6or<ahad told hi! Cregorio. There is no 4ay of ascertaining the truth of the state!ent" since +oth'arcelo and Francisco de 6or<a 4ere already dead 4hen regorio testified. In addition" thestate!ent itself is i!pro+a+le" since there 4as no need or occasion for 'arcelo de 6or<a to e8plainto regorio ho4 and 4hen Francisco de 6or<a had earned the #,"000.00 entrusted to 'arcelo. %ring of artificiality is clearly discerni+le in this portion of regorioJs testi!ony.

%s to Francisco de 6or<aJs affida&it" 18hi+it KFK" the uoted portion thereof Cante" page # does notclearly de!onstrate that the K!i terreno personal y e8clusi&o Co+lacion de 3ala<ala" Ri)al K refersprecisely to the Bacienda in uestion. The in&entories C18hi+its - and disclose that there 4ere t4oreal properties in 3ala<ala o4ned +y Francisco de 6or<a" one of ,2.0-9 s. !." assessed at "/00"and a !uch +igger one of #"-5,.2/0.,0 s. !." 4hich is e&idently the Bacienda de 3ala<alaCo+lacion. To 4hich of these lands did the affida&it of Francisco de 6or<a C18hi+it KFK refer to Inaddition" FranciscoJs characteri)ation of the land as K!i terreno personal y e8clusi&oK is plainly self7ser&ing" and not ad!issi+le in the a+sence of cross e8a!ination.

It !ay +e true that the in&entories relied upon +y defendant7appellant C18hi+its K2K" K-K" KK and K,Kare not conclusi&e on the con<ugal character of the property in uestion@ +ut as already noted" they

are clear ad!issions against the pecuniary interest of the declarants" Francisco de 6or<a and hise8ecutor74ido4" Tasiana Ongsingco" and as such of !uch greater pro+ati&e 4eight than the self7ser&ing state!ent of Francisco C18hi+it KFK. lainly" the legal presu!ption in fa&or of the con<ugalcharacter of the Bacienda de 3ala<ala Co+lacion no4 in dispute has not +een re+utted +ut actuallyconfir!ed +y proof. Bence" the appealed order should +e re&ersed and the Bacienda de 3ala<alaCo+lacion declared property of the con<ugal partnership of Francisco de 6or<a and 3osefa Tangco.

No error ha&ing +een assigned against the ruling of the lo4er court that clai!s for da!ages should+e &entilated in the corresponding special proceedings for the settle!ent of the estates of thedeceased" the sa!e reuires no pro announce!ent fro! this *ourt.

IN VI1= OF TB1 FOR1OIN" the appealed order of the *ourt of First Instance of Ri)al in *aseNo. >72900 is here+y affir!ed@ 4hile those in&ol&ed in *ases Nos. >7295/9 and >729/## arere&ersed and set aside. *osts against the appellant Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de 6or<a in all three C-cases.

Concepcion, C.J., (a2alintal, 3aldivar, Castro, 4eehan2ee, )arredo, (a2asiar, Antonio and

5sguerra, JJ., concur.

6ernando, J., too2 no part.



Bailon-Casilao v CAG.R. No. 78178 r* 15, 1988

DELI -ILON!'ILO, L$Z "$LINONG, E%% "$LINO-NEZ, NILD "$LINO

#OLEN#INO, an& '-IN -ILON, petitioners"&s.#(E (ONOR-LE !O$R# OF ""EL' an& !ELE'#INO F-LE, respondents.

7eronico 5. 1ubio for petitioners.

(ario /. 6ortes for private!respondent.

!OR#E', J.:

The fate of petitionersJ clai! o&er a parcel of land rests ulti!ately on a deter!ination of 4hether or not said petitioners are chargea+le 4ith such laches as !ay effecti&ely +ar their present action.

The petitioners herein filed a case for reco&ery of property and da!ages 4ith notice of lis pendens on 'arch #-" #$9# against the defendant and herein pri&ate respondent" *elestino %fa+le.The parcel of land in&ol&ed in this case" 4ith an area of 9"9$ suare !eters" is co&ered +y Original*ertificate of Title No. #,,# issued on 3une #2" #$-#" in the na!es of Rosalia" audencio" Sa+ina6erna+e" Nenita and Delia" all surna!ed 6ailon" as co7o4ners" each 4ith a #A/ share. audencioand Nenita are no4 dead" the latter +eing represented in this case +y her children. >u)" 1!!a and

Nilda. 6erna+e 4ent to *hina in #$-# and had not +een heard fro! since then :Decision of the *ourtof %ppeals" Rollo" p. -$;.

It appears that on %ugust 2-" #$9" Rosalia 6ailon and audencio 6ailon sold a portion of the saidland consisting of #/"29- suare !eters to Donato Delgado. On 'ay #-" #$$" Rosalia 6ailon alonesold the re!ainder of the land consisting of -2"5// suare !eters to onciana V. %resgado de>anu)a. On the sa!e date" >anu)a acuired fro! Delgado the #/"29- suare !eters of land 4hichthe latter had earlier acuired fro! Rosalia and audencio. On Dece!+er -" #$,5" 3ohn >anu)a"acting under a special po4er of attorney gi&en +y his 4ife" onciana V. %resgado de >anu)a" soldthe t4o parcels of land to *elestino %fa+le" Sr.

In all these transfers" it 4as stated in the deeds of sale that the land 4as not registered under thepro&isions of %ct No. $/ 4hen the fact is that it is. It appears that said land had +een successi&elydeclared for ta8ation first" in the na!e of *iriaca Della!as" !other of the registered co7o4ners" thenin the na!e of Rosalia 6ailon in #$2" then in that of Donato Delgado in #$-/" then in onciana de>anu)aJs na!e in #$/2 and finally in the na!e of *elestino %fa+le" Sr. in #$9-.

In his ans4er to the co!plaint filed +y the herein petitioners" %fa+le clai!ed that he had acuired theland in uestion through prescription and contended that the petitioners 4ere guilty of laches.Be



later filed a third7party co!plaint against Rosalia 6ailon for da!ages allegedly suffered as a result of the sale to hi! of the land.

%fter trial" the lo4er court rendered a decision

#. Finding and declaring *elestino %fa+le" a co7o4ner of the land descri+ed inparagraph III of the co!plaint ha&ing &alidly +ought the t4o7si8th C2A/ respecti&eundi&ided shares of Rosalia 6ailon and audencio 6ailon@

2. Finding and declaring the follo4ing as pro7indi&iso co7o4ners" ha&ing #A/ shareeach" of the property descri+ed in paragraph III of the co!plaint" to 4it

a. Sa+ina 6ailon

+. 6erna+e 6ailon

c. Beirs of Nenita 6ailon7aulino

d. Delia 6ailon7*asilao@

-. Ordering the segregation of the undi&ided interests in the property in order toter!inate co7o4nership to +e conducted +y any eodetic 1ngineer selected +y theparties to delineate the specific part of each of the co7o4ners.

. Ordering the defendant to restore the possession of the plaintiffs respecti&e sharesas 4ell as all attri+utes of a+solute do!inion@

5. Ordering the defendant to pay the follo4ing

a. 5"000.00 as da!ages@

+. 2"000.00 as attorneyJs fees and@

c. to pay the costs.

:Decision of the Trial *ourt" Rollo" p. -,7-9;.

On appeal" the respondent *ourt of %ppeals affir!ed the decision of the lo4er court insofar as it heldthat prescription does not he against plaintiffs7appellees +ecause they are co7o4ners of the original&endors. Bo4e&er" the appellate court declared that" although registered property cannot +e lost +y

prescription" ne&ertheless" an action to reco&er it !ay +e +arred +y laches" citing the ruling in (ejiade ucaz v. /amponia:#00 hil. 2,, C#$5/;. %ccordingly" it held the petitioners guilty of laches anddis!issed their co!plaint. Bence" this petition for re&ie4 on certiorari of the decision of the *ourt of

%ppeals.

The principal issue to +e resol&ed in this case concerns the applica+ility of the euita+le doctrine of laches. Initially though" a deter!ination of the effect of a sale +y one or !ore co7o4ners of the entire



property held in co!!on 4ithout the consent of all the co7o4ners and of the appropriate re!edy of the aggrie&ed co7o4ners is reuired.

The rights of a co7o4ner of a certain property are clearly specified in %rticle $- of the *i&il*ode.Thus

%rt. $-. 1ach co7o4ner shall ha&e the full o0nership of his part and of the acts and+enefits pertaining thereto" and he !ay therefore alienate assign or mortgage it ande&en su+stitute another person in its en<oy!ent" e8cept 4hen personal rights arein&ol&ed. )ut the effect of the alienation or mortgage, 0ith respect to the co!o0ners,

shall be limited to the portion 0hich ma* be allotted to him in the division upon the

termination of the co!o0nership. :1!phasis supplied.;

%s early as #$2-" this *ourt has ruled that e&en if a co7o4ner sells the 4hole property as his" thesale 4ill affect only his o4n share +ut not those of the other co7o4ners 4ho did not consent to thesale :unsalan &. 6oon >iat hil. -20 C#$2-;. This is +ecause under the afore!entioned codalpro&ision" the sale or other disposition affects only his undi&ided share and the transferee gets only

4hat 4ould correspond to his grantor in the partition of the thing o4ned in co!!on.:Ra!ire) &.6autista" # hil. 529 C#$0$;. *onseuently" +y &irtue of the sales !ade +y Rosalia and audencio6ailon 4hich are &alid 4ith respect to their proportionate shares" and the su+seuent transfers 4hichcul!inated in the sale to pri&ate respondent *elestino %fa+le" the said %fa+le there+y +eca!e a co7o4ner of the disputed parcel of land as correctly held +y the lo4er court since the sales producedthe effect of su+stituting the +uyers in the en<oy!ent thereof :'ainit &. 6andoy" # hil. ,-0 C#$#0;.

Fro! the foregoing" it !ay +e deduced that since a co7o4ner is entitled to sell his undi&ided share" asale of the entire property +y one co7o4ner 4ithout the consent of the other co7o4ners is not nulland &oid. Bo4e&er" only the rights of the co7o4ner7seller are transferred" there+y !a?ing the +uyer aco7o4ner of the property.

4he proper action in cases li2e this is not for the nullification of the sale or for the recover* of possession of the thing o0ned in common from the third person 0ho substituted the co!o0ner or co!

o0ners 0ho alienated their shares, but the D878S89: of the common propert* as if it continued to

remain in the possession of the co!o0ners 0ho possessed and administered it :'ainit &.6andoy" supra.;

Thus" it is no4 settled that the appropriate recourse of co7o4ners in cases 4here their consent 4erenot secured in a sale of the entire property as 4ell as in a sale !erely of the undi&ided shares of so!e of the co7o4ners is an action. for %RTITION under Rule /$ of the Re&ised Rules of *ourt.Neither reco&ery of possession nor restitution can +e granted since the defendant +uyers arelegiti!ate proprietors and possessors in <oint o4nership of the co!!on property clai!ed :Ra!ire) &.6autista" supra;.

%s to the action for petition" neither prescription nor laches can +e in&o?ed.

In the light of the attendant circu!stances" defendant7appelleeJs defense of prescription is a &ainproposition. ursuant to %rticle $ of the *i&il *ode" JCno co7o4ner shall +e o+liged to re!ain in theco7o4nership. Such co7o4ner ma* demand at an*time the partition of the thing o0ned in common "insofar as his share is concerned.J :1!phasis supplied.; In )udiong v. )ondoc :.R. No. >72,,02"Septe!+er $" #$,," ,$ S*R% 2#" this *ourt has interpreted said pro&ision of la4 to !ean that the



action for partition is i!prescripti+le or cannot +e +arred +y prescription. For %rticle $ of the *i&il*ode e8plicitly declares KNo prescription shall lie in fa&or of a co7o4ner or co7 heir so long as hee8pressly or i!pliedly recogni)es the co7o4nership.K

Further!ore" the disputed parcel of land +eing registered under the Torrens Syste!" the e8presspro&ision of %ct No. $/ that JCno title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered o4ner

shall +e acuired +y prescription or ad&erse possessionJ is suarely applica+le. *onseuently"prescription 4ill not lie in fa&or of %fa+le as against the petitioners 4ho re!ain the registered o4nersof the disputed parcel of land.

It is argued ho4e&er" that as to the petitioners 1!!a" >u) and Nelda 4ho are not the registered co7o4ners +ut !erely represented their deceased !other" the late Nenita 6ailon" prescriptionlies.Respondents +olster their argu!ent +y citing a decision of this *ourt in Pasion v.

Pasion :.R.No. >7#5,5," 'ay -#" #$/#" 2 S*R% 9/" 9$; holding that Kthe i!prescripti+ility of aTorrens title can only +e in&o?ed b* the person in 0hose name the title is registered; and that <one

0ho is not the registered o0ner of a parcel of land cannot invo2e imprescriptibilit* of action to claim

the same.<

Reliance on the aforesaid asion case is futile. The ruling therein applies only against transfereesother than direct issues or heirs or to co!plete strangers. The rational is clear

If prescription is una&ailing against the registered o4ner" it !ust +e euallyuna&ailing against the latterJs hereditary successors" +ecause they !erely step intothe shoes of the decedent +y operation of la4 CNe4 *i&il *ode" %rticle ,,,@ Old *i&il*ode" %rticle /5," the title or right undergoing no change +y its trans!ission mortis

causa :%tus" et al." &. Nune)" et al." $, hil. ,/2" ,/;.

The latest pronounce!ent of this *ourt in =mba* v. Alecha :. R. No. /,29" 'arch #9" #$95" #-5S*R% 2," 2$;" 4hich 4as pro!ulgated su+seuent to the Pasion case reiterated

the Atus doctrine. Thus

rescription is una&ailing not only against the registered o4ner +ut also against hishereditary successors" +ecause they !erely step into the shoes of the decedent +yoperation of la4 and are !erely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor7in7interest. :6arcelona &. 6arcelona" #00 hil. 25#" 25,;.

>aches is li?e4ise una&ailing as a shield against the action of herein petitioners.

=ell7stated in this <urisdiction are the four +asic ele!ents of laches" na!ely C# conduct on the partof the defendant or of one under 4ho! he clai!s" gi&ing rise to the situation of 4hich co!plaint is!ade and for 4hich the co!plainant see?s a re!edy@ C2 delay in asserting the corporationsco!plainantJs rights" the co!plainant ha&ing had ?no4ledge or notice of the defendantJs conductand ha&ing +een afforded an opportunity to institute suit@ C- lac? of ?no4ledge or notice on the partof the defendant that the co!plainant 4ould assert the right on 4hich he +ases his suit@ and" Cin<ury or pre<udice to the defendant in the e&ent relief is accorded to the co!plainant" or the suit isnot held to +e +arred :o *hina un" et al. &. *o *ho et al." $/ hil. /22 C#$55;.

=hile the first and last ele!ents are present in this case" the second and third ele!ents are !issing.



The second ele!ent spea?s of delay in asserting the co!plainantJs rights. Bo4e&er" the !ere fact of delay is insufficient to constitute" laches. It is reuired that C# co!plainant !ust ha&ehad 2no0ledge of the conduct of defendant or of one under 0hom he claims and C2 he !ust ha&e+een afforded an opportunit* to institute suit . This court has pointed out that laches is not concerned4ith the !ere lapse of ti!e. Thus

>aches has +een defined as the failure or neglect" for an unreasona+le length of ti!eto do that 4hich +y e8ercising due diligence could or should ha&e +een done earlier@it is negligence or o!ission to assert a right 4ithin a reasona+le ti!e 4arranting apresu!ption that the party entitled to assert it either has a+andoned it or declined toassert it. 4ijam, et al., v. Sibonghano* " .R. No. >72#50" %pril 25" #$/9" 2- S*R%2$"-5@ Tendo &. La!aco!a" .R. No. >7/-09" %ugust ," #$95" #-9 S*R% ,9" $0;.

The doctrine of KlachesK or of Kstale de!andsK is +ased upon grounds of pu+lic policy4hich reuires for the peace of society" the discourage!ent of stale clai!s andunli?e the statute of li!itations" isnot a mere question of time but is principall* a

question of inequit* or unfairness of per!itting a right or clai! to +e enforced or asserted"K :Ti<a! &. Si+onghanoy" supra" p. -5;. :1!phasis supplied.;

It !ust +e noted that 4hile there 4as delay in asserting petitionersJ rights" such delay 4as notattended 4ith any ?no4ledge of the sale nor 4ith any opportunity to +ring suit. In the first place"petitioners had no notice of the sale !ade +y their eldest sister. It is undisputed that the petitioner co7o4ners had entrusted the care and !anage!ent of the parcel of land to Rosalia 6ailon 4ho 4asthe oldest a!ong the! :TSN" 3uly 2," #$9-" p. #;. In fact" Nicanor >ee" a son of Rosalia" 4ho 4aspresented as a 4itness +y the plaintiffs7petitioners" testified on cross7e8a!ination that his !other 4as only the ad!inistrator of the land as she is the eldest and her +rothers and sisters 4ere a4ay:TSN" Octo+er 5" #$9-" p. #5;. Indeed" 4hen Delia 6ailon7*asilao left Sorsogon in #$2 after she got!arried" it 4as only in #$9- that she returned. Sa+ina on the other hand" is said to +e li&ing inLa!+oanga 4hile 6erna+e 4ho left for *hina in #$-# has not +een heard fro! since then.

*onseuently" 4hen Rosalia" fro! 4ho! the pri&ate respondent deri&ed his title" !ade the disputedsales co&ering the entire property" the herein petitioners 4ere una4are thereof.

In the second place" they 4ere not afforded an opportunity to +ring suit inas!uch as until #$9#" they4ere ?ept in the dar? a+out the transactions entered into +y their sister. It 4as only 4hen Delia6ailon7*asilao returned to Sorsogon in #$9# that she found out a+out the sales and i!!ediately"she and her co7petitioners filed the present action for reco&ery of property. The appellate court thuserred in holding that Jthe petitioners did nothing to sho4 interest in the land.K For the ad!inistrationof the parcel of land 4as entrusted to the oldest co7o4ner 4ho 4as then in possession thereof precisely +ecause the other co7o4ners cannot attend to such a tas? as they reside outside of Sorsogon 4here the land is situated. Ber co7o4ners also allo4ed her to appropriate the entireproduce for herself +ecause it 4as not e&en enough for her daily consu!ption :TSN" Octo+er 5"

#$9-" pp. #,7#9;. %nd since petitioner 4as the one recei&ing the produce" it is +ut natural that she4as the one to ta?e charge of paying the real estate ta8es. No4" if ?no4ledge of the sale +y Rosalia4as con&eyed to the petitioners only later" they cannot +e faulted for the acts of their co7o4ner 4hofailed to li&e up to the trust and confidence e8pected of her. In &ie4 of the lac? of ?no4ledge +y thepetitioners of the conduct of Rosalia in selling the land 4ithout their consent in #$,5 and thea+sence of any opportunity to institute the proper action until #$9#" laches !ay not +e assertedagainst the petitioners.



The third ele!ent of laches is li?e4ise a+sent. There 4as no lac? of ?no4ledge or notice on the partof the defendant that the co!plainants 4ould assert the right on 4hich they +ase the suit. On thecontrary" pri&ate respondent is guilty of +ad faith in purchasing the property as he ?ne4 that theproperty 4as co7o4ned +y si8 persons and yet" there 4ere only t4o signatories to the deeds of saleand no special authori)ation to self 4as granted to the t4o sellers +y the other co7o4ners.

1&en as the land here 4as !isrepresented in the deeds of sale as Kunregistered"K the truth 4as that %fa+le already had notice that the land 4as titled in the na!e of si8 persons +y &irtue of the*ertificate of Title 4hich 4as already in his possession e&en +efore the sale. Such fact is apparentfro! his testi!ony +efore the court a quo

*OERT

( Fro! 4ho! did you get the certificate of Title

% =hen it 4as !ortgaged +y onciana %resgado.

( It 4as !ortgaged to you +efore you +ought it

% es" our Bonor. CTSN" 'arch 5" #$9" p. #2 =hen cross7e8a!ined" he stated

( 'r. =itness" the original *ertificate of Title 4as gi&en to you in theyear #$," 4as it not

% #$,5.

( In #$,5" you already disco&ered that the title 4as in the na!e of se&eral persons" is it not

% es" sir.

( =hen you disco&ered that it is in the na!e of se&eral persons" youfiled a case in court for authority to cancel the title to +e transferred inyour na!e" is it not

% es" sir.

( %nd that 4as denied +y the *ourt of First Instance of Sorsogon+ecause there 4as ordinary one signatory to the deed of sale instead

of si8" 4as it not

% Not one +ut t4o signatories.

:Decision of the Regional Trial *ourt of Sorsogon" Rollo" p. -5;



Such actual ?no4ledge of the e8istence of other co7o4ners in 4hose na!es the lot su+<ect of thesale 4as registered should ha&e pro!pted a searching inuiry +y %fa+le considering the 4ell7 ?no4nrule in this <urisdiction that

... a person dealing 4ith a registered land has a right to rely upon the face of theTorrens certificate of title and to dispense 4ith the need of inuiring further" e8cept

4hen the party concerned has actual ?no4ledge of facts and circu!stances that4ould i!pel a reasona+ly cautions !an to !a?e such inuiry. :on)ales &. I%* andRural 6an? of a&ia" Inc." .R. No. /$/22" 3anuary 2$" #$99.

'oreo&er" the undisputed fact is that petitioners are relati&es of his 4ife. %s a genuine gesture of good faith" he should ha&e contacted the petitioners 4ho 4ere still listed as co7o4ners in thecertificate of title 4hich 4as already in his possession e&en +efore the sale. In failing to e8ercisee&en a !ini!u! degree of ordinary prudence reuired +y the situation" he is dee!ed to ha&e+ought the lot at his o4n ris?. Bence any pre<udice or in<ury that !ay +e occasioned to hi! +y suchsale !ust +e +orne +y hi!.

Indeed" a4are of the fla4s i!pairing his title" %fa+le 4ent to the herein petitioner Delia 6ailon7*asilao" as?ing the latter to sign a docu!ent o+&iously to cure the fla4 :TSN" 3uly 2," #$9-" p./;.>ater" he e&en filed a petition in the *ourt of First Instance to register the title in his na!e 4hich 4asdenied as aforesaid.

It !ay +e gleaned fro! the foregoing e8a!ination of the facts that *elestino %fa+le is not a +uyer ingood faith. >aches +eing an euita+le defense" he 4ho in&o?es it !ust co!e to the court 4ith cleanhands.

=B1R1FOR1" the petition for certiorari is here+y R%NT1D" the challenged decision of the *ourtof %ppeals is S1T %SID1" and the decision of the trial court is R1INST%T1D.

SO ORD1R1D.

6ernan, /utierrez, Jr., 6eliciano and )idin, JJ., concur.

Alejandrino v CA

TBIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 114151. '))/@)r 17, 1998]

%$RI!I LEJNDRINO, petitioner, vs. #(E (ONOR-LE !O$R# OF ""EL', (ON.-ENIGNO G. G3IOL, R#!9, !E-$ !I#, an& LI!ERIO ". NIA$E, respondents.

D E ! I ' I O N

RO%ERO, J .



(uestioned in this petition for re&ie4 on certiorari is the Decision:#; of the *ourt of %ppeals4hich ruled that the trial court" in an action for uieting of title" did not act in e8cess of

<urisdiction 4hen it issued an order for the segregation of property" after the finality of itsdecision.

The facts sho4 that the late spouses 3acinto %le<andrino and 1nrica >a+unos left their si8

children na!ed 'arcelino" regorio" *iriaco" 'auricia" >aurencia and %+undio a 2#$7suare7!eter lot in 'a!+aling" *e+u *ity identified as >ot No. 2,$9 and co&ered +y Transfer *ertificateof Title No. #$/59. Epon the de!ise of the %le<andrino spouses" the property should ha&e +eendi&ided a!ong their children 4ith each child ha&ing a share of -/.50 suare !eters. Bo4e&er"the estate of the %le<andrino spouses 4as not settled in accordance 4ith the procedure outlinedin the Rules of *ourt.

etitioner 'auricia Cone of the children allegedly purchased #2.#, suare !eters of regorios share" -/.50 suare !eters of *iriacos share and #2.#, suare !eters of %+undiosshare there+y gi&ing her a total area of $,.- suare !eters" including her o4n share of -/.50suare !eters. It turned out" ho4e&er" that a third party na!ed >icerio Niue" the pri&aterespondent in this case" also purchased portions of the property" to 4it -/.50 suare !etersfro! >aurencia" -/.50 suare !eters fro! regorio through >aurencia" #2.#, suare !eters

fro! %+undio also through >aurencia and -/.50 suare !eters fro! 'arcelino or a total area of #2#./, suare !eters of the %le<andrino property.:2;

Bo4e&er" >aurencia Cthe alleged seller of !ost of the #2#./, suare !eters of the propertylater uestioned the sale in an action for uieting of title and da!ages against pri&aterespondent Niue. It 4as doc?eted as *i&il *ase No. *167,0-9 in the Regional Trial *ourt of *e+u *ity" 6ranch $" presided +y 3udge 6enigno . a&iola. In due course" the lo4er courtrendered a decision on No&e!+er 2," #$$0 disposing of the case as follo4s

=B1R1FOR1" the *ourt here+y renders <udg!ent in fa&or of defendant and againstplaintiff" dis!issing the co!plaint filed +y plaintiff against defendant" and on the*ounterclai! and prayer of defendant in its %ns4er" the *ourt here+y declaresdefendant as the o4ner in fee si!ple of the share of plaintiff >aurencia %le<andrino

and the shares of 'arcelino" regorio and %+undio" all surna!ed %le<andrino" of theparcel of land ?no4n as >ot No. 2,$9 and co&ered +y Transfer *ertificate of Title No.#$/59 4hich shares totals an area of #/ suare !eters !ore or less@ and the*ourt further Orders plaintiff to

#. Vacate the pre!ises su+<ect of the co!plaint and surrender the property todefendant to the e8tent of the shares afore!entioned@

2. ay the defendant the a!ount of #5"000.00 as litigation and necessarye8penses@ the su! of #0"000.00 as rei!+urse!ent for attorneys fees@the su! of #0"000.00 as !oral da!ages and #0"000.00 ase8e!plary da!ages@

-. lus costs.

SO ORD1R1D.:-;

>aurencia appealed the decision to the *ourt of %ppeals under *%7.R. *V No. ---- +utlater 4ithdre4 the sa!e.:; On %pril #-" #$$2" the *ourt of %ppeals considered the appeal4ithdra4n in accordance 4ith Rule 50 of the Rules of *ourt.:5;

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/114151.htm#_edn1













'ean4hile" herein petitioner 'auricia %le<andrino filed on 'ay 5" #$$2 +efore the RegionalTrial *ourt of *e+u *ity" 6ranch VII" a co!plaint for rede!ption and reco&ery of properties 4ithda!ages against pri&ate respondent Niue that 4as doc?eted as *i&il *ase No. *167##/,-.

%delino 6. Sitoy" >aurencias counsel in *i&il *ase No. *167,0-9" filed *i&il *ase No. *167##/,- for petitioner 'auricia.

The a!ended co!plaint in the latter case dated 'ay #," #$$2 alleged that pri&aterespondent Niue ne&er notified petitioner 'auricia of the purchase of #2#./, suare !eters of the undivided >ot No. 2,$9 nor did he gi&e petitioner 'auricia the pree!pti&e right to +uy thearea as a co7o4ner of the sa!e lot. %s such co7o4ner" petitioner 'auricia !anifested her 4illingness to deposit 4ith the court the a!ount of 2$",,,.,9" the acuisition cost of theportion purchased +y pri&ate respondent Niue. etitioner 'auricia also alleged that shede!anded fro! pri&ate respondent the area of around 2.- suare !eters that the latter hadunduly" +aselessly and !aliciously clai!ed as his o4n +ut 4hich" as part of >ot No. 2,$9"actually +elongs to her. The a!ended co!plaint prayed that petitioner 'auricia +e allo4ed toredee! the area of #2#./, suare !eters under the rede!ption price of 2$",,,.,9 and thatpri&ate respondent Niue +e ordered to e8ecute the necessary docu!ents for the rede!ptionand the e&entual transfer of certificate of title to her. The a!ended co!plaint further prayed for

the return to petitioner 'auricia of the 2.-7suare7!eter portion of the lot and for da!agesa!ounting to ##5"000 and attorneys fees of -0"000.

On %ugust 2" #$$-" the lo4er court granted the !otion to ad!it the a!ended co!plaint andforth4ith ordered the defendant therein to file an a!ended ans4er.

In *i&il *ase No. *167,0-9 in the !eanti!e" pri&ate respondent filed a !otion for thesegregation of the #/7suare7!eter portion of the property that had +een declared +y the trialcourt as his o4n +y &irtue of purchase. On 'ay /" #$$-" the trial court issued an order thepertinent portions of 4hich read as follo4s

O R D 1 R

For resolution is a 'otion to Order Segregation of #/ Suare 'eters In >ot No. 2,$9dated 3anuary #5" #$$- filed +y defendant and the Opposition thereto dated Fe+ruary2" #$$2 +y plaintiff. 'o&ant7defendant also filed a re<oinder dated Fe+ruary #5" #$$- tothe Opposition.

%fter going o&er the allegations in the !otion" the opposition thereto and the re<oinder as 4ell as the records of the case" particularly the decision rendered +y this *ourt andthe Order dated Octo+er 29" #$$2" denying the !otion for reconsideration filed +yplaintiffs and allo4ing the issuance of a 4rit of e8ecution" the *ourt is inclined to rantthe instant !otion.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

In addition thereto" the *ourt !a?es the follo4ing o+ser&ation

#. laintiff Coppositor has a total share of #/ suare !eters. This is ad!itted +y her inher co!plaint Cpar. thereof. In the decision rendered +y this *ourt" this shareno4 +elongs to defendant !o&ant +y 4ay of sale. The decision of this *ourt haslong +eco!e final.



2. The total area of the land is 2#$ s. !eters Cpar. 2 of co!plaint" thus" the share of 'auricia %le<andrino is only ,- suare !eters.

-. %s early as 3une #0" #$9-" 'auricia %le<andrino and >aurencia %le<andrino hadentered into an J18tra<udicial Settle!ent of 1stateJ 4here+y they agreed to di&idethe land su+<ect of this case 4ith >aurencia %le<andrino o4ning #/ suare

!eters in the frontage and 'auricia %le<andrino o4ning ,5 suare !eters in the+ac? portion C18h. J#/J" 18tra<udicial Settle!ent of 1state" par. # Cunderscoringsupplied" and that the parties assure each other and their successor in interestthat a right of 4ay of t4o !eters is granted to each party +y the other per!anently C18h. J#/J" par. 2.This partition is signed +y the parties and their 4itnesses. %lthough not notari)ed" it is certainly &alid as +et4een the parties"'aurecia Csic %le<andrino" +eing an i!!ediate party" !ay not renege on this.

. Since the share of defendant >icerio . Niue is specifically ?no4n to +e #/ suare!eters" and that its location shall +e on the frontage of the property 4hile the ,-suare !eters of 'aurecia Csic %le<andrino shall +e at the +ac? portion" then" the*ourt cannot see its 4ay clear" 4hy the #/ s. !eters share of defendant !ay

not +e segregated.

5. The contention +y oppositor that the segregation of defendants share of #/ s.!eters fro! >ot No. 2,$9 4as not decreed in the <udg!ent is a rather narro44ay of loo?ing at the <udg!ent.aragraph # of the dispositi&e portion of the

<udg!ent +y this *ourt" Orders plaintiff to &acate the pre!ises su+<ect of theco!plaint and surrender the property to defendant to the e8tent of the sharesafore!entioned. The shares of >aurencia %le<andrino of #/ s. !eters can +esegregated +ecause >aurencia and 'aurecia had already e8ecuted ane8tra<udicial partition indicating 4here their respecti&e shares shall +e locatedC18h. #/. To deny the segregation is to !a?e the decision of this *ourt <usta+out &alueless is not altogether useless. The !atter of allo4ing the segregationshould +e read into the decision.

The +otto!line is still that plaintiff >aurencia" despite the fact that the decision of this*ourt had long +eco!e final@ and despite the fact that she e&en 4ithdra4 Csic her appeal" she still is en<oying the fruits of the property to the e8clusion of the rightfulo4ner.

=B1R1FOR1" the *ourt here+y rants the !otion. The defendant >icerio Niue !ayproceed to segregate his 2#/ Csic s. !eters fro! >ot NO. 2,$9 co&ered +y T*T No.#$/59" +y ha&ing the sa!e sur&eyed +y a co!petent eodetic 1ngineer" at thee8pense of !o&ant7defendant.

SO ORD1R1D.:/;

etitioner 'auricia uestioned this order of the lo4er court in a petition for certiorari andprohi+ition 4ith prayer for the issuance of a 4rit of preli!inary in<unction filed +efore the *ourt of

%ppeals. In due course" the *ourt of %ppeals dis!issed the petition in a Decision pro!ulgatedon %ugust 25" #$$-.

The *ourt of %ppeals stated that" in issuing the uestioned order of 'ay /" #$$-" therespondent court 4as !erely perfor!ing its <o+ of seeing to it that e8ecution of a final <udg!ent!ust confor! to that decreed in the dispositi&e part of the decision. It ratiocinated thus





8 8 8. In ordering the segregation of the #/ suare !eters" respondent 3udge correctlyreferred to the te8t of the decision to ascertain 4hich portion of the land co&ered +y T*TNo. #$/59 4as actually sold +y >aurencia %le<andrino Csister of herein petitioner 'auricia to pri&ate respondent Niue. The respondent 3udge did not err in relying upon18hi+it #/J" the Deed of 18tra<udicial Settle!ent" dated 3une #0" #$9-" !entioned inpage - of the Decision. ertinent portion of 18hi+it #/ reads

NO=" TB1R1FOR1" the a+o&e7na!ed parties7heirs here+y stipulatesCsic" declare and agree as follo4s

#. That the parties ha&e agreed to di&ide the parcel of land 4ith >aurencia %le<andrino o4ning#/ suare !eters in the frontage and 'auricia %le<andrino ,- suare !eters in the +ac?portions@

2. That the parties !utually and reciprocally assure each other and their successor of interestCsic that a right of 4ay of t4o !eters is granted to each party to the other per!anently.Cunderscoring supplied" %nne8 #" *o!!ent" p. /5" 1ollo

duly signed +y herein petitioner and 4itnessed +y pri&ate respondent Niue. It readilyre&eals that 4hen >aurencia su+seuently sold her shares to herein pri&ate respondent"per the Deed of %+solute Sale dated Octo+er 2$" #$9/ C18hs. 6 and #0" the parties!ust ha&e referred to the #/ suare !eters in the frontage descri+ed in saiddocu!ent" 18hi+it #/. >aurencia had no authority to sell !ore" or" less" than thatagreed upon in the e8tra<udicial settle!ent +et4een her and herein petitioner 'auricia.Insofar as the latter is concerned" she is estopped fro! clai!ing that said e8tra<udicialsettle!ent 4as a fatally defecti&e instru!ent +ecause it 4as not notari)ed nor pu+lished. =hat is i!portant is that pri&ate respondent personally ?ne4 a+out>aurencia and 'auricias agree!ent +ecause he 4as a 4itness to said agree!ent andhe relied upon it 4hen he purchased the #/ suare !eters fro! >aurencia.

It cannot +e &alidly clai!ed +y petitioner that she 4as depri&ed of her property 4ithoutdue process of la4 considering that pri&ate respondent is !erely segregating theportion of the land actually sold to hi! +y >aurencia %le<andrino and it does not affectthe ,- suare !eters that properly pertain to petitioner.

'oreo&er" the Supre!e *ourt has ruled that 4here there is a!+iguity caused +y ano!ission or !ista?e in the dispositi&e portion of a decision the court !ay clarify sucha!+iguity +y an a!end!ent e&en after the <udg!ent had +eco!e final" and for thispurpose it !ay resort to the pleadings filed +y the parties" the courts finding of facts andconclusions of la4 as e8pressed in the +ody of the decision CRepu+lic Surety andInsurance *o." Inc." et al." &ersus Inter!ediate %ppellate *ourt" et al." #52 S*R% -0$.The assailed order" in effect" clarifies the e8act location of the #/ suare !eterspursuant to 18hi+it #/. Respondent court did not act in e8cess of its <urisdiction.

Bence" 4rits of certiorari and prohi+ition do not lie in this case.:,;

etitioner 'auricia filed a !otion for the reconsideration of the *ourt of %ppeals decision.Bo4e&er" on Fe+ruary #5" #$$" the *ourt of %ppeals denied the sa!e for lac? of !erit there+eing no ne4 ground or co!pelling reason that <ustifies a reconsideration of its Decision.:9;

In the instant petition for re&ie4 on certiorari " petitioner assails the decision of the *ourt of %ppeals" contending that the lo4er court acted +eyond its <urisdiction in ordering thesegregation of the property +ought +y pri&ate respondent as the sa!e 4as not decreed in its

<udg!ent" 4hich had long +eco!e final and e8ecutory. etitioner argues that partition of the







property cannot +e effected +ecause pri&ate respondent is also a defendant in *i&il *ase No.*167##/,-. She asserts that 18hi+it #/" the e8tra<udicial settle!ent of estate referred to in theuestioned order of the lo4er court" 4as not discussed in the decision of the lo4er court ande&en if it 4ere" she could not +e +ound there+y considering that she 4as not a party litigant in*i&il *ase No. *167,0-9. She uestions the &alidity of the deed of e8tra<udicial settle!ent+ecause it 4as not notari)ed or pu+lished.

In his co!!ent on the petition" pri&ate respondent alleges that although petitioner 4as nota party litigant in *i&il *ase No. *167,0-9" she is estopped fro! uestioning the decision inthat case and filing the instant petition +ecause she had ?no4ledge of the e8istence of saidcase 4here res judicata had set in. Be adds that the instant petition 4as filed in &iolation of *ircular No. 297$# on foru! shopping in that the etitioner in the instant petition 4hose counselis also the counsel of plaintiff7appellant >aurencia %le<andrino in *%7.R. *V No. 8 8 8" had fileda ci&il action *i&il *ase No. *167##/,- 8 8 8 for R1D1'TION R1*OV1R OFRO1RTI1S =ITB D%'%1S" 4hich is presently pending +efore 6ranch , of the RegionalTrial *ourt of *e+u *ity. Be asserts that the lo4er court did not e8ceed its <urisdiction andAor co!!it gra&e a+use of discretion in granting his !otion for segregation of the #/ suare!eters of the land in&ol&ed that rightfully +elonged to hi! in accordance 4ith the decision of the

lo4er court. Be charges counsel for petitioner 4ith e8hi+iting unethical conduct and practice inappearing as counsel for petitioner in *i&il *ase No. *167##/,- after he had appeared for co!plainant >aurencia in *%7.R. *V No. ---- or *i&il *ase No. *167,0-9.

Ender the circu!stances of this case" the ulti!ate issue that needs deter!ination is4hether or not as an heir of the %le<andrino property" >aurencia !ay &alidly sell specific portionsthereof to a third party.

%rticle #0,9 of the *i&il *ode pro&ides that 4here there are t4o or !ore heirs" the 4holeestate of the decedent is" before partition" o4ned in co!!on +y such heirs" su+<ect to thepay!ent of the de+ts of the deceased. Ender a co7o4nership" the o4nership of an undi&idedthing or right +elongs to different persons. :$; 1ach co7o4ner of property 4hich is held proindiviso e8ercises his rights o&er the 4hole property and !ay use and en<oy the sa!e 4ith no

other li!itation than that he shall not in<ure the interests of his co7o4ners. The underlyingrationale is that until a di&ision is !ade" the respecti&e share of each cannot +e deter!ined ande&ery co7o4ner e8ercises" together 4ith his co7participants" <oint o4nership o&er the proindiviso propert* " in addition to his use and en<oy!ent of the sa!e.:#0;

%lthough the right of an heir o&er the property of the decedent is inchoate as long as theestate has not +een fully settled and partitioned" :##; the la4 allo4s a co7o4ner to e8ercise rightsof o4nership o&er such inchoate right. Thus" the *i&il *ode pro&ides

%RT. $-. 1ach co7o4ner shall ha&e the full o4nership of his part and of the fruits and+enefits pertaining thereto" and he !ay therefore alienate" assign or !ortgage it" and e&ensu+stitute another person in its en<oy!ent" e8cept 4hen personal rights are in&ol&ed. 6utthe effect of the alienation or the !ortgage" 4ith respect to the co7o4ners" shall +e li!ited

to the portion 4hich !ay +e allotted to hi! in the di&ision upon the ter!ination of the co7o4nership.

=ith respect to properties shared in co!!on +y &irtue of inheritance" alienation of a proindiviso portion thereof is specifically go&erned +y %rticle #099 that pro&ides

%RT. #099. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger +efore thepartition" any or all of the co7heirs !ay +e su+rogated to the rights of the purchaser +y










rei!+ursing hi! for the price of the sale" pro&ided they do so 4ithin the period of one!onth fro! the ti!e they 4ere notified in 4riting of the sale +y the &endor.

In the instant case" >aurencia 4as 4ithin her hereditary rights in selling her proindiviso share in >ot No. 2,$9. Bo4e&er" +ecause the property had not yet +een partitioned inaccordance 4ith the Rules of *ourt" no particular portion of the property could +e identified as

yet and delineated as the o+<ect of the sale. Thus" interpreting %rticle $- of the *i&il *odepro&iding that an alienation of a co7o4ned property shall +e li!ited to the portion 4hich !ay +eallotted to Cthe seller in the di&ision upon the ter!ination of the co7o4nership" the *ourt said

8 8 8 Cpursuant to this la4" a co7o4ner has the right to alienate his pro-indiviso sharein the co7o4ned property e&en 4ithout the consent of the other co7o4ners.Ne&ertheless" as a !ere part o4ner" he cannot alienate the shares of the other co7o4ners. The prohi+ition is pre!ised on the ele!entary rule that no one can gi&e 4hathe does not ha&e C:emo dat quod non habet . Thus" 4e held in 6ailon7*asilao vs. *ourt of %ppeals C.R. No. ,9#,9" %pril #5" #$99" #/0 S*R% ,-9",5" viz>

8 8 8 since a co7o4ner is entitled to sell his undi&ided share" a sale of the entire property +y oneco7o4ner 4ithout the consent of the other co7o4ners is not null and &oid. Bo4e&er" only therights of the co7o4ner7seller are transferred" there+y !a?ing the +uyer a co7o4ner of theproperty.

The proper action in cases li?e this is not for the nullification of the sale or for the reco&ery of possession of the thing o4ned in co!!on fro! the third person 4ho su+stituted the co7o4ner or co7o4ners 4ho alienated their shares" +ut the DIVISION of the co!!on property of the co7o4ners 4ho possessed and ad!inistered it.:#2;

The legality of >aurencias alienation of portions of the estate of the %le<andrino spouses4as settled in *i&il *ase No. *167,0-9. The decision in that case had +eco!e final ande8ecutory 4ith >aurencias 4ithdra4al of her appeal. =hen pri&ate respondent filed a !otion for the segregation of the portions of the property that 4ere ad<udged in his fa&or" pri&aterespondent 4as in effect calling for the partition of the property. Bo4e&er" under the la4" partitionof the estate of a decedent !ay only +e effected +y C# the heirs the!sel&es e8tra<udicially" C2+y the court in an ordinary action for partition" or in the course of ad!inistration proceedings" C-+y the testator hi!self" and C +y the third person designated +y the testator.:#-;

The trial court !ay not" therefore" order partition of an estate in an action for uieting of title. %s there is no pending ad!inistration proceedings" the property of the %le<andrino spousescan only +e partitioned +y the heirs the!sel&es in an e8tra<udicial settle!ent of estate. Bo4e&er" e&idence on the e8tra<udicial settle!ent of estate 4as offered +efore the trialcourt and it +eca!e the +asis for the order for segregation of the property sold to pri&aterespondent. etitioner 'auricia does not deny the fact of the e8ecution of the deed of

e8tra<udicial settle!ent of the estate. She only uestions its &alidity on account of the a+senceof notari)ation of the docu!ent and the non7pu+lication thereof.

On e8tra<udicial settle!ent of estate" Section # of Rule , of the Rules of *ourt pro&ides

If the decedent left no 4ill and no de+ts and the heirs are all of age" or the !inors arerepresented +y their <udicial or legal representati&es duly authori)ed for the purpose"the parties !ay" 4ithout securing letters of ad!inistration" di&ide the estate a!ongthe!sel&es as they see fit +y !eans of a pu+lic instru!ent filed in the office of the







register of deeds" and should they disagree" they !ay do so in an ordinary action for partition. 8 8 8.

The fact of the e8tra<udicial settle!ent or ad!inistration shall +e pu+lished in ane4spaper of general circulation in the !anner pro&ided in the ne8t succeedingsection@ +ut no e8tra<udicial settle!ent shall +e +inding upon any person 4ho has not

participated therein or had no notice thereof.Notari)ation of the deed of e8tra<udicial settle!ent has the effect of !a?ing it a pu+licdocu!ent:#; that can +ind third parties. Bo4e&er" this for!al reuire!ent appears to +esuperseded +y the su+stanti&e pro&ision of the *i&il *ode that states

%RT. #092. 1&ery act 4hich is intended to put an end to indi&ision a!ong co7heirs andlegatees or de&isees is dee!ed to +e a partition" although it should purport to +e a sale"an e8change" a co!pro!ise" or any other transaction.

6y this pro&ision" it appears that 4hen a co7o4ner sells his inchoate right in the co7o4nership" he e8presses his intention to put an end to indi&ision a!ong Chis co7heirs. artitiona!ong co7o4ners !ay thus +e e&idenced +y the o&ert act of a co7o4ner of renouncing his righto&er the property regardless of the for! it ta?es. In effect" >aurencia e8pressed her intention toter!inate the co7o4nership +y selling her share to pri&ate respondent.

'oreo&er" the e8ecution of the deed of e8tra<udicial settle!ent of the estate reflected theintention of +oth >aurencia and petitioner 'auricia to physically di&ide the property. 6oth of the! had acuired the shares of their +rothers and therefore it 4as only the t4o of the! thatneeded to settle the estate. The fact that the docu!ent 4as not notari)ed is no hindrance to itseffecti&ity as regards the t4o of the!. The partition of inherited property need not +e e!+odiedin a pu+lic docu!ent. In this regard" Tolentino su+scri+es to that opinion 4hen he states asfollo4s

8 8 8. =e +elie&e" ho4e&er" that the pu+lic instru!ent is not essential to the &alidity of the partition. This is not one of those contracts in 4hich for! is of the essence. Thepu+lic instru!ent is necessary only for the registration of the contract" +ut not for its&alidity. The &alidity of an oral contract a!ong the heirs" ter!inating the co7o4nership"has +een recogni)ed +y the Supre!e *ourt in a decision 8 8 8 C4here that tri+unalsaid %n agree!ent a!ong the heirs that a certain lot should +e sold and its proceedspaid to one of the! is a &alid oral contract" and the sa!e has the force of la4 +et4eenthe parties fro! and after the original assent thereto" and no one of the! !ay4ithdra4 or oppose its e8ecution 4ithout the consent of all.

In a still later case" the Supre!e *ourt held that partition a!ong heirs or renunciation of aninheritance +y so!e of the! is not e8actly a con&eyance for the reason that it does not in&ol&etransfer of property fro! one to the other" +ut rather a confir!ation or ratification of title or rightto property +y the heir renouncing in fa&or of another heir accepting and recei&ing theinheritance. Bence" the court concluded" it is co!petent for the heirs of an estate to enter intoan oral agree!ent for distri+ution of the estate a!ong the!sel&es.:#5;

The deed of e8tra<udicial settle!ent e8ecuted +y 'auricia and >aurencia e&idence their intention to partition the property. It delineates 4hat portion of the property +elongs to eachother. That it 4as not notari)ed is i!!aterial in &ie4 of 'auricias ad!ission that she dide8ecute the deed of e8tra<udicial settle!ent. Neither is the fact that the trial court only!entioned the e8istence of such docu!ent in its decision in *i&il *ase No. *167,029. Thatdocu!ent 4as for!ally offered in e&idence and the court is dee!ed to ha&e duly considered:#/; it









in deciding the case. The court has in its fa&or the presu!ption of regularity of the perfor!anceof its tas? that has not +een re+utted +y petitioner 'auricia. Neither !ay the fact that the other heirs of the %le<andrino spouses" na!ed 'arcelino" regorio" *iriaco and %+undio did notparticipate in the e8tra<udicial settle!ent of estate affect its &alidity. In her a!ended co!plaint in*i&il *ase No. *167##/,-" petitioner 'auricia herself ad!itted ha&ing acuired +y purchasethe rights o&er the shares of her +rothers.

On the part of >aurencia" the court found that she had trans!itted her rights o&er portionsshe had acuired fro! her +rothers to pri&ate respondent Niue. The sale 4as !ade after thee8ecution of the deed of e8tra<udicial settle!ent of the estate that pri&ate respondent hi!self 4itnessed. The e8tra<udicial settle!ent of estate ha&ing constituted a partition of the property">aurencia &alidly transferred o4nership o&er the specific front portion of the property 4ith anarea of #/ suare !eters.

The trial court" therefore" did not a+use its discretion in issuing the order for the segregationof the property. In so doing" it 4as !erely reiterating the partition of the property +y petitioner 'auricia and her sister >aurencia that 4as e!+odied in the deed of e8tra<udicial settle!ent of estate. The order !ay li?e4ise +e dee!ed as a clarification of its decision that had +eco!e finaland e8ecutory. Such clarification 4as needed lest proper e8ecution of the decision +e rendered

futile.

The *ourt finds no !erit in the issue of foru! shopping raised +y pri&ate respondent.Foru! shopping e8ists 4here the ele!ents of litis pendentia are present or 4here a final

<udg!ent in one case 4ill a!ount to res judicata in the other.:#,; 6ecause the <udg!ent in *i&il*ase No. *167,029 is already final and e8ecutory" the e8istence of res judicata is deter!inati&eof 4hether or not petitioner is guilty of foru! shopping. For the principle of res judicata to apply"the follo4ing !ust +e present C# a decision on the !erits@ C2 +y a court of co!petent

<urisdiction@ C- the decision is final@ and C the t4o actions in&ol&e identical parties" su+<ect!atter and causes of action.:#9; The fourth ele!ent is not present in this case. The parties arenot identical +ecause petitioner 4as not i!pleaded in *i&il *ase No. *167,029. =hile thesu+<ect !atter !ay +e the sa!e property of the %le<andrino spouses" the causes of action are

different. *i&il *ase No. *167,029 is an action for uieting of title and da!ages 4hile *i&il*ase No. *167##/,- is for rede!ption and reco&ery of properties.

It appears !oreo&er" that pri&ate respondents argu!ent on foru! shopping is anchored onthe fact that counsel for +oth plaintiffs in those t4o cases is one and the sa!e" there+y i!plyingthat the sa!e counsel !erely 4anted to pre&ail in the second case after ha&ing failed to do soin the first. The records sho4" ho4e&er" that >aurencia e8ecuted an affida&it:#$; consenting to theappearance of her counsel in any case that petitioner 'auricia !ight file against pri&aterespondent. She affir!ed in that affida&it that she could +e included e&en as a defendant in anycase that petitioner 'auricia 4ould file +ecause she fully agreeCd 4ith 4hate&er cause of action'auricia 4ould ha&e against pri&ate respondent. Such a state!ent can hardly constitute aproper +asis for a finding of foru! shopping" !uch less e&idence of !isconduct on the part of counsel. %s noted earlier" the t4o cases ha&e different causes of action and the t4o plaintiffs

4ho 4ould ha&e conflicting clai!s under the facts of the case actually presented a united standagainst pri&ate respondent. If there is any charge that could +e le&eled against counsel" it is hislac? of thoroughness in pursuing the action for uieting of title. %s counsel for plaintiff therein" hecould ha&e i!pleaded petitioner 'auricia ?no4ing fully 4ell her interest in the property in&ol&edin order to a&oid !ultiplicity of suits. Bo4e&er" such an o!ission is not a sufficient ground for ad!inistrati&e sanction.

(EREFORE" the instant petition for re&ie4 on certiorari is here+y DENIED for lac? of !erit. *osts against petitioner.










'O ORDERED.

:arvasa, C.J. ?Chairman@, apunan, and Purisima, JJ., concur .

Mondonido v RodaGR No. L-5561 January 26, 1954

LAZARO MONDOÑIDO, lainti-aellant

vs. PRESA A!aura "DA. RODA, a# a$%&n&#'ra'or o( ')* In'*#'a'* R&+ar$oRo$a -de4endant aealed.

D. Jesus P. Garcia for appellant.

Messrs. Pelaez Pelaez Pelaez and in appellee.

PAL J.

25 and Fe!ruar 2( 1727 Ri&ardo de Roda a8arded t8o u!li& deeds 9:;s. A and

B< 4or&in= 'aaro Mondo>ido sell a ortion o4 land 8i& 8as to inerit 4ro$ teir

=randarents =ettin= P200 as advan&e a$ent.?ile te =rantin= o4 su& deeds

8ere alread in li@uidation in te Court o4 First ,nstan&e o4 Ce!u roert o4 is

=rand4ater :duardo de Roda. ?it $inor dieren&es te rst do&u$ent is 8ritten

as te se&ond.

)n Mar& 27 17%0 te lainti led suit asin= te 4ulll$ent o4 te t8o

&ontra&ts. Te de4endant as ad$inistrator o4 te reli&t =oods Ri&ardo de Roda

resented t8o de4enses 9a< tat su& deeds are null as it &on&erned 4uture

ineritan&es and 9!< tat te a&tion is res&ri!ed.

A&&ordin= to te a=ree$ent $ade :duardo de Roda and Antonina *eulveda

=randarents 8ere Ri&ardo de Roda. :d8ard died in 170% leavin= &ildren and

=rand&ildren as eirs. Ri&ardo on !eal4 o4 is 4ater inerited te 325 art o4

te assets o4 its a!uelo.Ri&ardo died in 1733 and in 173% te reli&s 8ere distri!uted

=oods :duardo.Ri&ardo is late =rand4ater and is sister Ro!erta re&eived in tat

to or teir arti&iation in te ineritan&e o4 :duardo 8i& 8as run ! te 8ido8

o4 Ri&ard =ivin= tis to Ro!erta teir arti&iation in te rodu&ts o4 su& erita=e.

Antonina *eulveda died in 1750E its assets 8ere li@uidated and in 175/ a &ourt

a8arded to teir eirs &ildren and =rand&ildren. ,n tis &ontra&t te 8ido8 o4

Ri&ardo de Roda ad re&eived no arti&iation !e&ause se and Ro!erta ad a=reed

tat te arti&iation o4 Ri&ardo and Ro!erta =oods :duardo de Roda 8ould sta in

te ands o4 te 8ido8 o4 Ri&ard and te arti&iation o4 te !roters te$selvesAntonina =oods *eulveda Ro!erta 8ould re&eive.

A4ter &onsiderin= te 4a&ts and a=ree$ent o4 te t8o s&rits te &ourt dis$issed

te &lai$ 4or te reason tat tese 8ritin=s dealt on 4uture ineritan&e. A=ainst te

lainti aealed tis de&ision ar=uin= tat tese s&ritures re4er to reli&t :duardo

Roda =oods and not to tose o4 :duardo and Antonina us!ands. #o dou!t te are

8ritten in a 8a tat one &an not !e sure i4 Ri&ardo sold is interest in te roert



o4 er late =rand4ater :duardo onl or tose o4 teir =randarents :duardo and

AntoninaE !ut even i4 e ad ro$ised to sell is interest in te roert 4ro$ is

=rand4ater and =rand$oter te ro$ise o4 sale re=ardin= te assets o4 te latter

is null and =un denin value !e&ause it re4ers to sale o4 4uture ineritan&e. )n 4uture

ineritan&e - sas te *anis Civil Code - $a not o8ever &on&lude oter

&ontra&ts tan tose 8ose urose is to ra&ti&e te division !et8een livin= under

a Go8 10%6. art. 9Arti&le 12(1 ar 2nd Arroo.. against "erona %/ ur Fil 25%E..

Tordilla against .. Tordilla 60 ur Fil 1(2.< Antonina Ri&ardo *eulveda lived even i4

a8arded te s&rituresE !ut te are not ero in ter$s o4 assets re&i!ria Ri&ardo

intestate is =rand4ater :duardo !e&ause tese reli&s =oods 8ere alread in te

ro&ess o4 li@uidation 8en te ri=ts to Ri&ardo otor=o.'os su&&ession are

trans$itted ! oeration o4 la8 4ro$ te $o$ent deat 9art. 6%( Cod. Civ.

*anis.< Ri&ardo alread o8ned te 325 arts o4 su& roert ! 8a o4

=enuine resent and no 4uture ineritan&e.

Te de4ense o4 res&rition sould !e esti$ated. *in&e 173% 8en te 8ido8 o4

Ri&ardo de Roda ad re&eived te arti&iation o4 er late us!and in real reli&t o4

te late :duardo de Roda and te &o$lainant &ould en4or&e te s&ritures 9:;s Aand B< !ut e did !ut onl in Mar& 25 17%0 in 8i& e resented is

de$and. Te ave alread assed 1% earsE te ar$ said a&tion ad to !e

!rou=t 8itin a eriod o4 ten ears ursuant to Arti&le 53 ara=ra 1 o4 te Code

o4 Civil Pro&edure.

Te &o$lainantHs &lai$ tat e $ust return te a$ount o4 P200 as rea$ent

!aseless. ,4 te ali&ant ad re@uested er4or$an&e o4 te s&ritures 8itin te

eriod set ! la8 and te de4endant 8ould not ave $et ten tere 8ould

&onse@uido &o$lian&e a=ree$ent or 4ailin= tat te return o4 P200 lus da$a=es

in tat ave !een in&urred.

For tese reasons te de&ision aelada 8it &osts a=ainst te aellant is&onr$ed.

Paras, Pres., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Juice, Bautista Angelo and

Labrador, JJ., &on&ur.

Barretto v Tuason

G.R. No+. L?6811, ?6827, ?6840, ?6872 %ar:< ?1, 19?4

N#ONIO %. -RRE##O RO!(, E# L., plaintiffs7appellees"&s.

$G$'#O (. #$'ON DE L "Z, E# L., defendants7appellants@-ENI#O LEGRD RO!E', a&/*n*+raor o <) )+a) o <) &):)a+)& -)n*o L)ar&a y &)a "aB, E# L.,E'#NI'LO REN', E# L., an& N -R!IN' #ORRE', alias N -R!IN'"EREZ; E# L.,inter&enors7appellants@ERI-ER#O #$'ON, E# L., inter&enors7appellees.

Araneta, De Jo*a, 3aragoza and Araneta and Jose Bulo for defendants!appellants.5usebio 9rense and :icolas )elmonte for intervenors! appellants egarda de la Paz et al.



6eria and a 9 for intervenors!appellees Arenas et al.J.A. olfson for intervenors!appellants )arcinas 4orres et al.

Antonio Sanz and Courtne* hitne* for plaintiffs!appellees.Duran, im and 4uason for intervenors!appellees /. (aga et al.:o appearance for the other intervenors!appellees.

I%"ERIL, J.:

For the third ti!e" there is presented for our consideration the ma*orazgo founded +y the deceasedDon %ntonio Tuason. The first occasion 4as 4hen +oth plaintiffs and defendants appealed fro! adecision of the *ourt of First Instance of 'anila" dis!issing the co!plaint and the counterclai! filed"4ithout costs. The appeals thus interposed 4ere doc?eted under No. 2-$2-" and the decisionpro!ulgated on 'arch 2-" #$2/" is pu+lished in full in &olu!e 50 hilippine Reports" page 999 et seq. the second occasion 4as 4hen so!e of the defendants instituted a certiorari proceedingagainst the *ourt of First Instance of 'anila" so!e of the plaintiffs" and other inter&enors" +ecause of the appoint!ent" at the latterJs instance" of the 6an? of the hilippine Islands as recei&er of all theproperties constituting the ma*orazgo. Said proceeding 4as doc?eted under No. -22-" and thedecision pro!ulgated on Fe+ruary ," #$-0" is pu+lished in full in &olu!e 5 hilippine Reports" page

09 et seq.

#

%nd the third is +rought a+out +y four appeals ta?en +y the defendants and so!einter&enors fro! certain portions of the decision and order rendered +y the court during the ne4 trialheld pursuant to our resolution of 4hich 4e shall hereafter ha&e occasion to spea?.

The four appeals no4 +efore us 4ere doc?eted separately" +ut for a +etter understanding of theuestions 4hich 4e propose to resol&e" 4e ha&e thought it con&enient to render a single decision4herein each appeal 4ill +e discussed indi&idually.

"RELI%INR !ON'IDER#ION'

6efore entering upon a consideration of the appeals" it is con&enient to set out so!e funda!entalfacts 4hich ha&e +een su+!itted" discussed" and resol&ed in the decision rendered in the originaland principal case" and 4hich are of the ut!ost i!portance to +ear in !ind in resol&ing theuestions raised ane4 in the appeals. These facts are

The ma*orazgo 4as founded +y Don %ntonio Tuason on Fe+ruary 25" #,$.

On 3une of the sa!e year the founder died in the *ity of 'anila.

The ma*orazgo 4as appro&ed +y 1o*al Cedula of %ugust 20" #,$5.

On Octo+er ##" #920" the Statute of *i&il Disentail!ents 4as pro!ulgated in Spain" 4as e8tended tothe hilippine Islands" and too? effect therein on 'arch #" #9/" +y &irtue of a Royal Decree of Octo+er -#" #9/-.

The properties of the ma*orazgo consist of the aciendas de Santa (esa * Diliman, acienda de(ariquina" and t4o ur+an properties situated on Rosario Street" 'anila. 6y agree!ent of the parties"the assessed &alue of the said properties is

aciendas de Santa (esa * Diliman -"550"//.00

acienda de (ariquina #"50,"#0.00



Properties on 1osario Street 52"-92.00

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5"/00"#/9.00

%fter the pro!ulgation of the decision in the principal case" the defendants filed a !otion of reconsideration and &arious persons filed !otions of inter&ention as?ing at the sa!e ti!e that they+e ad!itted as inter&enors for the purpose of participating in one7fifth of the properties. Theresolution pu+lished in &olu!e 50 hilippine Reports" page $5$ et seq." 4as adopted" 4herein Cpage$/- the follo4ing funda!ental conclusions" esta+lished in the decision" 4ere reiterated

Resol&ing" therefore" said !otion for reconsideration" 4e reiterate the follo4ing conclusions"declaring finally

C# That the first7+orn possessor of this ma*orazgo 4as a !ere usufructuary of the entailedproperties.

C2 That this ma*orazgo 4as a fideicomiso.

C- That the charge to distri+ute the fifth of the re&enues fro! said properties 4as a fa!ilytrust.

C That article of the Disentailing >a4 of Octo+er ##" #920 is applica+le to the presentcase.

C5 That the fifth of the properties into 4hich" +y &irtue of said la4" the fifth of the re&enue 4ascon&erted on 'arch #" #9/" 4hen the Disentailing >a4 +eca!e effecti&e in the hilippines"has re!ained and su+sists as a fideicomiso up to the present date.

C/ That the plaintiffsJ right of action has not prescri+ed.

C, That the registration of the entailed properties under %ct No. $/ !ust" 4ith respect to thefifth of the said properties conser&ed up to the present ti!e as a fideicomiso" +e held to ha&e+een !ade in fa&or of the +eneficiaries of said fifth part.

C9 That the plaintiffs" as 4ell as any other descendants of the founder" are entitled toparticipate in the fifth of the properties of this ma*orazgo in accordance 4ith the si8th clauseof the deed of foundation and article of the Disentailing >a4.

The !otion of reconsideration 4as denied in so far as it 4as inco!pati+le 4ith the final andfunda!ental conclusions arri&ed at in the decision and in the resolution" +ut the !otion for a ne4trial of the inter&enors M 4ho appeared in order that they or any other person entitled to participate

in one7fifth of the properties !ay inter&ene" either +y filing other co!plaints of inter&ention or +ya!ending the co!plaint filed M 4as granted. The dispositi&e part of said resolution reads literally asfollo4s

ORD1R

In &ie4 of the foregoing" it is ordered



Ca That the !otion for reconsideration filed +y counsel for the defendants is denied in so far as it is inco!pati+le 4ith the funda!ental conclusions 4e ha&e arri&ed at in the presentcause and enu!erated in the preceding resolution.

Cb That the dispositi&e part of our decision in this cause +e set aside.

Cc That the record in the present case" together 4ith the petitions of inter&ention !entioned"+e returned to the *ourt of First Instance of 'anila in order that the ne4 parties !ayinter&ene in this cause and pro&e their alleged rights" and that the original plaintiffs !ay" if they so desire" a!end their co!plaint.

Cd That the plaintiffs ta?e the necessary steps to include as parties to this cause all such?no4n and un?no4n persons 4ho !ay ha&e the right to participate in the said fifth part of theproperties of this foundation" reuiring the! to appear and pro&e their rights.

Ce That said *ourt of First Instance proceed to try this cause and render <udg!ent as to thea!ount to 4hich the original parties and those 4ho !ay inter&ene !ay +e entitled as their participation in the fifth of the properties of this ma*orazgo.

?f@ That the stipulation of facts su+scri+ed on %ugust -0" #$2 +y %ttorneys San) and 6lancoon +ehalf of the plaintiffs and %raneta Larago)a on +ehalf of the defendants" for all intentsand purposes and 4ith respect to the parties affected" is held as su+sisting" as 4ell as theoral and docu!entary e&idence presented +y the parties during the original trial of the cause"the original parties as 4ell as o hereafter !ay inter&ene" +eing entitled to introduce suchadditional e&idence as they !ay desire upon the su+<ect !atter of the trial herein ordered.C6arretto vs.Tuason" 50 hil." 999" $//" $/,.

The case 4as re!anded to the court of origin for the purpose a+o&e7!entioned" and after the filingof !any co!plaints of inter&ention +y a nu!+er of persons clai!ing to +e relati&es of the founder and of his younger children and" therefore" entitled to participate in one7fifth of the properties" on

suggestion of counsel for the parties the court appointed 'odesto Reyes as referee" and upon hisdeath" %ttorney *rispin O+en. 6oth referees filed their 4ritten reports" although that of the for!er does not resol&e the !a<or portion of the uestions raised due to his pre!ature death" and at thetrial &arious o+<ections 4ere interposed 4hich 4ere resol&ed +y the court. In its decision the courtappro&ed !ost of the findings and reco!!endations of the last referee" +ut !odified others 4hich inits opinion 4ere not supported either +y the pro&en facts or the applica+le la4. The defendants andso!e of the inter&enors" not +eing li?e4ise agreea+le to certain portions of the decision and order thus pro!ulgated" ha&e ta?en the four appeals no4 +efore us.

.R. No. >7-/9##

%1%> OF TB1 INT1RV1NORS SERN%'1D >1%RD% D1 >% %L

The appellants in this case are the +rother and sisters 6enito" *onsuelo. Rita" surna!ed >egarda yde la a). These inter&enors clai! participations in one7fifth of the properties in t4o capacities First.is descendants of the younger son a+lo Tuason" and" second" for ha&ing inherited fro! their parents the participations in one7fifth of the properties 4hich 4ere sold to the latter +y certainrelati&es of the founder. They li?e4ise clai! the share to 4hich they 4ould +e entitled in theparticipations of certain relati&es of the younger daughter" 1ustauia 'a. Tuason" 4ho sold saidparticipations to the defendants. =e 4ill hereafter ha&e occasion to pass on this contention indiscussing the four assigned error.



The follo4ing is an enu!eration of the na!es of the &endors of their participations in fa&or of theparents of the appellants" gi&ing the dates of the respecti&e deeds

#. DOROT1% TE%SON" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y her in fa&or of 6enito>egarda and Teresa de la a).dated Septe!+er #-" #99#. C18hi+it %7>egarda.

2. IS%61> %R1N%S" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y her and her hus+and Francisco1ste+an" in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and de la a)" dated Octo+er 2" #9918hi+it 67>egarda.

-. The +rothers 1NRI(E1. S1V1RINO" and DO'INO" surna!ed FR%N*O" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y the! in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de laa)" dated No&e!+er ," #99. C18hi+it *7>egarda.

. The sisters 6%>6IN% S%NTOS TE%SON and '%D%>1N% S%NTOS TE%SON" +y adeed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y the! in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresade la a)" dated 3anuary 2-" #995. C18hi+it D7>egarda.

5. %O>IN%RI% TE%SON" +y a deed of a+solute sale" e8ecuted +y her in fa&or of thespouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dates Fe+ruary #," #995. C18hi+it F7>egarda.

/. 1ST16%N DE%RT1" ISIDR% '%RI% DE%RT1" and %>13%NDRO DE%RT1" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y the! in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de laa)" dated Fe+ruary #," #995. C18hi+it F7>egarda.

,. TO'%S% TE%SON D1 TO6I%S" 4ho 4as then a 4ido4" +y a deed of a+solute salee8ecuted +y her in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated Octo+er -" #999. C18hi+it 7>egarda.

9. >EIS TE%SON and 1DRO TE%SON" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y the! infa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated %pril ," #99/. C18hi+it B7>egarda.

$. %>13%NDRO" %N%*>1TO" T1ODORI*O" '%RI%" %ND DIONISI%" surna!ed *%'%*BOy TE%SON" and TO'%S" 1N*%RN%*ION" '%RI%" and '1R*1D1S" surna!ed'%*%R%N%S y TE%SON" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y the! in fa&or of thespouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated %ugust ##" #99/. C18hi+it I7>egarda.

#0. F1>I1 . %>*%>D1" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y hi! in fa&or of the saidspouses" dated Octo+er 2," #99/. C18hi+it 37>egarda.

##. (EINTIN% *%STI>>O VIED% D1 3E%N N. *. R11S" +y a deed of a+solute salee8ecuted +y her in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated %pril 25"#999. C18hi+it G7>egarda.

The &endor" (uintina *astillo Viuda de 3uan N. *. Reyes" 4ho had a participation in theentailed properties as descendant in the direct line of the founder" acuired the participationof the latter" the said &endor (uintina *astillo ha&ing +een declared the sole and uni&ersalheir +y 4ill of the said 3uan N. *. Reyes" as e&idenced +y 18hi+it G7#7>egarda.



#2. T1ODOR% 1IL'1NDI" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y her in fa&or of thespouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a!" dated Octo+er -" #999. C18hi+it >7>egarda.

#-. 1TRON% '%RI% DE%RT1" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y her in fa&or of thesaid spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated Octo+er 9" #999. C18hi+it >7#7>egarda.

#. %V1>INO TE%SON alias %NDR1S %V1>INO TE%SON" +y a deed of a+solute salee8ecuted +y hi! in fa&or of the father of the herein inter&enors" 6enito >egarda" dated 'arch5" #99-. C18hi+it '7>egarda.

Of the said sales" only those e8ecuted +y the follo4ing 4ere i!pugned C# Isa+el %renas@ C2To!asa Tuason de To+ias@ C- >uis Tuason and edro Tuason@ C %le<andro" %nacleto" Teodorico"'aria" and Dionisia" surna!ed *a!acho y Tuason" and To!as" 1ncarnacion" 'aria" and 'ercedes"surna!ed 'acaranas y Tuason@ C5 Felipe . %lcalde" and C/ Teodora 1i)!endi. The i!pugners of the sales are relati&es of the &endors 4ho 4ould +e entitled to succeed there in their respecti&eparticipations.

The appellants i!pute the follo4ing errors to the appealed decision

I. In finding that To!asa Tuason de To+ias" >uis Tuason" and edro Tuason" 4ho sold their participations in the properties in litigation to the father and !other of the inter&enors>egarda y de la a)" 4ere already recei&ing the re&enue on the date the Disentailing Statutetoo? effect.

II. In declaring null and &oid as to one7half of the participations sold" instead of &alid in their entirety" the sale !ade +y To!asa de To+ias C18hi+it 7>egarda and that e8ecuted +y >uisand edro Tuason C18hi+it B7 >egarda" and in not ad<udicating to the inter&enors >egarda yde la a) the entire participations corresponding to said &endors.

III. In e8cluding fro! the sales the participations corresponding to the &endors in the portions+elonging to the younger children 4ithout succession of the founder" and in not ad<udicatingsaid participations to the inter&enors >egarda y de la a).

IV. In not ad<udicating to the inter&enors >egarda y de la a) the participations sold +y so!edescendants of the founderJs daughter" 1ustauia 'aria Tuason" and in the e&ent of thedistri+ution of said participations a!ong the descendants" in general" of the founder" in notad<udicating to said inter&enors the participations 4hich 4ould" therefore" correspond to the&endors of the >egardas.

V. In not ad<udicating to the inter&enors >egarda y de la a) the participation correspondingto the &endor Dorotea Tuason as descendant of Santos >uciano Tuason.

VI. In not ordering the defendants to pay legal interest.

VII. In denying the !otion for a ne4 trial.

The first t4o assigned errors are inti!ately related" as they refer to the sales of their participationse8ecuted +y To!asa Tuason de To+ias" >uis Tuason" and edro Tuason. Referee O+en held in hisreport that the sales !ade +y said &endors did not transfer !ore than one7half of their participations"+ecause on the dates of the sales they 4ere the ones 4ho recei&ed the re&enue and they could not



dispose of !ore than one7half of their participations" reser&ing the other half in fa&or of their i!!ediate successors" in accordance 4ith the pro&isions of article " in connection 4ith articles 2and -" of the Disentailing Statute. The court entertained the sa!e opinion.

In support of their contention" the appellants ad&ance the follo4ing reasons C# That the said&endors 4ere not the ones 4ho recei&ed the re&enue on 'arch #" #9/" 4hen the Disentailing

Statute too? effect@ conseuently" the reser&ation of one7half is not applica+le to the sales inuestion@ C2 that the present action of the i!pugners to in&alidate the sales as to one7half thereof has already prescri+ed@ C- that the appellants ha&e acuired +y prescription of o4ner ship the entireparticipations sold@ and C that the inaction of the i!pugners of the sales for a period of years4ithout e8ercising their alleged right estops the! fro! clai!ing the participations sold" under thedoctrine ?no4n as estoppel +y laches.

%lthough 4e ha&e e8a!ined the oral and docu!entary e&idence adduced" to ascertain 4hether To!asa Tuason de To+ias" >uis Tuason" and edro Tuason 4ere in fact the ones 4ho recei&ed there&enue 4hen the Disentailing Statute too? effect M and 4e are in a position to state that the first of said &endors 4as not in fact the one 4ho recei&ed the re&enue on said date +ut the Tuason +rothersM ne&ertheless" 4e do not !a?e any pronounce!ent on this uestion in &ie4 of the fact that the first

t4o assigned errors under consideration should +e resol&ed in connection 4ith the other argu!entsrelati&e to prescription of action and o4nership and estoppel +y laches.

It 4ill +e recalled that the deed of sale of the participation of To!asa Tuason de To+ias 4as e8ecutedon Octo+er -" #999" and the sale of those of the +rothers >uis and edro Tuason on %pril ," #99/@the co!plaints of inter&ention 4hich assailed the &alidity of the sales of said participations for thefirst ti!e 4ere filed in #$2," hence" appro8i!ately forty7one years ha&e elapsed fro! the first sale tothe date its &alidity 4as i!pugned for the first ti!e" and a+out thirty years fro! the e8ecution of thesecond sale to the said date.

The right no4 e8ercised +y the i!pugners of the sales is a personal action 4hose prescriptionshould +e go&erned +y the la4s in force at the ti!e of the e8ecution of the deeds of sale" that is"

%pril ," #99/" and Octo+er -" #999" na!ely" >a4 5" Title 9" 6oo? ##" of the :ovisima 1ecopilacion"

and >a4 2#" Title 2$" Partida -" 4hich pro&ide for the period of ten years C*rusado vs. 6ustos and1scaler" - hil." #,.

%rticle #$-$ of the present *i&il *ode pro&ides

%RT. #$-$. rescription 4hich +egan to run +efore the pu+lication of this *ode shall +ego&erned +y the prior la4@ +ut if" after this *ode too? effect" all the ti!e reuired +y the sa!efor prescription +as elapsed" it shall +e sufficient e&en if according to such prior la4 a longer period of ti!e 4ould ha&e +een reuired.

%nd article #-0# of the sa!e *ode pro&ides

%RT. #-0#. The action of annul!ent shall last four years.

The ter! shall co!!ence to run M

In cases of inti!idation or &iolence fro! the day on 4hich it has ceased@

In those of error or deceit or falsity of consideration." fro! the date of the consu!!ation of the contract@



=hen the purpose of the action is to in&alidate the un authori)ed contracts of a !arried4o!an" fro! the date of the dissolution of the !arriage@

=ith respect to contracts !ade +y !inors or incapacitated persons" fro! the date they 4erereleased fro! guardianship.

%ccording to these pro&isions" the action of annul!ent" ad!itting that it had not yet prescri+ed 4henthe *i&il *ode too? effect in these Islands on Dece!+er ," #99$ C'i<ares vs. Nery" - hil." #$5"should ha&e co!!enced +y the i!pugners of the sales 4ithin the four C years follo4ing the ta?ingeffect of the *i&il *ode" 4hich 4as not done.

The rules of prescription found in the *ode of *i&il rocedure" %ct No. #$0" are not applica+le to theaction of annul!ent under consideration" +ecause according to section -9 thereof" the prescripti&eperiod pro&ided in for!er statutes should +e applied to rights of action 4hich ha&e already accrued+efore it 4ent into effect.

Fro! the foregoing it clearly follo4s that the action of annul!ent instituted and relied upon +y thei!pugners of the said sales has already prescri+ed" +oth under the >a4s of the Partidas and

the :ovisima 1ecopilacion and under the pro&isions of the *i&il *ode" and in the latter case" e&enthe supposition that the prescripti&e period for an action of annul!ent of contracts had +eene8tended to ten years" instead of four" in accordance 4ith the pro&isions of section -" No. #" of the*ode of *i&il rocedure. C=illard" Notes on *i&il *ode@ 6rillantes vs. 'argare<o and 6el!onte" -/hil. 202.

6ut the i!pugners of the sales argue that they do not in fact institute an action of annul!ent" +ut!erely use the sa!e as a defense" hence" they are not affected +y the la4s of prescription. In thea+le report of referee O+en" this phase of the uestion 4as discussed at length" and he ca!e toconclusion" as did the court" that the i!pugners of the sales ha&e in fact +rought an action of annul!ent. =ithout going into another e8tended discussion" 4e +elie&e it 4ill suffice to state" tode!onstrate the sa!e conclusion" that in the instant case those in the en<oy!ent of theparticipations sold as 4ell as the o4nership thereof are the appellants and not the i!pugners of thesales" and that to reco&er the rights lost under the deeds of sale they e8ecuted" the latter ha&e toa&ail the!sel&es of an action of annul!ent. In this sense" at least" they should +e under stood as+ringing the action instead of si!ply defending the!sel&es" aside fro! the indisputa+le fact that" toreco&er the participations 4hich they sold" they found it necessary to file co!plaints of inter&ention"4hich are really co!plaints under the letter and spirit of section #2# of the *ode of *i&il rocedure.

%s to the uestion of acuisiti&e prescription" li?e4ise in&o?ed +y the appellants" 4e hold that due tothe long lapse of ti!e they ha&e acuired +y prescription 4hate&er rights the i!pugners of the saleshad in the participations 4hich they sold.

%ddressing oursel&es to appellantsJ last argu!ent" it should again +e stated that they and their predecessors ha&e en<oyed the re&enue corresponding to the participations 4hich they ha&e

acuired and that during the period that has elapsed" the &endors and i!pugners of the sales ha&edone nothing to reco&er their alleged rights. Such conduct insur!ounta+ly +ars the instant action of annul!ent under the doctrine of estoppel +y laches. In the case of )uenaventura vs. David C-, hil."-5" spea?ing of the said doctrine" 4e said

. . . The assertion of dou+tful clai!s" after long delay" cannot +e fa&ored +y the courts. Ti!eine&ita+ly tends to o+literate occurrences fro! the !e!ory of 4itnesses" and e&en 4here therecollection appears to +e entirely clear" the true clue to the resolution of a case !ay +ehopelessly lost. These considerations constitute one of the pillars of the doctrine long fa!iliar



in euity <urisprudence to the effect that laches or unreasona+le delay on the part of aplaintiff in see?ing to enforce a right is not only persuasi&e of a 4ant of !erit +ut !ay"according to the circu!stances" +e destructi&e of the right itself. 7igilantibus nondormientibus equitas subvenit.

%nd in the case of 4uason vs. (arquez C5 hil." -9#" the sa!e principle 4as again applied as

follo4s

The euita+le doctrine ter!ed 4ith uestiona+le propriety Kestoppel +y laches"K hasparticular applica+ility to the fact +efore us. Ine8cusa+le delay in asserting a right andacuiescence in e8isting conditions are a +ar to legal action. . . .

=e see no good reason 4hy the said euita+le doctrine should not +e applied to the case at +ar.The i!pugners of said sales ha&e let pass a nu!+er of years fro! the accrual of their right of actionto annul the sales 4ithout e8ercising such right" and ha&e &oluntarily per!itted appellantsJpredecessors in interest to en<oy the participations sold@ in 4hich circu!stances it is the duty of thecourts to restrict" instead of encourage" the granting of a right already lost.

The third assigned error refer to the sales e8ecuted +y so!e descendants of the founder 4ho soldthe participations that 4ould co!e to the! as descendants li?e4ise of the younger children of thefounder. The court at first appro&ed the report of referee O+en declaring &alid the sales of theparticipations co!ing fro! the younger children 4ith succession as 4ell as fro! those 4ithoutsuccession. 6ut the court" in its order of %pril 9" #$-#" !odified its decision declaring in&alid thesales of the participations co!ing fro! the younger children 4ithout succession. Fro! this latter resolution the appeal 4as ta?en. The reason alleged +y the court in support of its last order 4as" thatthe said sales 4ere illegal +ecause they con&eyed rights not ?no4n and deter!ined at the ti!e of the e8ecution of the deeds of sale. =e do not see the force of this argu!ent. If the sales 4ere &alidas to the participations co!ing fro! the younger children 4ith succession" 4ith !ore reason shouldthe sales of the participations co!ing fro! the younger children 4ho died 4ithout succession +edeclared eually &alid" as in +oth cases the sale of e8isting rights" ?no4n and deter!ina+le" 4asin&ol&ed" as said participations" so far as the &endors 4ere concerned" arose and 4ere acuired +y

the latter fro! the death of their predecessors in interest" the younger children. C%rticle /5, of the*i&il *ode. For this reason 4e find the third error tena+le and sustain the &alidity of the sales of saidparticipations.

The plaintiffs and the defendants had stipulated 4hen the original case 4as heard that the younger daughter" 1ustauia 'a. Tuason" died 4ithout succession" +ut it de&eloped that the said deceased infact left descendants so!e of 4ho! sold their participations to the defendants. The referee stated inhis report that such participations ha&e neither +een sold nor legally acuired +y the defendants+ecause they 4ere estopped +y their stipulation 4ith the plaintiffs to the effect that said younger daughter died 4ithout descendants. The court differed fro! this and held in its decision that there4as no such estoppel" and that the defendants &alidly acuired the participations sold to the!. Theherein appellants" >egarda +rothers and sisters" +y their fourth assigned error" no4 atte!pt to

re&erse the finding of the court that the defendants are not thus estopped. %nd appellantsJ purpose iso+&ious if the sales are in&alidated" the participations" su+<ect !atter thereof" 4ould +e distri+uteda!ong all the relati&es of the said younger daughter" and appellants 4ill naturally recei&e a certainaliuot part thereof.

=e agree 4ith the court that the defendants are not estopped <ust +ecause they stipulated that1ustauia 'a. Tuason left no succession. %nd this proposition is clear +y si!ply ta?ing into accountthat the defendants ne&er agreed that they had not purchased the participations of the descendantsof the said younger daughter. The stipulation referred only and e8clusi&ely to the succession or



descendants of the said younger daughter and cannot +e logically e8tended to the sales !ade +yse&eral of her descendants. 'oreo&er" as properly o+ser&ed +y the court" to sustain appellantsJtheory 4ould result in the a+surd case of the other descendants of said younger daughter 4ho didnot sell their participations +eing depri&ed thereof <ust +ecause the original parties stipulated thattheir predecessor in interest left no succession. =e" therefore" rule that the fourth assigned error isuntena+le.

The fifth error relates to the participations of Dorotea Tuason 4hich she sold to the appellants. This&endor 4as entitled to a dou+le participation co!ing fro! t4o sources" to 4it" fro! the younger children Santos >uciano Tuason and Feli8 6olois Tuason. In a!endatory report of referee O+en theparticipation of this &endor as descendants of Santos >uciano Tuason 4as o&erloo?ed. Theappellants filed a !otion of reconsideration as?ing" a!ong other things" that the participation of said&endor as descendant of Santos >uciano Tuason +e li?e4ise ad<udicated to the!. The court grantedthe !otion" +ut in its order it 4as stated that the participation of Dorotea Tuason co!ing fro! Feli86olois Tuason 4ill +e ad<udicated to the appellants" instead of that co!ing fro! Santos >ucianoTuason. In other 4ords there 4as a transposition of na!es" hence" appellants state in their +rief thatthis in&ol&es a !ere correction of a clerical error.

In &ie4 of the foregoing 4e find the fifth assigned error 4ell7founded.In their si8th assigned error the appellants contend that the defendants are +ound to pay the! legalinterest on the a!ounts of !oney to +e ad<udicated to the! as their participations in the one7fifth"alleging as a reason therefor that the defendants 4ere guilty of delay fro! the ta?ing effect of theDisentailing Statute ordering the distri+ution and deli&ery of the fifth to the persons entitled to it"a!ong 4ho! 4ere said appellants.

The contention is 4ithout !erit in &ie4 of the fact that in the decision rendered in the original case" it4as held that the plaintiffs" 4hose position 4as li?e that of the herein appellants" 4ere entitled to anaccounting of the e8penses and re&enues of said properties and to recei&e that correspondingre&enues" fro! 3anuary #" #$2-" until the defend ants deli&er to the! their participations in theproperties of the foundation. The re&enues thus ad<udicated 4ere in lieu of legal interest clai!ed +y

the plaintiffs. For these reasons" the si8th assigned error is untena+le.

The se&enth and last assigned error need not +e discussed +eing a corollary of the preceding ones.

Recapitulating all that has +een said so far" it results

#. That the sales of their participations !ade +y To!asa Tuason de To+ias" >uis Tuason andedro Tuason in fa&or of the appellants" are &alid in their entirety and should" therefore" +ead<udicated to the latter@ thus resol&ing fa&ora+ly the first t4o errors assigned@

2. That the sales !ade +y so!e descendants of the founder" of their participations co!ingfro! the younger children 4ithout succession" are li?e4ise &alid" and said participations

should +e ad<udicated to the appellants. This also resol&es fa&ora+ly the third assigned error@

-. That the participation of Dorotea Tuason as descendant of Santos >uciano Tuason should+e ad<udicated to the appellants@ there+y resol&ing fa&ora+ly the fifth assigned error@ and

. That the fourth and si8th assigned errors are o&erruled as untena+le.

. R. No. -/92,



%1%> OF TB1 INT1RV1NOR %N% 6%R*IN%S TORR1S Calias %N% 6%R*IN%S 1R1L %NDOTB1RS

It 4ill +e recalled" fro! 4hat has +een said in connection 4ith the first appeal" that 1ustauia 'a.Tuason died lea&ing succession" not4ithstanding the stipulation to the contrary +y the plaintiffs andthe defendants at the trial of the principal case. The herein appellants are descendants of the

younger daughter 1ustauia 'a. Tuason. %ll of the!" 4ith the e8e!ption of To!as 6arcinas yReyes" are descendants of To!as 6arcinas" 4ho" 4ith the said To!as 6arcinas y Reyes" sold alltheir rights" interest" and participation in one7fifth of the re&enue of thema*orazgo through their attorney7in7fact 'anuel de los Reyes" in fa&or of the estate of Teresa de la a).

Said appellants attri+ute to the appealed decision the follo4ing errors

I. =e here+y adopt as our o4n all of the pertinent assign!ents of errors of the other inter&enors in .R. Nos. -/9## and -/90" 4hich are applica+le to the inter&enors here and"+y reference" here+y incorporate their argu!ents in support of said errors.

II. The lo4er court erred in holding the sale e8ecuted +y 'anuel de los Reyes" pretending to

act under and +y &irtue of aforesaid &oid po4er of attorney" &alid" and in failing to hold sa!enull and &oid.

III. The lo4er court erred in holding the sale e8ecuted +y 'anuel de los Reyes" pretending toact under and +y &irtue of aforesaid &oid po4er of attorney" &alid" and in failing to hold sa!enull and &oid.

IV. The lo4er court erred in interpreting aforesaid sale e8ecuted +y 'anuel de los Reyes"pretending to act under aforesaid &oid po4er of attorney" and in so interpreting said sale asto depri&e these inter&enors of their true rights under the ma*orazgo founded +y Don %ntonioTuason.

18hi+it Tuason7# sho4s that on 3une 9" #9$" the said To!as 6arcinas y *ru)" To!as 6arcinas yReyes" 6enita 6arcinas y *ru)" and 'aria 'ani+usan y 6arcinas" through their attorney7in7fact'anuel de los Reyes" sold all their participations in one7fifth of the re&enue of the ma*orazgo 4hichthey had in possession as descendants of the younger daughter 1ustauia 'a Tuason" including alltheir rights and interest in the said one7fifth of the re&enue" for the su! of 5"000. In the said deed of sale there 4as reproduced in full the po4er of attorney 4hich said &endors had conferred on their attorney7in7fact 'anuel de los Reyes" e8ecuted on 3uly " #9$-" in the *ity of %gaPa" capital of 'arianas Islands" +efore the <udge of first instance acting as notary in the a+sence of the notary of said district.

The appellants contend that the sale is null and &oid +ecause the po4er of attorney 4hich the&endors conferred on their agent 4as not ratified +efore a notary +ut +efore a <udge of first instance.The referee" in passing upon the legal point in&ol&ed" said

In order that the sale !ade +y 'anuel de los Reyes +ehalf of the 6arcinas !ay +e &alid" a4ritten po4er of attorney 4as sufficient" 4ithout the necessity of con&erting said po4er of attorney into a pu+lic docu!ent. CSection --5" No. 5" *ode of *i&il rocedure@ article #2,9"*i&il *ode. =ithout dis therefore" 4hether or not under the la4s in force in the 'arianasIslands in #9$-" the <udge of first instance could act as notary pu+lic" the indisputa+le factre!ains that those na!ed as grantors in the instru!ent in uestion e8ecuted said po4er of attorney@ and this e8ecution of the 4ritten po4er of attorney 4as sufficient to authori)e theattorney7in7fact 'anuel de los Reyes to e8ecute a &alid sale of the property of his principals.



The undersigned is of the opinion" therefore" that the deed 18hi+it Tuason7# legallytransferred to the estate of DoPa Teresa de la a) 4hat appears in said deed" +elonging tothe grantors therein na!ed

The court affir!ed the conclusion of the referee in the follo4ing language

The court agrees 4ith the referee that" not4ithstanding the e8ecution of the po4er of attorney in the *ity of %gaPa +efore the <udge of first instance of the 'arianas Islands thesale 4as &alid" +ecause according to the said 18hi+it Tuason7#" the <udge of first instance of said Islands" K%cted 4ith the 4itnesses then present" Don 'anuel %flague and Don 3uan delRosario" in the capacit* of notar* public K in the absence of this official in that district Ce!phasis ours. The inter&enors 6arcinas" represented +y %ttorney =olfson" ha&enot sho4n that on the date of the e8ecution of the po4er of attorney" 3une 9" #9$" there 4asa notary in the *ity of %gaPa@ on the contrary" said 18hi+it Tuason7# sho4s that there 4as nosuch notary in the district" hence" the <udge of first instance acted in that capacity. There+eing no notary" 4e cannot insist that the po4er of attorney +e e8ecuted +efore a notary. It4as sufficient that it +e e8ecuted +efore the <udge of first instance acting in the capacity of notary pu+lic. =herefore" the court is of the sa!e opinion as the referee" that the sale

e8ecuted +y the inter&enors 6arcinas" 18hi+it Tuason7#" in fa&or of the estate of DoPa Teresade la a) is &alid.

The appellants ha&e not cited any la4 especially applica+le to the 'arianas Islands at the ti!e thepo4er of attorney in uestion 4as e8ecuted" 4here+y the inter&ention of a notary in the e8ecution of said ?ind of docu!ent 4as !ade a+solutely necessary. In #9$- the present *i&il *ode 4as alreadyin force in the country" and the pro&isions thereof applica+le to the su+<ect are as follo4s

%RT. #,#0. %n agency !ay +e e8press or i!plied.

%n e8press agency !ay +e created +y a pu+lic or pri&ate instru!ent or e&en orally.

The acceptance !ay also +e e8press or i!plied" the latter +eing inferred fro! the acts of theagent.

%RT. #,#-. %n agency created in general ter!s only includes acts of ad!inistration.

In order to co!pro!ise" alienate" !ortgage" or to e8ecute any other act of strict o4nership"an e8press po4er is reuired.

The po4er to co!pro!ise does not gi&e authority to su+!it the !atter to ar+itrators or friendly ad<usters.

The pertinent portion of section --5 of the *ode of *i&il rocedure" pro&ides

S1*. --5. Agreements invalid unless made in 0riting . M In the follo4ing cases anagree!ent hereafter !ade shall +e unenforcea+le +y action unless the sa!e" or so!e noteor !e!orandu! thereof" +e in 4riting" and su+scri+ed +y the party charged" or +y his agent@e&idence" therefore" of the agree!ent cannot +e recei&ed 4ithout the 4riting" or secondarye&idence of its contents

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8



5. %n agree!ent for the leasing for a longer period than one year" or for the sale of realproperty" or of an interest therein" and such agree!ent" if !ade +y the agent of the partysought to +e charged" is in&alid unless the authority of the agent +e in 4riting and su+scri+ed+y the party sought to +e charged.

It" therefore" follo4s that under the legal pro&isions a+o&e uoted" the po4er conferred upon 'anuel

de los Reyes is &alid although no notary pu+lic inter&ened in its e8ecution. %nd the sale e8ecuted +ysaid attorney7in7fact is li?e4ise &alid +ecause in the e8ecution of the corresponding deed theessential reuisites pro&ided +y la4 4ere co!plied 4ith.

The a+o&e refuses appellants second" third" fourth assigned errors relating to the &alidity of thepo4er of attorney and the deed of sale of the participations already referred to.

The first assign!ent does not specify any error co!!itted +y the court and the appellants only !a?eand re produce therein" as their o4n" the assign!ents of error of the inter&enors7appellants in .R.Nos. -/9## and -/90. It is not incu!+ent upon us to consider seriously an assign!ent of error of this nature" although the assign!ents of error !ade +y the other appellants 4ill +e considered andresol&ed in due ti!e.

In resu!e" 4e find the four assigned errors of these appellants untena+le.

.R. No. -/90

%1%> OF 1ST%NIS>%O% %R1N%S %ND OTB1RS

The herein appellants are li?e4ise descendants of the founder of the ma*orazgo" So!e of the!directly sold to the defendants their participations in one7fifth of the re&enue and all their rights andinterest in the ma*orazgo@ the others are descendants of other relati&es of the founder 4ho li?e4isesold their participations in one7fifth of the re&enue and all their rights and interest in the ma*orazgo infa&or of the sa!e defendants. The deeds e&idencing the sales ha&e +een !ar?ed as 18hi+its 2" -"

" 5" /" ," #0" ## #2" #-" #" #/" and #,.

The appellants i!pugn all the sales as null and &oid and in their +rief assign the follo4ing errors

I. The court erred in holding that" +y the deeds of sale e8ecuted +y the inter&enors7appellants" or their predecessors in interest" in fa&or of the defendants and the predecessorsin interest of the inter&enors >egarda and sisters" the participations of the for!er inthe o0nership and dominion of one7fifth of the properties of the ma*orazgo 4ere sold and innot declaring said sales null and &oid.

II. The court erred in finding that on the date of the e8ecution of the sale !ade +y Israel %renas the latter had no i!!ediate successor and in disappro&ing the report of the referee

on this uestion.III. The court erred in finding that *a!ila Tuason died after the year #9/" 4hen theDisentailing Statute too? effect in the hilippines" and not in #9/- as found +y the referee.K

In support of the first assigned error" the follo4ing propositions are ad&anced C# That the &endorsintended to sell only their participations in one7fifth of the re&enue and" not the o4nership or other rights 4hich they had in thema*orazgo" conseuently" the sales 4ere null and &oid for lac? of said&endorsJ consent@ C2 that the purchasers 4ere ad!inistrators or trustees of the properties of



the ma*orazgo" and" therefore" fall under the prohi+ition found in article #5$ of the *i&il *ode@ C-that the purchasers the spouses >egarda" at the ti!e they purchased the participations of so!e of the inter&enors" 4ere legal ad!inistrators of the properties of the ma*orazgo" and" therefore" lac?edthe capacity to +uy in accordance 4ith the pro&isions of the :ovisima 1ecopilacion then applica+le@C that the purchasers o+tained the &endorsJ consent through fraud" and C5 that the said are!oreo&er null and &oid under the e8press pro&isions of article " in connection 4ith article -" of the

Disentailing 'atute" for lac? of prior for!al appraisal and partition of the properties constituting thefifth of the ma*orazgo.

*onsidering the &ie4 4e ha&e ta?en in respect of the first assigned error" a &ie4 4hich 4e 4illhereafter set forth" it 4ould see! unnecessary to ans4er the argu!ents ad&anced +y the appellants.Bo4e&er" 4e 4ill +riefly state the follo4ing

%fter a careful e8a!ination of all the deeds of sale" 4e hold. as did the referee and the court" that the&endors sold not only their participations in the re&enue +ut also all their rights and interest in theproperties of thema*orazgo. In other 4ords" said &endors in fact sold their participations and rights inthe o4nership of thema*orazgo" to 4hich the one7fifth of the re&enue 4as con&erted in &ie4 of theenforce!ent of the Disentailing Statute in the Islands.

The purchasers" strictly spea?ing" 4ere not legal ad!inistrators or fiduciaries of the rights sold tothe! +y the &endors" at least in the sense in 4hich the prohi+ition then e8isting 4as e8pressed andesta+lished. %s the court correctly stated" the purchasers" in connection 4ith the transactions" actedas !ere coproprietors or tenants in co!!on" and the right to +uy 4hich they then e8ercised 4ase8pressly recogni)ed +y la4.

The fraud i!puted to the purchasers has not +een pro&ed@ the e&idence sho4s that the &endors hadfull ?no4ledge of the rights 4hich they sold and that there+y they con&eyed to the &endees all theinterest 4hich they could ha&e in the ma*orazgo.

%nd 4ith respect to the lac? of for!al appraisal and partition of one7fifth of the properties of the ma*orazgo" prior to the sales" reuisites found in article " in connection 4ith article -" of theDisentailing Statute" it is sufficient to state our opinion that non7co!pliance there4ith should notproduce either the effect or the !eaning attri+uted to the! +y the appellants. It see!s to us that thecourt 4as right in interpreting that the appraisal" partition" and inter&ention of the i!!ediatesuccessor are reuired only in cases in 4hich the actual possessor of properties or the one 4horecei&es the re&enue desires to dispose of his participations in a specific and particular for!" +ut not4hen" as in the case under consideration" undi&ided and indeter!inate rights or participations 4eresold. In case of an hereditary estate" for instance" a coheir !ay sell his successory right" althoughundeter!ined" 4ithout the necessity either of a prior appraisal or partition of said estate or notice toor inter&ention +y the other coheirs.

=e 4ill no4 +riefly state the &ie4 4e ha&e ta?en of the first assigned error. The !ost recent salesi!pugned 4ere !ade +et4een the year #$05 and #$#0@ the oldest deeds 4ere e8ecuted +et4een

the years #9$# and #9$9. On the other hand" the appellants challenged the &alidity of said sales for the first ti!e in 3anuary and Fe+ruary" #$2$. Theretofore" at least" nineteen years had elapsed as tothe sale effected in #$#0. =e hold that the lapse of the period of nineteen years is !ore than thatreuired for the prescription of the action of annul!ent +egan +y the appellants through their co!plaints of inter&ention" and in support of this holding 4e recur here to all that 4e said on thesu+<ect in resol&ing the appeal interposed +y the inter&enors >egarda. =e are li?e4ise of the opinionthat the appellants are no4 +arred fro! clai!ing any right in connection 4ith said sales under thedoctrine of estoppel +y laches. =e repeat 4hat 4e said on this point in the appeal of the >egardas"



to the effect that the &alidity of sales !ay not +e uestioned ane4 after the purchasers ha&e en<oyedthe participations sold and the fruits thereof for !any years.

The second and third assigned errors refer to the sales !ade +y Isa+el %renas and %le<andro*a!acho and +rothers" respecti&ely. The inter&enor7appellant Rafael %renas contends that the salee8ecuted +y his !other Isa+el %renas is null and &oid as to one7half +ecause said &endor had an

i!!ediate successor at the ti!e of the sale. The *a!achos" in turn" allege that the sale theye8ecuted is li?e4ise null and &oid as to one7half +ecause" contrary to the finding of the court" they4ere the ones 4ho recei&ed the re&enue at the ti!e the Disentailing Statute too? effect" and theycontend in this connection that their !other *a!ila Tuason died in #9/- and not after #9,-" asfound +y the court. =e do not find it necessary to discuss the uestion of fact thus raised" +ecausein +oth cases prescription and the rule of estoppel +y laches are applica+le against the appellants.On +oth grounds 4e rule that the appellants !ay not no4 uestion the &alidity of the aforesaid sales.

It follo4s fro! 4hat has +een said that the three errors assigned +y the appellants are o&erruled asnot 4ell7founded.

.R. No. -/9,2

%1%> OF TB1 D1F1ND%NTS %EESTO B. TE%SON D1>% %L %ND OTB1RS

This appeal is interposed +y the defendants 4ho 4ere the possessors of all the properties of the ma*orazgo at the ti!e the principal case 4as instituted and +efore the 6an? of the hilippineIslands 4as appointed recei&er. Said appellants i!pute to the appealed decision and order thefollo4ing error

FIRST 1RROR

The lo4er court erred in not passing upon certain &ital issues on the ground that they had+een definitely concluded.

S1*OND 1RROR

The trial court erred in not finding that the fifth part of the ma*orazgo +elongs in fee si!ple tothe defendants.

TBIRD 1RROR

The trial court erred in distri+uting the fifth part as follo4s three7eighths thereof a!ong allthe descendants of the founder Cincluding those of the first possessor of the ma*orazgo per stirps of great grandchildren" including those 4ho ha&e already died@ and the re!aining fi&eeighths a!ong the descendants of the fi&e younger children of the founder 4ho died lea&ing

succession" distri+uting the sa!e per stirps of said children.

FOERTB 1RROR

The trial court erred in not finding that the plan of distri+ution !ore in confor!ity 4ith thepro&isions of article of the Disentailing >a4" 4ould +e to assign to each recipient C4hether plaintiff or inter&enor a portion of the one7fifth of the entail in the proportion that the pension4hich he used to recei&e +ears to the net inco!e of the fifth on the entail.



FIFTB 1RROR

The trial court erred in not distri+uting the three7eights e8clusi&ely a!ong the defendants.

SIHTB 1RROR

In case the preceding assign!ent of error +e o&er ruled" 4e respectfully su+!it that the trialcourt erred in distri+uting the three7eights in eual portions per stirps of the great greatgrandchildren Ctataranietos" including those 4ho ha&e already died" instead of distri+utingthe sa!e only a!ong those that are li&ing" or" !ore properly" instead of distri+uting the sa!eper stirps of the children of the founder.

S1V1NTB 1RROR

The trial court erred in not finding 4hat is the &alue in pesos of the different participationsassigned to the different parties in this case.

1IBT 1RROR

The trial court erred in not finding that the plaintiffs ha&ing filed a personal action against thedefendants as?ing <udg!ent in the su! of fi&e hundred thousand pesos C500"000" for da!ages 4hich the said parties agreed 4ere the &alue of the one7half of the so7called fa!ilytrust are no4 +arred to clai! participation in the properties the!7 sel&es there+y con&ertingthe action into one in rem.

NINTB 1RROR

The trial court erred in finding that the sales e8ecuted +y 'ariano %renas" 1stanislaoa %renas" 3ulio Tuason" Se&erino" Tuason" 1ncarnacion Ro<o and *andelaria Ro<o 4ere nulland &oid as to one7half thereof.

T1NTB 1RROR

%ssu!ing that the said sales as to one7half thereof should +e declared null and &oid" the trialcourt erred in not conde!ning the sellers or their successors in interest to return one7half of the price recei&ed +y the! fro! the purchasers" plus the legal interest thereof the ti!e of thesale.

1>1V1NTB 1RROR

The trial court erred in finding that the sales e8ecuted +y the inter&enors or their predecessors in interest of any rights that they !ight ha&e had in the fifth of

the ma*orazgo in uestion" did not co&er the right that they had to participate in the threeeighths 4hich originally correspond to the three younger children of the founder 4ho died4ithout lea&ing succession.

T=1>V1 1RROR

The trial court erred in not reuiring the referee to file an a!ended report in confor!ity 4iththe order of the trial court dated %pril $" #$-#.



6y 4ay of preli!inary o+ser&ation 4e 4ill state that it is not our intention to hold that the uestionsraised +y the appellants in their first" second" third" fourth" fifth" si8th" and eighth assigned errorsare res judicata +ecause they ha&e +een su+!itted" discussed at length" and resol&ed in thedecision rendered in the principal case" +ecause 4e +elie&e this to +e unnecessary@ +ut 4eunderstand" and so decide" that unless it is sho4n that said uestions ha&e +een erroneouslyresol&ed and that there e8ist sufficient reasons <ustifying that 4e renounce the conclusions already

reached" it is our duty to adhere to the! and to apply the principles laid do4n in the aforesaiddecision in so far as they are applica+le to the sa!e points raised ane4 in the instant appeal.

The first assign!ent does not specify any error co!!itted +y the court" hence" 4e are not +ound toresol&e any specific uestion@ +ut in the de&elop!ent of the idea 4hich the appellants ha&eapparently atte!pted to +ring out" they argue in synthesis that in the resolution granting a ne4 trialthis court again left open for discussion the sa!e points already considered and resol&ed as 4ell asthe ne4 ones 4hich the parties !ay desire to raise in the aforesaid ne4 trial. %n e8a!ination of saidresolution" ho4e&er" sho4s <ust the contrary. In the said resolution the follo4ing language 4ase!ployed.

*ounsel for defendants insist upon their contentions !aintained fro! the +eginning and

disposed of in our decision. They raise so!e points in their +riefs" ho4e&er 4hich reuire afe4 +rief7re!ar?s. C6aretto vs. Tuason" 50 hil." 999" $5$.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8


C# That the first7+orn possessor of this ma*orazgo 4as a !ere usufructuary of the entailedproperties.

C2 That this ma*orazgo 4as a fideicamiso.

C- That the charge to distri+ute the fifth of the re&enues fro! said properties 4as a fa!ilytrust.

C That article of the Disentailing >a4 of Octo+er ##" #920 is applica+le to the presentcase.


C/ That the plaintiffsJ right of action has not prescri+ed.

C, That the registration of the entailed properties under %ct No. $/ !ust" 4ith respect to thefifth of the said properties conser&ed up to the present ti!e as a fideicomiso" +e held to ha&e+een !ade in fa&or of the +eneficiaries of said fifth part.

C9 That the plaintiffs" as 4ell as any other descendants of the founder" are entitled toparticipate in the fifth of the properties of this ma*orazgo in accordance 4ith the si8th clauseof the deed of foundation and article of the Disentailing >a4.



C$ The pronounce!ents !ade in our decision 4ith respect as to the a!ount of theparticipation of each clai!ant shall +e set aside in &ie4 of the !otions of the inter&enors4hich 4e a+out to e8a!ine. C8bid ." pp. $/-" $/.

No clearer and !ore categorical language could ha&e +een e!ployed to e8press the intention of thecourt to adhere to and reiterate the conclusions and principles already esta+lished in the decision

originally rendered" not4ithstanding the !otion of reconsideration and ne4 trial. Neither can there +eany dou+t as to the uestions 4hich the court considered definitely resol&ed and 4hich should not+e the su+<ect of further discussion.

That this court did not intend to allo4 the parties to raise ane4 the funda!ental uestions alreadyresol&ed" and that the ne4 trial should +e li!ited e8clusi&ely to a deter!ination of the a!ount to4hich the inter&enors could +e entitled in the fifth of the properties" is clearly sho4n +y the follo4inguoted paragraphs 4hich for! a part of the order found in the aforesaid resolution

Ca That the !otion for reconsideration filed +y counsel for the defendants is denied in so far as it is inco!pati+le 4ith the funda!ental conclusions 4e ha&e arri&ed at in the presentcause and enu!erated in the preceding resolution.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Ce That said *ourt of First Instance proceed to try this cause and render <udg!ent as to thea!ount to 4hich the original parties and those 4ho !ay inter&ene !ay +e en titled as their participation in the fifth of the properties of this ma*orazgo. C8bid p. $//.

Defendants7appellants inti!ate that the said resolution is 4ithout legal force +ecause it 4as notconcurred in +y a sufficient !a<ority of the !e!+ers then co!posing this court. % sufficient ans4er tothis is" that the aforesaid resolution 4as authori)ed and concurred in +y eight of the nine !e!+ersthen co!posing this court.

In the second assigned error" the appellants again insist that the na?ed o4nership of the fifth of theproperties of the ma*orazgo +elongs to the!. This uestion 4as already definitely resol&ed in thedecision as 4ell as in the resolution on the !otions of reconsideration and ne4 trial 4herein 4asstated

*ounsel for defendants allege that the properties of this foundation passed into the hands of the heir" 3ose Victoriano Tuason" co!pletely free" one7half +y testa!entary inheritance andthe other half +y &irtue of article 2 of the Disentailing >a4. This" ho4e&er" 4as not the 4ill of the testator" Don 3ose Se&erino Tuason" nor the 4ill of his successors" all of 4ho! respectedthe ma*orazgo and held it as su+sisting de facto. In no e&ent could the properties pass intothe hands of the heir 3ose Victoriano Tuason co!pletely free. It 4as necessary to preser&ethe! intact until they 4ere appraised and the fifth part thereof had +een segregated for distri+ution a!ong the recipients of the re&enues and their i!!ediate successors" in

accordance 4ith the pro&isions of article of the statute.

It is a fact that the trust su+sisted and still su+sists. The successi&e possessors of the entailha&e preser&ed and preser&e the properties of the ma*orazgo respecting and distri+uting thefifth of the re&enue a!ong the descendants of the younger children of the founder.

6ut the entail could not and cannot continue perpetually. Its a+olition 4as decreed +y thestatute as of the #st day of 'arch" #9/. Its perpetual sur&i&al 4ould +e contrary" not only to



the Disentailing >a4 of Octo+er ##" #920" +ut also the *i&il *ode in force 4hich" under articles ,9# and ,95" paragraph 2" positi&ely prohi+its perpetual entails.

If up to the present ti!e the entail in uestion su+sists" this has +een +ecause the interestedparties ha&e +een !aintaining it 4ithout proceeding to the appraisal and distri+ution of theentailed properties" as reuired +y articles 2 and of the Disentailing >a4@ and in

accordance 4ith the doctrine announced +y the Supre!e *ourt of Spain on Octo+er 2$"#95," a+o&e cited" the properties of this ma*orazgo" pre ser&ed de facto +y the interestedparties as entailed" legally retain this character for the purposes of their partition 4hich !ust+e effected in accordance 4ith the statute of Octo+er ##" #920.

Fro! 4hat has +een said it follo4s that since 'arch #" #9/" the date upon 4hich the saidDisentailing >a4 ca!e into force in the hilippine Islands" the successi&e possessors of theproperties of this ma*orazgoconstituted the!sel&es trustees" charged 4ith the ad!inistrationand preser&ation of the said properties and the distri+ution of the fifth of the re&enue a!ongthe descendants of the younger children of the founder. *onseuently" after the entail 4asa+olished" one7half of the four7fifths of the proof %sgo continued su+<ect to the trust in fa&or of its +eneficiaries" the heirs of 3ose Victoriano Tuason" 4ho 4as the one called to succeed

i!!ediately to the ma*orazgo on the date of its disentail!ent Carticle 2" Statute" and thefifth of the said properties in fa&or of the +eneficiaries" the recipients of the fifth of there&enue in accordance 4ith the foundation.

Su!!ing up the effects produced 4ith respect to this ma*orazgo +y the Disentailing >a4 onthe one hand" and the conduct of the interested parties on the other" 4e !ay say first" thatthe trust of the na?ed o4nership instituted in fa&or of the descendants of the founder indefinitely 4as a+olished" in conseuence of the disentail!ent@ and second" that the trust of the usufruct of the properties +eca!e con&erted into a trust of the properties the!sel&es" the+eneficiaries +eing the sa!e" +ut as o4ners@ that is to say" the first7+orn successor as toone7half of four7fifths of the said properties" and the descendants of the younger children of the founder 4ith respect to the re!aining fifth. C8bid ." pp. $-/7$-9.


8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8


8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

C, That the registration of the entailed properties under %rt No. $/ !ust" 4ith respect to the

fifth of the said properties conser&ed up to the present ti!e as a fideicomiso" +e held to ha&e+een !ade in fa&or of the +eneficiaries of said fifth part.

C9 That the plaintiffs" as 4ell as any other descendants of the founder" are entitled toparticipate in the fifth of the properties of this ma*orazgo in accordance 4ith the si8th clauseof the deed of foundation and article of the Disentailing >a4. C8bid ." pp. $/-" $/.



The argu!ents no4 ad&anced +y the appellants in sup port of their second assigned error are notentirely ne4 +ecause they 4ere already +rought out 4hen the uestion 4as su+!itted anddiscussed in the principal case and 4e do not find therein any 4eighty reasons <ustifying our repudiation of the conclusions and principles esta+lished in the decision rendered in the originalcase.

The third" fourth" fifth" and si8th assigned errors !ay +e <ointly considered +ecause they all refer tothe distri+ution of the one7fifth of the properties. In the paragraphs here after uoted of the originaldecision" it 4ill +e seen that the distri+ution of the fifth and those entitled to it under the instru!ent of foundation 4ere already dealt 4ith and resol&ed

1RSONS 1NTIT>1D TO TB1 R1'1D

The recipients of the fifth of the re&enues are indicated in the si8th clause of the instru!ent of foundation" the te8t of 4hich 4e again transcri+e

KIt shall +e his duty to set apart one7fifth of the net re&enue deri&ed fro! the entail each year"and that one7fifth part shall +e di&ided into eight parts" gi&ing one to each of !y eight

children" and in their a+sence" to !y grandchildren" +ut upon the understanding that if one or !ore of !y children should die 4ithout succession" the part +elonging to the! shall +edistri+uted a!ong !y children and other descendants of !ine according to their needs andas prudence !ay dictate to hi!" so that" 4hen the ti!e arri&es that none of !y children areali&e" it shall then +e al4ays understood that said fifth part shall +e applied to all those of !ydescendants 4ho are poor" the apportion!ent to +e !ade +y hi! prudently according totheir needs and therefore the possessor of the entail is here+y charged to discharge this duty4ith conscientious scruple.K C8bid ." pp. $#" $2.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

If the descendants of the younger children" su+seuent to the grandchildren of the founder"

are granted under certain circu!stances the right to possess the ma*orazgo itself" 4ith all itsproperties" 4e do not see ho4 it can +e said that these descendants" su+seuent tograndchildren" the sons of sons" 4ere prohi+ited fro! recei&ing a fifth of the re&enues of saidproperties.

It is our understanding that the intention of the founder 4as not to restrict the grant of theusufruct of the fifth of the re&enue +y li!iting it to a certain nu!+er of generations of theyounger children" +ut that he intended to e8tend it to all of the descendants of the latter. If this is so 4e should apply to the case the rule of la4 of the Partidas CRule 29" Title -",th Partido" 4hich says ;Privilegia recipiunt largum interpretationem voluntati consonanconcedentis.K Cri&ileges are to +e interpreted 4ith li+erality in accordance 4ith the 4ill of hi!4ho grants the!.

Further!ore" that the present plaintiffs are entitled to recei&e the fifth of the re&enues has+een repeatedly recogni)ed +y the defendants 4hen they purchased" in #$05" fro! Don3ose Rocha y Rui)" and in #$#/ fro! DoPa Re!edios %ragon y Rocha their respecti&eparticipations in the fifth of the re&enue" according to paragraph #/ of the stipulation of facts"and 4hile in the years #$#, to #$2# the said defendants deli&ered to Don %ntonio 'aria6arretto y Rocha" and to Don Santiago" Don 3ulio and Don %ndres Rocha y Rui) Delgado"and their sister" DoPa Rosario@ and in the years #$#, to #$22" to DoPa Isa+el" DoPa1nriueta" DoPa *ar!en" Don %ntonio" Don %lfredo and Don *lodoaldo Rocha y ereyra"Don Francisco 6eech y Ro<o" Don *iriaco" Don *ayetano" Don a+lo >eon and Don To!as



Tuason" and to the !inors DoPa *onsuelo" Don 3uan" DoPa Rosario and DoPa *ar!enTuason" and DoPa Victoria Rufina" DoPa %na *onsolacion Tuason" and DoPa %suncionRo!ana Tuason 4ido4 of *a+allero" their respecti&e participations in the fifth of there&enue" as appears fro! the cross7co!plaint of the defendants" ad!itted in para graph 9 of the stipulation of facts.

%nd it appears that the said Don 3ose Rocha y Rui) 4as the son of Don >oren)o Rocha" agrandson" in turn" of DoPa regoria N. Tuason C18hi+it / and paragraphs 2 and #/ of thestipulation of facts that DoPa Re!edios %ragon y Rocha is a relati&e of the founder C18hi+it," ad!itted in paragraph #/ of the stipulation of facts @ and that the said recipients of the fifthof the re&enue fro! the year #$#, to #$2# and fro! the year #$#, to #$22" are alldescendants of grandchildren of the younger children of the founder. Caragraphs 2 to -0"ad!itted in paragraph # of the stipulation of facts. C8bid ." pp. $" $5.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

assing to the a!ount of the articipation 4hich is due the! respecti&ely" for the purpose of deter!ining this point 4e !ust ha&e regard to the intention of the founder" as it is e8pressed

in the instru!ent creating the ma*orazgo. It 4as his 4ill that the fifth of the re&enue shouldhe di&ided into eight parts" and that to each of his children" other than his first +orn" one partshould +e gi&en. Epon the death of each of these children" +y &irtue of the pro&isions of theinstru!ent of foundation" and +y operation of la4" their right to an eighth part of the re&enue4hich they recei&ed during their lifeti!e 4as trans!itted to their heirs. That is" each of theseeight portions of the fifth of the re&enue 4as trans!itted fro! succession to succession"4ithin the stirps of each of the eight younger children 4ho died lea&ing succession. The heirsof a younger son or daughter could legally participate in the eight part corresponding toanother stirps" as long K heirs in the direct line of this stirps sur&i&ed@ that is to say" each of the eight portions of the fifth" e8cept those corresponding to young children +orn 4ithoutsuccession. The heirs of a younger child could not legally participate in the eightcorresponding to another stirps" 4hile heirs of this stirps in" the direct line sur&i&e. That is tosay" each one of the said eight parts of the fifth" e8cept those corresponding to the younger

children dying 4ithout succession" 4as preser&ed and trans!itted fro! generation togeneration 4ithin each respecti&e stirps.

This plan of di&ision of participation" +ased upon the 4ill of the founder and the precepts of the la4" is that 4hich in our <udg!ent !ust continue to pre&ail" and is that 4hich 4e shallfollo4 in deter!ining the proportion 4hich corresponds to the plaintiffs in the half of the fifthof the properties of this foundation.

Of the eight younger children four died 4ithout sucession and the other four are thedescendants of the plaintiffs in this cause. Bence" four of the eight portions" that is" one7half of the fifth of the properties of this foundation" +elong to the plaintiffs herein under the plan of di&ision 4hich has <ust +een indicated. The other four portions" that is" the one7half of the

said fifth" 4hich 4ould ha&e corresponded to the stirps of the other four younger children" if they had died lea&ing succession" accrue" so to spea?" +oth to the defendants of the younger children lea&ing succession and to the other descendants of the founder.

The distri+ution of this accretion is !ade in o+edience to a plan distinct fro! that a+o&eindicated" +ecause the founder" foreseeing the contingency" did not prescri+e a uota for each stirps of his younger children" +ut ordered that it he deli&ered to descendants of +othclasses 4ithout distinction of line or stirps. *onseuently" this one7half in accretion should +edistri+uted a!ong the descendants of the founder in general" 4ho are the plaintiffs and so!e



of the defendants" +ut +earing in !ind the different rights 4ith 4hich each heir participates"+y reason of the greater or lesser pro8i!ity of his relationship to the founder" for the purposeof deter!ining if he is to inherit per capita or per stirpes. =e say some of the defendants"+ecause 4ith the e8ception of the ten !entioned in paragraph 5 of the co!plaint" the other defendants are either persons 4hose relationship has not +een deter!ined Cparagraph / of the co!plaint or ha&e refused to +eco!e parties to this action Cparagraph -0 of the

co!plaint.

Fro! 4hat has +een said it follo4s that one7half of the fifth of the properties corresponding tothe younger sons lea&ing succession" four7fortieth parts CA0 of the 4hole of the propertiesof this foundation !ust +e di&ided into four eual portions" +ecause one portion" or one7fortieth part C#A0 corresponds to each stirps of the said four younger children. The other one7half of the said fifth" that is to say" the other four7fortieth parts CA0 of the 4hole of theproperties of this foundation !ust +e distri+uted in general a!ong the plaintiffs and so!e of the defendants" ta?ing into consideration the circu!stances of their respecti&e heirships.C8bid ." pp. $/7$9.

The foregoing paragraphs contain conclusions of fact and of la4 esta+lished after a careful study of

the pro&isions found in the foundation and of the la4s applica+le to the case" and are suarelyapplica+le to the facts recently pro&ed at the ne4 trial" e8cept that fi&e7eighths of the fifth should +edi&ided a!ong the descendants of the fi&e C5 younger children 4ith succession and the re!ainingthree7eighths of the fifth a!ong the relati&es in general of the founder" +ecause it de&eloped that theyounger daughter 1ustauia 'a. Tuason had left heirs" contrary to the stipulation of the plaintiffs andthe defendants.

The argu!ents ad&anced +y the appellants in support of said assign!ents of error do not <ustify" inour opinion" a different result fro! that already reached@ in truth they are !erely repetitions of thesa!e argu!ents already +rought out +y counsel for the sa!e appellants.

In the se&enth assigned error" it is contended that the court erred in not reducing the respecti&eparticipations of the parties to figures or pesos. It is true that the court did not underta?e the

arith!etical operations in&ol&ed there in. +ut 4e cannot concei&e of this as an error su+<ect to!odification or re&ersal" in &ie4 of the fact that there 4as then no necessity therefor" and that such4or? could +e easily entrusted to the referee after this decision has +eco!e final and the recordsre!anded to the court.

6y their eighth assigned error the defendants7appellants again reproduce their original specialdefense to the effect that the plaintiffs could not con&ert the personal action for da!ages 4hich theyhad originally co!!enced into an action in rem" and that said plaintiffs are +arred fro! clai!ing anyparticipation in the properties of thema*orazgo.

This point 4as li?e4ise considered and resol&ed in the decision in the principal case" 4herein it 4assaid

In addition to the argu!ents !entioned heretofore" counsel for defendants interpose aso+stacles to the action of plaintiffs the registration of the title to the properties of the ma*orazgo in fa&or of the defendants" !entioned in paragraph ## of the first specialdefense" under %ct No. $/" and the prescription of this action. The defendants DoPa a)Tuason de on)ales" DoPa *onsuelo Tuason de (ui!son" Don 3uan Tuason and DoPa

%l+ina Tuason inter pose as a defense to this action the contention that the plaintiffs filed noclai! 4hate&er in the proceedings had upon the testa!entary estate of Don 3uan 3ose



Tuason de la a)" the father of the said defendants. 4hich testa!entary proceedings 4erefinally disposed of and filed 3une 25" #$20.

If" as 4e ha&e found and decided" the successi&e possessors of the properties of this ma*orazgo 4ere and ha&e +een !ere trustees of the said properties" holding the! intrust for the +enefit of the +eneficiaries" part of 4ho! are the recipients of the fifth of the

re&enues" and their descendants" the registration of the title to said properties under %ct No.$/ in fa&or of the said defendant !ust +e dee!ed to ha&e +een effected for the +enefit of the +eneficiaries of said properties" part of 4ho! are the present plaintiffs. The doctrineesta+lished +y this court in the case of Severino vs. Severino C hil." --" is applica+le tothis feature of the case.

%lthough the plaintiffs endea&ored to de!onstrate that the said defendants registered thetitle +y fraud" it is our opinion that the alleged fraud has not +een pro&en in this action.Ne&ertheless" the e8istence of fraud is unnecessary to arrant the declaration that registrationof the Title under %ct No. $/ is not a legal o+stacle to this action +rought +y plaintiffs" andthe ad<udication in fa&or of those a!ong the! 4ho are entitled thereto of the portionpertaining to the! of the properties so registered. It 4as said in the case of il+ert vs.

Be4etson C,$ 'inn." -2/" cited 4ith appro&al in the case of Severino vs. Severino, supraK% recei&er" trustee attorney" agent" or any other person occupying fiduciary relationsrespecting property or per sons" is utterly disa+led fro! acuiring for his o4n +enefit theproperty co!!itted to his custody for !anage!ent. 4his rule is entirel* independent of thefact 0hether an* fraud has intervened. :o fraud in fact need be sho0n, and no e-cuse 0ill be heard from the trustee.; C1!phasis ours.

=ith respect to the plea of prescription" counsel for defendants contend that inas!uch asplaintiffs" prior to the filing of the present co!plaint" had !ade no effort to enforce their rightssince the #st day of 'arch" #9/" their action is +arred. 6ut fro! the records it that up to theyear #$22 the defendant ha&e +een recogni)ing in the entries in their +oo?s" and in deeds"such as 18hi+its / and ," signed +y Don %ugusto Tuason de la a)" as grantee" the right of

the descendants of the younger children of the founder to the fifth of the re&enue" andtherefore the trust 4hich this charge i!plies@ further!ore" said defendants !ade pay!entson account of the fifth of the re&enue. These acts of recognition and pay!ents" !ade duringthe said period of ti!e" pre&ent the operation of prescription. Section 50" *ode of *i&ilrocedure.

Further!ore" this +eing a case 4hich deals 4ith a trust 4hich su+sisted fro! the ti!e of itsfoundation and +y &irtue thereof up to 'arch #" #9/" and thereafter do4n to the presentti!e +y the e8press 4ill of the present parties" the defense of prescription cannot +eentertained. 6y &irtue of the said trust the possession of the said defendants could not +eregarded as a +asis for an acuisiti&e prescription in their fa&or against the plaintiffs +ecausesuch possession has not +een nor is it under clai! of o4nership" +ut a title held in the na!e

and on +ehalf of the +eneficiaries" so!e of 4ho! are the plaintiffs in general. For this reasonthe defense of prescription cannot +e enforced +et4een the trustee and the +eneficiaries4hile the trust relations continue" as 4as i!pliedly held in the case of the /overnment of thePhilippine 8slands vs. AbadillaC/ hil." /2. C8bid ." pp. $-97$0.

Strictly spea?ing there 4as no alteration in the nature of the action then co!!enced +y the plaintiffs.They clai!ed inde!nity for da!ages in the a!ount of half a !illion pesos +elie&ing that theregistration of the real properties of the ma*orazgo in fa&or of the defendants and the issuance of the corresponding certificates of title" !ade the latter the e8clusi&e o4ners thereof@ +ut this court



held that a trust +eing in&ol&ed" the titles should +e under stood as issued in fa&or of all the co7proprietors" a!ong the! the plaintiffs" and in &ie4 of this ruling the plaintiffs 4ere declared entitled"not to an inde!nity" +ut to a participation in one7fifth of the aforesaid properties. Fro! this it follo4sthat" although the plaintiffs 4ere granted a relief different fro! that they had as?ed for" the rights4hich they in&o?ed fro! the &ery +eginning and upon 4hich they +ased the action 4hich they+egan" 4ere" ne&ertheless" the sa!e to 4it" their rights as relati&es or descendants of the founder of

the ma*orazgo. They erred in the choice of the re!edy to 4hich they 4ere entitled" +ut they did notchange the essential ground of the action. In either case the right 4hich they 4anted to enforce 4asthe sa!e" +ut it de&eloped that the adeuate re!edy 4as not the" one they as?ed for +ut thatgranted to the! +y the court.

In their ninth assigned error the appellants contend that the court erred in declaring null and &oid asto one7half the sales of their participations e8ecuted +y the inter&enors 'ariano %renas" 1stanislaoa

%renas" 3ulio Tuason" Se&erino Tuason" 1ncarnacion Ro<o" and *andelaria Ro<o in fa&or of the saiddefendants7appellants.

The referee in fact declared said sales null and &oid as to one7half" either +ecause the &endors 4erethe ones 4ho recei&ed the re&enue or +ecause they had i!!ediate successors at the ti!e the

Disentailing Statute too? effect in the Islands. The court sustained the referee.=ithout going into an e8tended discussion" 4e rule that the said inter&enors7&endors cannot no4uestion the &alidity of the aforesaid sales +ecause their action has pre scri+ed and they are no4 inestoppel +y laches. %ll that 4e said in this connection in the appeal of the >egardas !ay +e ta?en asreproduced herein. The !ost recent sale 4as !ade in #$#/ and the first co!plaint of inter&entionuestioning the &alidity of the sales 4as filed in #$2/" that is" after the lapse of !ore than ten years.During all this ti!e the defendants 4ere in the en<oy!ent of the said participations 4ithout anyprotest or clai! of any ?ind fro! any of the &endors. The ti!e that has elapsed is !ore than thatreuired for the prescription of the action to annul the sales" and estops the inter&enors7&endorsfro! uestioning their &alidity.

=e find the error assigned tena+le.

The tenth assigned error reuires no discussion +ecause it 4as !ade conditionally" that is" in thee&ent that the preceding one is not 4ell7founded and is not sustained.

Various inter&enors or their predecessors sold their participations in the fifth of the ma*orazgo 4hichca!e fro! the younger children 4ith succession as 4ell as fro! those 4ithout succession" fa&or of the defendants. The referee last appointed 4as of the opinion that the sales of the participations4hich ca!e fro! the younger children 4ith succession" 4ere &alid" +ut not those 4hich ca!e fro!the younger children 4ho died 4ithout succession. In its decision the court disappro&ed thisconclusion and held that all the sales 4ere &alid. 6ut in its order of %pril 9" #$-#" in passing upondifferent !otions of reconsideration" it concurred in the opinion of the referee and ruled that the salesof the participations co!ing fro! the younger children 4ithout succession 4ere null and &oid

+ecause undeter!ined rights 4ere trans!itted there+y.

=e rule that the ele&enth assigned error is 4ell founded and that the sales in uestion are as &alidas those !ade of the participations co!ing. fro! the younger children 4ith succession. %nd on thispoint 4e repeat 4hat 4e already said in the appeal of the >egardas" in resol&ing a si!ilar case" thatpursuant to the pro&isions of article /5, of the *i&il *ode" successory rights are trans!itted fro! thedeath of the person lea&ing the hereditary estate" 4here fore. it cannot +e said that in theafore!entioned sales undeter!ined rights 4ere con&eyed. It is true that on the dates of the sales"



the a!ount of the participations sold 4ere not yet deter!ined" +ut dou+tless it could +e fi8ed andreduced to figures through the appraisal and liuidation pro&ided for +y the Disentailing Statute.

The t4el&e and last assigned error states that the court should ha&e reuired the referee to file ana!ended report pursuant to the order of %pril 9" #$-#. The error" if any is no ground for either !odification or re&ersal. There is no dou+t that the referee should file his a!ended and final report"

+ut this !ay +e prepared and su+!itted for appro&al after the appeals ha&e +een disposed of andthe present decision has +eco!e final. =e find no !erit in this assigned error.

Su!!ari)ing 4hat has +een said in connection 4ith this appeal 4e ha&e

#. That the first" second" third" fourth" fifth" si8th" se&enth" eight" tenth and t4elfth assignederror are 4ithout !erit and !ust +e as they are here+y o&erruled@

2. That the sales e8ecuted +y 'ariano %renas" 1stanislao %renas" 3ulio Tuason" Se&erinoTuason" 1ncarnacion Ro<o and *andelaria Ro<o in fa&or of the defendants are &alid in their entirety@ there+y sustaining the ninth assigned error@ and

-. That the sales e8ecuted +y certain inter&enors or their predecessors of their participationsco!ing fro! the younger children 4ithout succession" in fa&or of the defendants" are &alid@there+y sustaining li?e4ise the ele&enth assigned error.

J$DG%EN#

In &ie4 of all the foregoing considerations" and disposing finally of all the appeals interposed" it isordered

8n case /.1. :o. E#

#. That the appealed decision and order +e a!ended" in the sense that the sales e8ecuted

+y To!asa Tuason de To+ias" >uis Tuason" and edro Tuason" in fa&or of the inter&enors>egarda" are &alid" and that the participations sold there+y should +e ad<udicated in fa&or of said purchasers@

2. That the appealed decision and order +e !odified" in the sense that the sales e8ecuted infa&or of the inter&enors >egarda of the participations co!ing fro! the younger children4ithout succession" are &alid" and" conseuently" said participations should +e ad<udicated infa&or of the said inter&enors@

-. That the appealed decision and order +e !odified" in the ant of Santos >uciano Tuason"should +e ad<udicated in fa&or of the inter&enors7appellants" and

. That the appealed decision and order" in so far as they ha&e +een affected +y the appealinterposed +ut ha&e not +een !odified" are here+y affir!ed@

8n case /.1. :o. E#"F

#. That the aforesaid appealed decision" in so far as it has +een affected +y the appeal interposed +ythe inter&enors7appellants in this case" is here+y affir!ed@

8n case /.1. :o. E#%$



#. That the decision of the court is here+y affir!ed in so far as it has +een affected +y the appealinterposed in this case +y the inter&enors7appellants 1stanislaoa %renas and others@

8n case /.1. :o. E#F"

#. That the appealed decision and order are here+y a!ended" in the sense that the sales

e8ecuted +y 'ariano %renas" 1stanislaoa %renas" 3ulio Tuason" Se&erino Tuason"1ncarnacion Ro<o" and *andelaria Ro<o" in fa&or of the defendants7appellants" are &alid intheir entirety" and conseuently. the participations transferred there+y should +e ad<udicatedto the said purchasers.

2. That the said appealed decision and order +e a!ended in the sense that the salese8ecuted in fa&or of the defend ants7appellants of the participations co!ing fro! the younger children 4ithout succession" are &alid in their entirety" and therefore" said participationsshould +e ad<udicated in fa&or of said defendants7appellants@ and

-. That the said decision and order in so far as they ha&e +een affected +y the appealinterposed in this case +ut ha&e not +een !odified. are here+y affir!ed.

It is li?e4ise ordered that the court of origin ta?e the necessary steps loo?ing to the ad<udication anddistri+ution a!ong the parties entitled thereto of their respecti&e participations" to the end thatthis ma*orazgo case !ay +e definitely closed.

=ithout costs in this instance. So ordered.

AvanceGa, C.J., (alcolm, and 7illa!1eal, JJ., concur.

')ara) O*n*on+

'#REE#, J., concurring

In &ie4 of the fact that our order granting a ne4 trial" reported in )aretto vs. 4uason C50 hil." 999"$//" is considered +y the court to +e so li!ited as to pre&ent further consideration of thefunda!entals" I dee! it unnecessary to repeat the consideration 4hich led !e to dissent in part fro!the conclusions reached at the for!er hearing" and I therefore no4 concur.

($LL, J., C*< C<o/ :on:ur GODDRD an& DIZ, JJ., concurring

I a! constrained to concur in the result" feeling +ound +y the la4 of the case as it e8ist in this

<urisdiction. CSee*o!pagnie Franco7Indochinoise vs. Deutsch7%ustralische Da!pschiffs esllschaft"-$ hil." ," and Larate vs. Director of >ands" -$ hil." ,,. If I 4ere free to &ote on the !erits" I4ould deny all relief to plaintiffs.

3I!ER', J., concurring

In the a+o&e entitled cases I &oted to affir! the decisions of the lo4er court" 4ith the !odificationsproposed +y the ponente" and I here+y authori)e the *hief 3ustice or the 3ustice acting in his placeto certify that I &oted in said cases as hereina+o&e stated.



I certify that Justice J.C. 7ic2ers too? part in the consideration of the a+o&e enu!erated cases" and&oted to affir! the appealed decision" as !odified in the pre&ailing opinion. M %V%N*1Q%" *.3.

-D 'N#O', J., dissenting

I regret that I a! una+le to agree 4ith the pre&ailing opinion in this case 4hich is not only 4ell74ritten

+ut !anifests conscientious and painsta?ing la+or. In !y <udg!ent" ho4e&er" it suffers fro! one &italdefect 4hich is that of ha&ing assu!ed as correct and +inding the rulings laid do4n and conclusionsreached in )arretto vs. 4uason C50 hil." 999. I a! of the opinion C# that these rulings andconclusions are funda!entally erroneous" and C2 that this court is not +ound +y the!.

#. ranting that" as held in the case cited" the ma*orazgo in&ol&ed in this case as a fa!ily trust" thetrust ceased on 'arch #" #9/" 4hen the Disentailing >a4 of Octo+er ##" #920" +eca!e effecti&e inthe hilippines. %s declared +y this court in that case on page $-/ K6ut the entail could not andcannot continue perpetually. Its a+olition 4as decreed +y the statute as of the #st day of 'arch"#9/. Its perpetual sur&i&al 4ould contrary" not only to the Disentailing >a4 of Octo+er ##" #920" +utalso the *i&il *ode in force 4hich" under articles ,9# and ,95" paragraph 2" positi&ely prohi+itsperpetual entails.K %fter 'arch #" #9/" the trust" as such" could not legally e8ist" irrespecti&e of the

su+seuent conduct of the parties concerned.

The effect of the effect of the Disentailing >a4 4as to &est in the cestui or +eneficiary +oth the+eneficial and legal o4nership of the trust property" su+<ect only to the conditions prescri+ed under articles 2 and - of the >a4 as to the right of alienation. This ga&e the cestui his heirs or assigns" theright to possession of the trust property. The e8ercise of this right 4as su+<ect to the la4 on theprescription of actions for the enforce!ent of rights of such nature. The record sho4s that theoriginal action in these cases 4as not +rought until %ugust 2" #$2-" long after the statute of li!itations had run against it.

1&en granting that after the ter!ination of the fa!ily trust" a resulting trust arose +y reason of thesu+seuent conduct of the parties concerned" it appears fro! the stipulation of facts that such aresulting trust 4as repudiated ten years prior to the filing of the original co!plaint in these cases@and" +y the pre&ailing cases" the general statutes of li!itations are applica+le to resulting trusts. C-$*yc." /0/. KIt is generally held that the rule that the statute of li!itations does not run in fa&or of atrustee against the cestui que trust applies only to e8press trusts" and that i!plied or constructi&etrusts are 4ithin the operation of the statute" so that a suit to i!pose and enforce such a trust !ay+eco!e +arred. Thus 4hene&er a person ta?es possession of property in his o4n and is after4ard+y !atter of e&idence or +y construction of la4 changed into a trusteeJ" the statute !ay +e pleaded.This is true a fortiori 4here plaintiff see?s his re!edy in a court of la4 ha&ing no euity <urisdiction. Inthe case of a constructi&e or i!plied trust" e8cept 4here the trust is i!posed on the ground of fraud4hich is not i!!ediately disco&ered" or there has +een a fraudulent conceal!ent of the cause of action" the statute +egins to run in fa&or of the party chargea+le as trustee fro! the ti!e 4hen the4rong is done +y 4hich he +eco!es thus chargea+le" or the ti!e 4hen the +eneficiary can asserthis rights@ not fro! the ti!e 4hen de!and is !ade on the trustee" or the trust is repudiated +y hi!"

for no repudiation of an i!plied or constructi&e trust is ordinarily necessary to !ature a right of actionand set the statute in !otion.K C20 *yc." ##557##59.

2. This court is not +ound +y the rules laid do4n and conclusions reached in )arretto vs. 4uason,supra. In this connection" it should +e o+ser&ed at the outset that nothing has +een ad<udicated inthat case. It is true that" at first" an ad<udication 4as !ade therein" +ut on !otion for areconsideration it 4as ordered

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8



Cb That the dispositi&e part of our decision in this cause +e set aside.

Cc That the record in the present case" together 4ith the petitions of inter&ention !entioned"+e returned to the *ourt of First Instance of 'anila in order that the ne4 parties !ayinter&ene in this cause and pro&e their alleged rights" and that the original plaintiffs !ay" if they so desire" a!end their co!plaint.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Ce That said *ourt of First Instance proceed to try this cause and render <udg!ent as to thea!ount to 4hich the original parties and those 4ho !ay inter&ene !ay +e entitled as their participation in the fifth of the properties of this ma*orazgo.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

It see!s clear" therefore" that the case should not as it in fact does not" a precedent.

'oreo&er" it should +e +orne in !ind that the co!!on la4 doctrine of stare decisis has not strictly

follo4ed in this <urisdiction. =hat has +een follo4ed here is the %!erican theory of precedent 4hichrecogni)es that K*ase >a4 is not 4holly +ound +y the rules of past generations. It is a !yth of thela4J" that stare decisis is i!pregna+le or is anything !ore than a salutary !a8i! to pro!ote <ustice.

%lthough certainty is the &ery essence of the la4J" the la4 !ay +e changed +y the courts +yre&ersing or !odifying a rule 4hen the rule has +een de!onstrated to +e erroneous either throughfailure of adeuate presentation of proper consideration" or consideration out of due ti!e of theearlier case" or 4hen through changed conditions it has +eco!e o+&iously har!ful or detri!ental tosociety.J K Cound" KSo!e Recent hases of the 1&olution of *ase >a4K" ale >a4 3ournal :#$22;"&ol. HHHI" pp. -/#" -/-.

In Bert) vs. =ood!an C2#9 E. S." 205" 2#2@ -0 Sup. *t." /2#" /22 :#$#0;" the Supre!e *ourt of theEnited States" through 3ustice >urton said KThe *ircuit *ourt of %ppeals 4as o+&iously not +ound to

follo4 its o4n prior decision. The rule of stare decisis" though one tending to consistency andunifor!ity of decision" is not fle8i+le. =hether it shall +e follo4ed or departed fro! is a uestionentirely 4ithin the discretion of the court" 4hich is again called upon to consider a uestion oncedecided.K

%nd in %da!s 18p. *o. vs. 6ec?4ith C#00 Ohio St." -9" -5#" -52@ #2/ N. 1." -00" -0#" :#$#$;" theSupre!e *ourt of Ohio said K% decided case is 4orth as !uch as it 4eighs in reason andrighteousness" and no !ore. It is not enough to say thus saith the court.J It !ust pro&e its right tocontrol in any gi&en situation +y the degree in 4hich its supports the rights of a party &iolated andser&es the causes of <ustice as to all parties concerned.K

The present tendency of %!erican decisions is strongly a4ay fro! the strict 1nglish doctrine of staredecisis" and to4ards the ci&ilian theory of precedents. Coodhart" 1ssays in 3urisprudence and the*o!!on >a4" pp. 50" 5#" /5. The ci&ilian theory" as e8e!plified +y the French practice" has +eenstated +y rof. >a!+ert of the Eni&ersity of >yons in an article pu+lished in the ale >a4 3ournal KInFrance" the <udicial precedent does not" ipso facto" +ind either the tri+unals 4hich esta+lished it nor the lo4er courts@ and the *ourt of *assation itself retains the right to go +ac? on its o4n decisions.The courts of appeal !ay oppose a doctrine proclai!ed +y the *ourt of *assation" and thisopposition has so!eti!es led to a change of opinion on the part of the higher court. The practice of the courts does not +eco!e a source of the la4 until it is definitely fi8ed +y the repetition of precedents 4hich are in agree!ent on a single point.K CKThe *ase 'ethod in *anada and theossi+ilities of its %doptation to the *i&il >a4K" ale >a4 3ournal :#$2$;" &ol. HHHIH" pp. #" #.



In a recent case" spea?ing of the doctrine of stare decisis" this court said

Is the court 4ith ne4 !e!+ership co!pelled to follo4 +lindly the doctrine of the Velascocase The rule of stare decisis is entitled to respect. Sta+ility in the la4" particularly in the+usiness field" is desira+le. 6ut idolatrous re&erence for precedent" si!ply as precedent" nolonger rules. 'ore i!portant than anything else is that the court should +e right. %nd

particularly it is not 4ise to su+ordinate legal reason to case la4 and +y so doing perpetuateerror 4hen it is +rought to !ind that the &ie4s no4 e8pressed confor! in principle to theoriginal decision and that since the first decision to the contrary 4as sent forth there hase8isted a respecta+le opinion of non7confor!ity in the court. Indeed" on at least oneoccasion has the court +ro?en a4ay fro! the re&a!ped doctrine" 4hile e&en in the last casein point the court 4as e&enly di&ided as it 4as possi+le to +e and still reach a decision.Chilippine Trust *o!pany and S!ith" 6ell *o!panyvs. 'itchell" p. -0" ante.

In conclusion" I +elie&e that 4hate&er rights of action the plaintiffs in these cases !ight ha&e had"ha&e either +een +ared +y laches or prescri+ed. Bence they should ta?e nothing +y their actions.

-$##E, J., dissenting

I a! of the opinion that the assign!ents of error of the defendants7appellants nu!+ered #" 2" -" " 5"/ and 9 should +e sustained and I" therefore" dissent.

% Torrens title 4as issued to the defendants7appellants in #$#5 under the pro&isions of the >andRegistration %ct C%ct No. $/. This court has repeatedly held that such titles are final" irre&oca+leand incontesta+le.

Fro! #9,9" 4hen DoPa Teresa de la a) succeeded to the estate of her child" 3ose VictorianoTuason" she held possession as o4ner until her death in #9$0 4hen the property passed to thedefendants all of 4ho! are direct descendants of DoPa Teresa de la a)" Fro! #9,9 to #$2- 4henthe present action 4as co!!enced M that is for forty7fi&e years" the defendants and their

predecessors in title held possession as o4ners. They ha&e" therefore" acuired a title +yprescription. C%rticles /" ," #$5$ and #$/0" *i&il *ode. See also Gineald vs. *a+ututan" -5 hil."-9-" 0/.

The si8th clause of the instru!ent creating this estate tail Cma*orazgo dated Fe+ruary 25" #,$" didnot create a fa!ily trust. Nor is there any e&idence sho4ing that the appellees or their predecessorsin title co!e 4ithin the language of the si8th clause of that instru!ent 4hich" at !ost" !ight +econstrued to +e precatory trust. Nor 4as that precatory trust indeter!ina+le. The possi+le+eneficiaries thereof no longer e8isted in 'arch #" #9/ 4hen the Spanish Statute of Disentail!ent4as e8tended to the hilippine Islands. It is to +e noted that article of the Statute of Disentail!entpro&ided for the ter!ination of fa!ily trust.

The Statute of Disentail!ent" effecti&e in the hilippines on 'arch #" #9/" a+olished estates tail

and pro&ided that all properties entailed are restored to the class of a+solutely free properties. Thepossessors of entailed estates 4ere e!po4ered at once to freely dispose of one7half of the entailedproperty" the other half to pass to the i!!ediate successor to the title" 4ho 4as e!po4ered todispose of it freely as o4ner. Ender these pro&isions" after the death of 3ose Tuason" his heir" on3anuary 25" #9,$" Teresa de la a) too? the title in fee si!ple to all the properties in&ol&ed in thisentailed estate. The plaintiffs" 4ho at this late date see? to i!press said title 4ith a trust" are guilty of e8tre!e laches.

The Torrens title issued to the defendants in #$#5 should +e sustained.



Tordilla v TordillaEN BANC

[G.R. No. 39547. May 3, 1934.]

In re Intestate estate of the deeased !ran"so #ord"$$a, GA%&ENCIA #'R&I((A, Petitioner- Appellee, ). M'I*E* #'R&I((A, o++onenta++e$$ant.

Man$y - Reyes for Appellant .

'a+o - Cea and B/ena)ent/ra B$anaf$or for Appellee.

*0((AB%*

1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; PROPERTY SUBJECT TO COLLATION; ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY

DONATED. — Appellant’s !ntent"!n "n #"s t#"$% ass"&n'ent !( e$$!$ t#at) *#e$e e$ta"n +al,e "s state% "n a%ee% !( %!nat"!n) t#at +al,e ann!t -e ,est"!ne% *#en t#e p$!pe$t"es a$e -$!,&#t "nt! !llat"!n) "s

"n!$$et) as a$t"le 1/0 !( t#e C"+"l C!%e p$!+"%es (!$ t#e assess'ent !( t#e p$!pe$t2 at "ts at,al +al,e att#e t"'e !( t#e %!nat"!n. T#e at,al +al,e at t#e t"'e !( t#e %!nat"!n "s a ,est"!n !( (at *#"# ',st -e

esta-l"s#e% -2 p$!!( t#e sa'e as an2 !t#e$ (at.

3. ID.; ID.; FRUITS AND INTEREST. — T#e ($,"ts an% "nte$est p$!%,e% -2 p$!pe$t2 s,-4et t! !llat"!n ',st-e ase$ta"ne% ,n%e$ a$t"le 1/05 !( t#e C"+"l C!%e. 6See 7,"n&,"n& +. A-,t!n an% A-,t!n) 08 P#"l.) 100.9

:. ID.; CONTRACTS IT< RESPECT TO FUTURE IN<ERITANCE. — T#e se!n% p!$t"!n !( !nt$at E=#"-"t <lea$l2 $elates t! t#e ant""pate% (,t,$e "n#e$"tane an%) t#e$e(!$e) "s n,ll an% +!"% ,n%e$ t#e p$!+"s"!ns !(

a$t"le 13>1 !( t#e C"+"l C!%e.

0. ID.; ARTICLE 80/) CI?IL CODE) STILL IN FORCE. — T#e attent"!n !( t#e !,$t *as n!t alle% t! an2 ase"n *#"# a$t"le 80/ !( t#e C"+"l C!%e #as -een t$eate% as ent"$el2 an% !'pletel2 $epeale%) an% In $e

Intestate Estate !( Ta%@Y 60 P#"l.) >9) (!ll!*e%.

& E C I * I ' N

%((, J.2

T#"s "s an appeal ($!' a %e"s"!n !( t#e C!,$t !( F"$st Instane !( Ca'a$"nes S,$ p$!+"%"n& (!$ t#e%"st$"-,t"!n !( t#e estate !( !ne F$an"s! T!$%"lla) *#! %"e% "ntestate "n Na&a) Ca'a$"nes S,$) !n Dee'-e$

18) 153) lea+"n& as #"s !nl2 #e"$s #"s *"%!*) a le&"t"'ate s!n) t#e %e(en%ant an% appellant) an% a$e!&n"e% nat,$al %a,&#te$) pet"t"!ne$ an% appellee.

It '"&#t -e sa"% -2 *a2 !( "nt$!%,t"!n t#at t#e $e!$% "s +!l,'"n!,s an% t#at 'an2 ,est"!ns !( (at !,l%#a+e -een lea$l2 esta-l"s#e% -2 %"$et 'eans $at#e$ t#an t! lea+e t#e ,est"!n "n %!,-t -2 p$esent"n& !nl2"$,'stant"al e+"%ene. T#"s "s espe"all2 t$,e as t! t#e ("$st an% se!n% ass"&n'ents !( e$$!$ *#"# $ea% 4&#an$!-les.!'.p#

I. In "nl,%"n& "n t#e pa$t"t"!n t#at $es"%ent"al l!t !nta"n"n& ::3 s,a$e 'ete$s an% '!$e (,ll2 %es$"-e%

as pa$el 639 "n t#e %e"s"!n 65@>/ R. A.9 .

II. In "nl,%"n& ten 61/9 a$a-a!s an% s"= 69 attle 6Ite's 8 an% 5 "n De. at pp. >/@>1 R. A.9 a'!n& t#ep$!pe$t"es pa$t"t"!ne% an% "n n!t #!l%"n& t#at sa"% an"'als %! n!t e="st an% ne+e$ a'e t! t#e p!ssess"!n !(

t#e estate.$ala*+"$t,a1a*l"-$a$2



In a p$"!$ p$!ee%"n& -et*een t#e %eease% an% a t#"$% pa$t2) t#e t#"$% pa$t2 *as &"+en a $"&#t t!$ep,$#ase t#e lan% t#e$e "n ,est"!n. B,t t#e (at) stan%"n& al!ne) %!es n!t $e'!+e t#e l!t ($!' t#e

p$!pe$t"es le(t -2 t#e %eease%. T#e (at "s *#et#e$ !$ n!t t#e t#"$% pa$t2 #a% e=e$"se% #"s !pt"!n t!$ep,$#ase. T#at (at *as *ell n!*n t! appellant an% *as eas"l2 s,sept"-le !( %e("n"te an% a,$ate p$!!(.

<e #as seen ("t t! lea+e t#e $e!$% "n %!,-t an%) t#e$e(!$e) t#e ("n%"n& !( t#e t$"al !,$t *"ll n!t -e%"st,$-e%.

T#e sa'e $e'a$s a$e t$,e as t! t#e n,'-e$ !( a$a-a!s an% attle t#at t#e %eease% #a% at t#e t"'e !( #"s%eat#.

T#e !ntent"!n !( appellant "n t#e t#"$% ass"&n'ent !( e$$!$ "s t#at) *#e$e a e$ta"n +al,e "s state% "n a %ee%!( %!nat"!n) t#at +al,e ann!t -e ,est"!ne% *#en t#e p$!pe$t"es a$e -$!,&#t "nt! !llat"!n. T#"s "s

"n!$$et) as a$t"le 1/0 !( t#e C"+"l C!%e p$!+"%es (!$ t#e assess'ent !( t#e p$!pe$t2 at "ts at,al +al,at"!nat t#e t"'e !( %!nat"!n. T#e $e"tal "n t#e %ee% ann!t t#e$e(!$e -e !nt$!ll"n&. T#e at,al +al,e at t#e t"'e!( t#e %!nat"!n "s a ,est"!n !( (at *#"# ',st -e esta-l"s#e% -2 p$!!( t#e sa'e as an2 !t#e$ (at.

T#e (!,$t# ass"&n'ent !( e$$!$ "s n!t *ell taen. T#e !$"&"nal test"'!n2 *as taen -2 a !''"ss"!ne$) an%t#e $ep!$t !( t#e !''"ss"!ne$ *"t# t#e e+"%ene *as st$"en ($!' t#e ("les !n '!t"!n (!$ appellant.T#e$ea(te$ t#e pa$t"es a&$ee% t! s,-'"t t#e ase (!$ t#e %e"s"!n !( t#e t$"al !,$t !n t#e e+"%ene taen -2t#e !''"ss"!ne$. S,# a p$!e%,$e *a"+e% t#e e$$!ne!,s $,l"n& !n e+"%ene -2 t#e !''"ss"!ne$. T#e

appellant s#!,l% #a+e $ese$+e% t#e $"&#t t! "nt$!%,e% a%%"t"!nal e+"%ene an% s#!,l% #a+e ten%e$e% t#ep$!pe$ e+"%ene "n t#e t$"al !,$t. T#e t$"al !,$t) *"t# ',# e=pe$"ene) an% a(te$ st,%2 !( t#e e+"%ene

p$!%,e%) #el% t#at t#e at,al +al,e !( !ne !( t#e p$!pe$t"es *as &$eate$ t#an t#at $e"te% "n t#e %ee% !(%!nat"!n) an% als! ("=e% t#e ($,"ts an% "n!'e ($!' t#e %!nate% p$!pe$t"es at a #"&#e$ ("&,$e t#an appellant

t#!,&#t 4,st. T#e ($,"ts an% "nte$est p$!%,e% -2 p$!pe$t2 s,-4et t! !llat"!n ',st -e ase$ta"ne% ,n%e$a$t"le 1/05 !( t#e C"+"l C!%e. 6See 7,"n&,"n& +. A-,t!n an% A-,t!n) 08 P#"l.) 100.9 T#e$e "s s!'e %!,-t "n

!,$ '"n% as t! t#e $eal +al,e !( t#e pa$el "n ,est"!n an% t#e a'!,nt !( t#e "n!'e ($!' t#e %!nate%p$!pe$t"es. B,t *e ann!t state ($!' t#e ($a&'enta$2 e+"%ene *#"# #as -een -$!,&#t t! !,$ attent"!n t#att#e !p"n"!n !( t#e t$"al !,$t "s !nt$a$2 t! t#e *e"&#t !( t#e e+"%ene) an%) "n ase t#!se ("&,$es a$e"n!$$et) *#at a$e t#e !$$et ("&,$es.

On t#e ,est"!ns !( (at %ealt *"t# "n t#e ("(t# an% s"=t# ass"&n'ents !( e$$!$) a(te$ %,e !ns"%e$at"!n) *e#a+e %ete$'"ne% t! -e &,"%e% -2 t#e 4,%&'ent !( t#e t$"al !,$t.

T#e se+ent#) e"&#t#) an% n"nt# ass"&n'ents !( e$$!$ $e(e$ t! t#e +al"%"t2 !( E=#"-"t <) a !nt$at ente$e% "nt!-et*een t#e appellee an% t#e appellant "n an!t#e$ ase an% s"&ne% s#!$tl2 -e(!$e t#e %eat# !( t#e"$ (at#e$.T#e !nt$at "s "n t#e nat,$e !( a !'p$!'"se an% !+e$e% t*! "te's) na'el2) ("$st) t#e s,pp!$t !( t#e

nat,$al %a,&#te$ *#"# t#e -$!t#e$ a&$ee% t! ass,'e (!$ !ne 2ea$ an%) se!n%) a p$!p!se% %"+"s"!n !( t#e"$(,t,$e "n#e$"tane ,p!n t#e %eat# !( t#e"$ (at#e$. It "s ass,'e% t#at appellant #as !'pl"e% *"t# #"s te$'s !( t#e !nt$at) an% t#e (at#e$ %"e% -e(!$e t#e !-l"&at"!n !( t#e -$!t#e$ te$'"nate%. T#e se!n% p!$t"!n !( t#e!nt$at E=#"-"t < lea$l2 $elates t! t#e ant""pate% (,t,$e "n#e$"tane an%) t#e$e(!$e) "s n,ll an% +!"% ,n%e$t#e p$!+"s"!ns !( a$t"le 13>1 !( t#e C"+"l C!%e *#"# $ea%s 4&#an$!-les.!'.p#

ART. 13>1. All t#"n&s) e+en (,t,$e !nes) *#"# a$e n!t !,t !( t#e !''e$e !( 'an) 'a2 -e t#e s,-4et@

'atte$ !( !nt$ats.

Ne+e$t#eless) n! !nt$at 'a2 -e ente$e% "nt! *"t# $espet t! (,t,$e "n#e$"tanes) e=ept t#!se t#e !-4et!( *#"# "s t! 'ae a %"+"s"!n "nte$+"+!s !( t#e estate) "n a!$%ane *"t# a$t"le 1/.

An2 se$+"es n!t !nt$a$2 t! la* !$ t! &!!% '!$als 'a2 als! -e t#e s,-4et@'atte$ !( a !nt$at.$ala*+"$t,a1a*l"-$a$2

T#e at"!n !( t#e t$"al !,$t "n #!l%"n& E=#"-"t < t! -e ,n!nt$!+e$te% an% p$e%"at"n& "ts ("nal at"!n !n t#e

te$'s !( t#at %!,'ent *as e$$!ne!,s an% !nt$a$2 t! la*.

T#e tent# ass"&n'ent !( e$$!$ $ea%s In a%4,%"at"n& t! t#e nat,$al %a,&#te$ t#e sa'e s#a$e !$ a'!,nt !(p$!pe$t"es as t#at a%4,%"ate% t! t#e le&"t"'ate s!n. T#"s ass"&n'ent !( e$$!$ "s -ase% !n a$t"le 80/ !( t#e

C"+"l C!%e *#"# p$!+"%es 4&#an$!-les.!'.p#

ART. 80/. #en t#e testat!$ lea+es le&"t"'ate #"l%$en !$ %esen%ants) an% als! nat,$al #"l%$en) le&all2an!*le%&e%) ea# !( t#e latte$ s#all -e ent"tle% t! !ne@#al( !( t#e p!$t"!n pe$ta"n"n& t! ea# !( t#e

le&"t"'ate #"l%$en *#! #a+e n!t $ee"+e% an2 -ette$'ent) p$!+"%e% t#at a s,((""ent a'!,nt $e'a"ns !( t#e%"sp!sa-le p!$t"!n) ($!' *#"# "t ',st -e taen) a(te$ t#e -,$"al an% (,ne$al e=penses #a+e -een pa"%.



T#e le&"t"'ate #"l%$en 'a2 pa2 t#e p!$t"!n pe$ta"n"n& t! t#e nat,$al !nes "n as#) !$ "n !t#e$ p$!pe$t2 !(

t#e estate) at a (a"$ +al,at"!n.$ala*+"$t,a1a*l"-$a$2

Appellee !nten%s t#at a$t"le 80/ !( t#e C"+"l C!%e #as -een $epeale% -2 t#e C!%e !( C"+"l P$!e%,$e) -ase%!n t#e state'ent !( t#"s !,$t "n C!nep"!n +. J!se 60 P#"l.) 8/59. It "s t$,e t#at "n t#e 'a4!$"t2 %e"s"!n "nt#at ase "t speas !( a$t"le 80/ -e"n& $epeale%. #"le) *"t# t#e ,est"!n t#e$e !ns"%e$e%) na'el2) ($!'

*#e$e t#e (,ne$al e=penses s#!,l% -e taen) t#e C!%e !( C"+"l P$!e%,$e #an&e% t#e $,le as t! t#!se "te's($!' *#at #a% (!$'e$l2 -een "n t#e C"+"l C!%e) -2 $ea%"n& t#e *#!le %e"s"!n *e #a+e n! #es"tan2 "nsa2"n& t#at *#at t#e !,$t t#en #a% "n '"n% *as n!t a $epeal !( t#e a$t"le -,t "n (at 'e$el2 a '!%"("at"!nt#e$e!(. In t#e ase !( In $e Intestate Estate !( Ta%@Y) (!,n% "n t#e sa'e +!l,'e 60 P#"l.) >9) t#"s !,$t)spea"n& t#$!,&# t#e C#"e( J,st"e) appl"e% a$t"le 80/ !( t#e C"+"l C!%e "n t#e (!ll!*"n& lan&,a&e 4&#an$!-les.!'.p#

T! %ete$'"ne t#e s#a$e t#at pe$ta"ns t! t#e nat,$al #"l% *#"# "s -,t !ne@#al( !( t#e p!$t"!n t#at "n ,al"t2an% ,ant"t2 -el!n&s t! t#e le&"t"'ate #"l% n!t -ette$e%) t#e latte$’s p!$t"!n ',st ("$st -e ase$ta"ne%. I( a*"%!* s#a$es "n t#e "n#e$"tane) t!&et#e$ *"t# !nl2 !ne le&"t"'ate #"l%) as "n t#e "nstant ase) t#e #"l%

&ets) a!$%"n& t! t#e la*) t#e t#"$% !nst"t,t"n& t#e le&"t"'ate "n (,ll !*ne$s#"p) an% t#e t#"$% a+a"la-le (!$-ette$'ent "n nae% !*ne$s#"p) t#e ,s,($,t !( *#"# &!es t! t#e *"%!*. T#en t#e nat,$al #"l% ',st &et!ne@#al( !( t#e ($ee t#"$% "n (,ll !*ne$s#"p an% t#e !t#e$ #al( !( t#"s t#"$% "n nae% !*ne$s#"p) ($!' *#"#t#"$% #"s p!$t"!n ',st -e taen) s! (a$ as p!ss"-le) a(te$ %e%,t"n& t#e (,ne$al an% -,$"al e=penses. . . . . $ala*+"$t,a1a*l"-$a$2

O,$ attent"!n #as n!t -een alle% t! an2 ase "n *#"# t#"s !,$t #as t$eate% a$t"le 80/ as ent"$el2 an%

!'pletel2 $epeale%.

e a$e t#e$e(!$e !( t#e !p"n"!n t#at t#"s ase ',st -e %"sp!se% !( a!$%"n& t! t#e a-!+e ,!tat"!n ($!'t#e ase !( Ta%@Y.

T#e ele+ent# ass"&n'ent !( e$$!$ $elates t! a 'atte$ !( a!,ntan2 *#"# t#e !,$t !$%e$e% t! tae plaea(te$ "ts !$"&"nal %e"s"!n #a% -e!'e "n (!$e an% nee%s n! (,$t#e$ %"s,ss"!n at t#"s t"'e.

T#e %e"s"!n an% !$%e$s !( t#e t$"al !,$t ',st t#e$e(!$e -e $e+e$se% an% t#e ase $e'an%e% (!$ (,$t#e$p$!ee%"n&s !ns!nant *"t# t#"s !p"n"!n. C!sts a&a"nst appellee. S! !$%e$e%.

Mal!l') ?"lla@Real) I'pe$"al an% 7!%%a$%) JJ.) !n,$.

a!oneta v "ustiloG.R. No. 1641 January 19, 1906

GER%N J-ONE#, plaintiff7appellant"&s.RI!RDO G$'#ILO, E# L., defendants7appellees.

edesma, Sumulong and 'uintos for appellant.Del!Pan, 9rtigas and 6isher for appellees.

!R'ON, J.:

In these proceedings pro+ate 4as denied the last 4ill and testa!ent of 'acario 3a+oneta"deceased" +ecause the lo4er court 4as of the opinion fro! the e&idence adduced at the hearing that3ulio 3a&ellana" one of the 4itnesses" did not attach his signature thereto in the presence of Isa+elo



3ena" another of the 4itnesses" as reuired +y the pro&isions of section /#9 of the *ode of *i&ilrocedure.

The follo4ing is a copy of the e&idence 4hich appears of record on this particular point" +eing a partof the testi!ony of the said Isa+eo 3ena

(. #/# =ho first signed the 4ill

%. #/# I signed it first" and after4ards %niceto and the others.

(. #/# =ho 4ere those others to 4ho! you ha&e <ust referred

%. #/# %fter the 4itness %niceto signed the 4ill I left the house" +ecause I 4as in ahurry" and at the !o!ent 4hen I 4as lea&ing I sa4 3ulio 3a&ellana 4ith the pen in his hand inposition ready to sign Cen actitud de firmar . I +elie&e he signed" +ecause he 4as at theta+le. . . .

(. #/# State positi&ely 4hether 3ulio 3a&ellana did or did not sign as a 4itness to the4ill.

%. #/# I canJt say certainly" +ecause as I 4as lea&ing the house I sa4 3ulio 3a&ellana4ith the pen in his hand" in position ready to sign. I +elie&e he signed.

(. #/# =hy do you +elie&e 3ulio 3a&ellana signed

%. #/# 6ecause he had the pen in his hand" 4hich 4as resting on the paper" though Idid not actually see hi! sign.

(. #/# 18plain this contradictory state!ent.

%. #/# %fter I signed I as?ed per!ission to lea&e" +ecause I 4as in a hurry" and 4hileI 4as lea&ing 3ulio had already ta?en the pen in his hand" as it appeared" for the purpose of signing" and 4hen I 4as near the door I happened to turn !y face and I sa4 that he had hishand 4ith the pen resting on the 4ill" !o&ing it as if for the purpose of signing.

(. #/# State positi&ely 4hether 3ulio !o&ed his hand 4ith the pen as if for thepurpose of signing" or 4hether he 4as signing

%. I +elie&e he 4as signing.

The truth and accuracy of the testi!ony of this 4itness does not see! to ha&e +een uestioned +yany of the parties to the proceedings" +ut the court" ne&ertheless" found the follo4ing facts

On the 2/th day of Dece!+er" #$0#" 'acario 3a+oneta e8ecuted under the follo4ingcircu!stances the docu!ent in uestion" 4hich has +een presented for pro+ate as his 4ill

6eing in the house of %rcadio 3arandilla" in 3aro" in this pro&ince" he ordered that thedocu!ent in uestion +e 4ritten" and calling 3ulio 3a&ellana" %niceto 3al+uena" and Isa+elo



3ena as 4itnesses" e8ecuted the said docu!ent as his 4ill. They 4ere all together" and 4erein the roo! 4here 3a+oneta 4as" and 4ere present 4hen he signed the docu!ent" Isa+elo3ena signing after4ards as a 4itness" at his reuest" and in his presence and in thepresence of the other t4o 4itnesses. %niceto 3al+uena then signed as a 4itness in thepresence of the testator" and in the presence of the other t4o persons 4ho signed as4itnesses. %t that !o!ent Isa+elo 3ena" +eing in a hurry to lea&e" too? his hat and left the

roo!. %s he 4as lea&ing the house 3ulio 3a&ellana too? the pen in his hand and put hi!self in position to sign the 4ill as a 4itness" +ut did not sign in the presence of Isa+elo 3ena@ +utne&ertheless" after 3ena had left the roo! the said 3ulio 3a&ellana signed as a 4itness in thepresence of the testator and of the 4itness %niceto 3al+uena.

=e can not agree 4ith so !uch of the a+o&e finding of facts as holds that the signature of 3a&ellana4as not signed in the presence of 3ena" in co!pliance 4ith the pro&isions of section /#9 of the *odeof *i&il rocedure. The fact that 3ena 4as still in the roo! 4hen he sa4 3a&ellana !o&ing his handand pen in the act of affi8ing his signature to the 4ill" ta?en together 4ith the testi!ony of there!aining 4itnesses 4hich sho4s that 3a&ellana did in fact there and then sign his na!e to the 4ill"con&inces us that the signature 4as affi8ed in the presence of 3ena. The fact that he 4as in the actof lea&ing" and that his +ac? 4as turned 4hile a portion of the na!e of the 4itness 4as +eing 4ritten"is of no i!portance. Be" 4ith the other 4itnesses and the testator" had asse!+led for the purpose of e8ecuting the testa!ent" and 4ere together in the sa!e roo! for that purpose" and at the !o!ent4hen the 4itness 3a&ellana signed the docu!ent he 4as actually and physically present and in suchposition 4ith relation to 3a&ellana that he could see e&erything 4hich too? place +y !erely castinghis eyes in the proper direction" and 4ithout any physical o+struction to pre&ent his doing so"therefore 4e are of opinion that the docu!ent 4as in fact signed +efore he finally left the roo!.

The purpose of a statutory reuire!ent that the 4itness sign in the presence of the testator is said to +e that the testator !ay ha&e ocular e&idence of the identity of the instru!entsu+scri+ed +y the 4itness and hi!self" and the generally accepted tests of presence are&ision and !ental apprehension. CSee %!. 1ng. 1nc. of >a4" &ol. -0" p. 5$$" and cases

there cited.

In the !atter of 6edell C2 *onnoly CN.." -29 it 4as held that it is sufficient if the 4itnesses aretogether for the purpose of 4itnessing the e8ecution of the 4ill" and in a position to actually see thetestator 4rite" if they choose to do so@ and there are !any cases 4hich lay do4n the rule that thetrue test of &ision is not 4hether the testator actually sa4 the 4itness sign" +ut 4hether he !ightha&e seen hi! sign" considering his !ental and physical condition and position at the ti!e of thesu+scription. CSpoone!ore vs. *a+les" // 'o." 5,$.

The principles on 4hich these cases rest and the tests of presence as +et4een the testator and the4itnesses are eually applica+le in deter!ining 4hether the 4itnesses signed the instru!ent in thepresence of each other" as reuired +y the statute" and applying the! to the facts pro&en in these

proceedings 4e are of opinion that the statutory reuisites as to the e8ecution of the instru!ent 4ereco!plied 4ith" and that the lo4er court erred in denying pro+ate to the 4ill on the ground stated inthe ruling appealed fro!.

=e are of opinion fro! the e&idence of record that the instru!ent propounded in these proceedings4as satisfactorily pro&en to +e the last 4ill and testa!ent of 'acario 3a+oneta" deceased" and that itshould therefore +e ad!itted to pro+ate.



The <udg!ent of the trial court is re&ersed" 4ithout especial conde!nation of costs" and after t4entydays the record 4ill +e returned to the court for! 4hence it ca!e" 4here the proper orders 4ill +eentered in confor!ance here4ith. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., 4orres, (apa, and Johnson, JJ., concur.

#era v Ri$andoG.R. No. L5971 F)@ruary 27, 1911

-E#RIZ NER, E# L., plaintiffs7appellees"&s.NR!I' RI%NDO, defendant7appellant.

7alerio 6ontanilla and Andres Asprer for appellant.

Anacleto Diaz for appellees.

!R'ON, J.

The only uestion raised +y the e&idence in this case as to the due e8ecution of the instru!entpropounded as a 4ill in the court +elo4" is 4hether one of the su+scri+ing 4itnesses 4as present inthe s!all roo! 4here it 4as e8ecuted at the ti!e 4hen the testator and the other su+scri+ing4itnesses attached their signatures@ or 4hether at that ti!e he 4as outside" so!e eight or ten feeta4ay" in a large roo! connecting 4ith the s!aller roo! +y a door4ay" across 4hich 4as hung acurtain 4hich !ade it i!possi+le for one in the outside roo! to see the testator and the other

su+scri+ing 4itnesses in the act of attaching their signatures to the instru!ent.

% !a<ority of the !e!+ers of the court is of opinion that this su+scri+ing 4itness 4as in the s!allroo! 4ith the testator and the other su+scri+ing 4itnesses at the ti!e 4hen they attached their signatures to the instru!ent" and this finding" of course" disposes of the appeal and necessitates theaffir!ance of the decree ad!itting the docu!ent to pro+ate as the last 4ill and testa!ent of thedeceased.

The trial <udge does not appear to ha&e considered the deter!ination of this uestion of fact of &itali!portance in the deter!ination of this case" as he 4as of opinion that under the doctrine laid do4nin the case of Jaboneta vs. /ustilo C5 hil. Rep." 5# the alleged fact that one of the su+scri+ing

4itnesses 4as in the outer roo! 4hen the testator and the other descri+ing 4itnesses signed theinstru!ent in the inner roo!" had it +een pro&en" 4ould not +e sufficient in itself to in&alidate thee8ecution of the 4ill. 6ut 4e are unani!ously of opinion that had this su+scri+ing 4itness +eenpro&en to ha&e +een in the outer roo! at the ti!e 4hen the testator and the other su+scri+ing4itnesses attached their signatures to the instru!ent in the inner roo!" it 4ould ha&e +een in&alid asa 4ill" the attaching of those signatures under circu!stances not +eing done Kin the presenceK of the4itness in the outer roo!. This +ecause the line of &ision fro! this 4itness to the testator and theother su+scri+ing 4itnesses 4ould necessarily ha&e +een i!peded +y the curtain separating theinner fro! the outer one Kat the !o!ent of inscription of each signature.K



In the case <ust cited" on 4hich the trial court relied" 4e held that

The true test of presence of the testator and the 4itnesses in the e8ecution of a 4ill is not4hether they actually sa4 each other sign" +ut 4hether they !ight ha&e +een seen eachother sign" had they chosen to do so" considering their !ental and physical condition andposition 4ith relation to each other at the !o!ent of inscription of each signature.

6ut it is especially to +e noted that the position of the parties 4ith relation to each other at the

moment of the subscription of each signature" !ust +e such that they !ay see each other sign if they choose to do so. This" of course" does not !ean that the testator and the su+scri+ing 4itnesses!ay +e held to ha&e e8ecuted the instru!ent in the presence of each other if it appears that they4ould not ha&e +een a+le to see each other sign at that !o!ent" 4ithout changing their relati&epositions or e8isting conditions. The e&idence in the case relied upon +y the trial <udge discloses thatKat the !o!ent 4hen the 4itness 3a&ellana signed the docu!ent he 4as actually and physicallypresent and in such position 4ith relation to 3a+oneta that he could see e&erything that too? place +y!erely casting his eyes in the proper direction and 0ithout an* ph*sical obstruction to prevent his

doing so.K %nd the decision !erely laid do4n the doctrine that the uestion 4hether the testator andthe su+scri+ing 4itnesses to an alleged 4ill sign the instru!ent in the presence of each other doesnot depend upon proof of the fact that their eyes 4ere actually cast upon the paper at the !o!ent of its su+scription +y each of the!" +ut that at that !o!ent e8isting conditions and their position 4ithrelation to each other 4ere such that +y !erely casting the eyes in the proper direction they couldha&e seen each other sign. To e8tend the doctrine further 4ould open the door to the possi+ility of all!anner of fraud" su+stitution" and the li?e" and 4ould defeat the purpose for 4hich this particular condition is prescri+ed in the code as one of the reuisites in the e8ecution of a 4ill.

The decree entered +y the court +elo4 ad!itting the instru!ent propounded therein to pro+ate asthe last 4ill and testa!ent of edro Ri!ando" deceased" is affir!ed 4ith costs of this instanceagainst the appellant.

Arellano, C. J., (apa, (oreland and 4rent, JJ., concur.

De "ala v De "ala

G.R. No. L27989 F)@ruary 8, 1928

In)+a) o <) &):)a+)& ")&ro &) Gaa.'INFORO'O DE GL, petitioner7appellee"

&s.GENERO'O DE GL an& JO'EF L-'#RO, opponents7appellants.

Jose /. /eneroso and Araneta & 3aragoza for appellants. Abad Santos, Camus, Delgado & 1ecto for appellee.

'#REE#, J.:



This is an ad!inistration proceeding fro! the *ourt of First Instance of the ro&ince of Taya+as4here+y the petitioner" Sinforoso de ala" see?s to enforce the liuidation of the estate of his father"edro de ala" deceased" against 3osefa %la+astro" as 4ido4" and eneroso de ala" a son of thedecedent and half7+rother of the plaintiff" and to reco&er fro! the! the hereditary portion 4hich theplaintiff alleges pertains to hi! in said estate. Opposition 4as !ade to the proceeding +y the t4odefendants" and this opposition finally too? the for! of a !otion to e8clude the plaintiff fro! the

participation in the estate on the ground that he had no herita+le interest therein. Epon consideringthis !otion the trial court sustained the plaintiffJs right and denied the !otion. Fro! this order thedefendants appealed.

The first point raised in the appellantsJ +ill of e8ceptions has reference to a !atter of procedure"4hich" in the &ie4 4e ta?e of the case" is not necessary to the decision. =e therefore pro&isionallyassu!e that no error 4as co!!itted +y the trial <udge in entertaining the !otion 4hich ga&e origin tothe appealed order@ and 4e pass at once to the consideration of the uestion of su+stanti&e la4in&ol&ed in the case. The facts are unfortunately fe4 and undisputed.

It appears that edro de ala died intestate in the *ity of 'anila on or a+out 3uly 2-" #$#$" lea&ingan estate in the ro&ince of Taya+as and in the *ity of 'anila" consisting of real and personal

property. It is stated in the petition that the &alue of this estate is appro8i!ately fi&e hundredthousands pesos C500"000" 4ith an annual inco!e of a+out fifty thousand pesos C50"000. Thedefendants do not ad!it that the &alue of the estate reaches the a!ount stated" +ut it is e&identlylarge. The plaintiff" Sinforoso de ala" is a natural son of edro de ala and 4as +orn on 3une #,"#9,$" 4hile eneroso de ala" one of the defendants herein" is a legiti!ate son of edro de alaand 4as +orn on 3uly #," #99#. %s already stated" the other defendant" 3osefa %la+astro" is the4ido4 of edro de ala

The plaintiff" Sinforoso de ala" 4as ne&er recogni)ed as a natural son +y the &oluntary act of hisfather" edro de ala" in life@ and in order to enforce recognition the plaintiff" on august 2$" #$#,"instituted an action against his father to co!pel recognition. =hile this litigation 4as pending edrode ala died" and 3osefa %la+astro and eneroso de ala 4ere su+stituted as defendants. =henthe cause 4as finally heard in the Supre!e *ourt" upon appeal fro! a <udg!ent of the *ourt of First

Instance" 4hich had +een unfa&ora+le to the plaintiff" said <udg!ent 4as re&ersed and <udg!ent 4ashere entered reuiring the defendants to recogni)e the plaintiff as the natural son of edro de alaCDe ala" 2 hil." ,,#. ursuant to said <udg!ent" and in order to o+tain his share in the estate of his deceased father" the present proceeding 4as +egun.

The right of the plaintiff to participate in the estate of his deceased father is +ased upon articles #-and $2 in relation 4ith article 90 of the *i&il *ode" defining the herita+le portion of a recogni)ednatural child in case of the concurrence of such heir 4ith one or !ore legiti!ate children. In thisconnection it 4ill +e re!e!+ered that the right of a recogni)ed natural child to inherit any part of theestate of his father 4as" in Spanish la4" first conferred +y the *i&il *ode" 4hich 4ent into effect in thehilippine Islands on Dece!+er 9" #99$.

In support of the plaintiffJs right to participate in the estate" reference is !ade to su+section #2 of thetransitory pro&isions of the *i&il *ode 4herein it is stated" in effect" that the estates of those 4ho die"4ith or 4ithout 4ill" su+seuently to the ta?ing effect of the *i&il *ode" shall +e allotted and di&idedaccording to the *ode" and that the legal portion gi&en +y the *ode shall +e respected. Thedefendants on the contrary uestion the herita+le right of the plaintiff" +asing their contention on No.# of the transitory pro&isions" as interpreted +y this court in Rocha &s. Tuason and Rocha deDespu<ols C-$ hil." $,/.



The transitory pro&isions thus +rought under discussion are &ital to the case and are therefore herereproduced

*hanges introduced +y this *ode pre<udicial to rights acuired under prior ci&il la4 shall notha&e rotroacti&e effect.

For the application of the corresponding legislation in cases not e8pressly deter!ined in the*ode" the follo4ing rule shall +e o+ser&ed

#. Rights originating" according to prior legislation" in acts that occurred under the regi!en of such legislation shall +e go&erned there+y" e&en if the *ode regulates the! in so!e other 4ay or does not recogni)e the!. 6ut if the right shall ha&e +een declared for the first ti!e inthis *ode" it shall ha&e effect at once" although the fact originating it !ay ha&e occurredunder the for!er regi!en" 4hene&er it is not pre<udicial to any other acuired right of eualorigin.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

#2. Rights to the inheritance of one 4ho !ay ha&e died" 4ith or 4ithout a 4ill" +efore this*ode goes into effect" shall +e go&erned +y prior legislation. The inheritance of those dyingafter4ards" 4ith or 4ithout a 4ill" shall +e allotted and di&ided in accordance 4ith this *ode"+ut in har!ony" in so far as the latter per!its it" 4ith the testa!entary dispositions. Thereforelegal portions" +etter!ents" and legacies shall +e respected@ +ut their a!ounts shall +ereduced 4hen it is not possi+le in any other !anner to gi&e to each participant in theinheritance the share pertaining to hi! according to this *ode.

Fro! the facts already stated it 4ill +e seen that +oth the natural and the legiti!ate son of edro deala 4ere +orn +efore the *i&il *ode 4ent into effect in these Islands@ 4hile the death of the father and the enforced <udicial recognition of the natural son occurred under the regi!en of said *ode. Itis a tena+le assu!ption that the legal recognition of the plaintiff as a natural son should +e

considered as effecti&e fro! the date of the filing of the co!plaint in #$#,@ +ut if not to so" it 4as atleast effecti&e fro! the date of the <udg!ent entered in #$$2. For the purposes of this suit the pointis uni!portant" since it is clear that in any case legal recognition did not occur until long after the*i&il *ode +eca!e effecti&e in these Islands.

%s the death of edro de ala and the opening of the succession to his estate occurred under theregi!en of the *i&il *ode" 4e are of the opinion that No. #2 of the Transitory ro&isions is of e8actand particular application" and that there is nothing in No. # of the sa!e pro&isions 4hich suppliesany o+stacle to the application of No. #2 to the facts of this case. In paragraph No. #2 it is e8presslydeclared that the estates of those 4ho die after the *ode +eco!es effecti&e shall +e distri+utedaccording to the *ode and that legal portions shall +e respected. This language can ha&e no other !eaning than that the hereditary portion gi&en to the recogni)ed natural child 6y No. - of article #-of the *i&il *ode shall +e recogni)ed as &alid" for the circu!stance that the plaintiff in this case"

though +eginning his action for ac?no4ledge!ent 4ithin the life of his father" did not succeed ino+taining a <udg!ent co!pelling recognition until after his father 4as dead cannot +e considered inany 4ise pre<udicial to hi!. That No. #2 of the Transitory ro&isions is applica+le to the estates of persons dying after the *i&il *ode 4ent into effect is recogni)ed in decisions of the Supre!e *ourtof Spain dated respecti&ely 'arch 20" #9$," and 3une 2" #9$,@ and this doctrine is e8pounded +y'anresa in his co!!ent upon No. #2 as follo4s

Bere is the legal reason and at the sa!e ti!e the deter!ination of the scope and !eaning of the rule of 4hich 4e spea?. It does not !ean that the succession shall +e go&erned +y one



or the other la4 according to 4hether the ancestor !ay ha&e died +efore or after the *ode4ent into effect" nor 4as there are need of !a?ing such a state!ent" +ecause this is alreadypro&ided for in rule 2" and 4hat is pro&ided for in the present rule +y 4ay of e8ception to4hat is pro&ided for in the for!er is that the rights of forced heirs to the inheritance insuccessions opened after the *i&il *ode 4ent into effect shall al4ays +e go&erned +y thepro&isions of the latter" to 4hich end the pro&isions of 4ills e8ecuted +efore 'ay #st" #99$"

referring to the rights of said heirs" 4ill +e ad<usted to the pro&isions of said *ode.

The reason of that is o+&ious" +ecause in the !atter of succession there is no &ested rightuntil the succession is opened that is" till the death of the person 4hose inheritance is inuestion" as 4e ha&e already said on another occasion" and +y the present it is !ade toconfor! 4ith the precepts of !odern legislation" har!oni)ing it and !a?ing it co!pati+le4ith the transcedent refor! effected +y the *i&il *ode.

The Supre!e *ourt" in its decision of 3une 2" #9$," gi&ing the sa!e e8planation to thepresent rule" declared that the principle of the irretroacti&ity of the ne4 la4 go&erns only suchrights as originated under the regi!en of the old la4" it +eing 4ell ?no4n that hereditaryrights do not &est until the death of the person 4hose inheritance is in uestion. Therefore"

they cannot +e go&erned +y the old la4 if the death is posterior to the ne4" 4hich is the &erything 4e ha&e stated as +eing the foundation of <uridicial reason of this precept.

Directing our attention no4 to No. # of the Transitory ro&isions" 4hich is supposed +y theappellants to +e inco!pati+le 4ith the right asserted +y the plaintiff" 4e note first that proposition No.# of a !ore general nature than proposition No. #2" since the latter pro&ides a particular rule for thedistri+ution of the estates of persons dying after the *ode enters into effect" 4hile No. # states ageneral rule for har!oni)ing certain co!peting rights. In accordance then 4ith the rule that theparticular go&erns the general" No. #2 !ust control o&er No. #.

It 4ill +e noted that" under No. #" 4here there are t4o co!peting rights" one of 4hich is gi&en for thefirst ti!e +y the *ode" the la4 loo?s to the acts in 4hich the t4o co!peting rights !ay ha&eoriginated" and 4hen it is found that the acts 4hich ga&e origin to the co!peting rights occurred prior

to the adoption of the *ode" the right ne4ly recogni)ed in the *ode cannot +e gi&en effect" +ecausepre<udicial to the other right. In the case +efore us" 4hile it is e&ident that the successional right of the legiti!ate son" eneroso de ala" did not +eco!e &ested until the death of his father" yet it isalso clear that this right is deri&ed fro! a fact 4hich occurred under la4 anterior to the *ode" na!ely"the fact that said son 4as +orn 4ith the status of legiti!ate son. It is this fact 4hich originated thesuccessional right of this heir. 6ut 4ith respect to the natural son" Sinforoso de ala" it is euallyo+&ious that the act that ga&e origin to his successional right 4as the enforced <udicial recognitionresulting fro! the ci&il action +egun +y the plaintiff in #$#,. This act occurred under the *ode. In thisconnection it !ust +e re!e!+ered that the fact of +irth does not gi&e the natural child any herita+leright 4hate&er in the estate of his father. This is eually true of +oth the old and the ne4 la4. It is therecognition of the natural child that originates his right of succession" recogni)ed for the first ti!e inthe *ode. %s a conseuence the t4o co!peting successional rights in this case do not ha&e the

sa!e origin in respect to the estate of la4 under 4hich they occurred" since one had its origin in anact occuring under the anterior legislation 4hile the other had its origin in an act occuring under the*ode.

Epon analy)ing the language of No. # of the Transitory ro&isions it 4ill +e noted that it is only 4henthe t4o co!peting rights ha&e their origin in acts occuring under the old regi!e that the restrictionapplies 4hich prohi+its the right ne4ly granted in the *ode fro! ha&ing it due effect. If the actsoriginating the t4o rights occur under the *ode" or if either occurs under the *ode" the *odepro&ision !ust rule" and the right ne4ly gi&en +y it pre&ails. It is o+&ious" for instance" that if" in the



case +efore us" the legiti!ate soon had +een +orn after the *ode entered into effect" the pro&isionsof the *ode 4ould ha&e pre&ailed@ also that the sa!e result 4ould ha&e follo4ed in such case e&enif the act of recognition of the natural so had occurred prior to the date 4hen the *ode too? effect.

6ut it is supposed that the decision of this court in the case of Rocha &s. Tuason and Rocha deDespu<ols C-$ hil." $,/" is inconsistent 4ith the right of the plaintiff. This is a !ista?e. In the case

!entioned +oth the natural and the legiti!ate child 4ere +orn under the regi!en of the old la4" andin addition to this there had +een a tacit recognition of the natural child M 4hich 4as &alid under saidla4 M long prior to the date 4hen the *i&il *ode 4ent into effect. 6oth the co!peting right in thatcase therefore had their origin in acts 4hich occurred under the earlier regi!en@ and thiscircu!stance !a?es the &ery case for the application of the restriction upon the ne4 right 4hich ise8pressed in the closing 4ords of No. # of the Transitory ro&isions. It !ay +e noted that three!e!+ers of the court dissented in Rocha &s. Tuason and Rocha de Despu<ols" a circu!stance4hich detracts in so!e !easure fro! the 4eight of the precedent@ and the attorneys for the appelleeha&e dra4n in uestion the correctness of the <udg!ent. Into this contro&ersy it is not necessary toenter. =e !ay o+ser&e" ho4e&er" that the opinion of the court in the case referred to !a?es noreference to No. #2 of the Transitory ro&isions" 4hich if reflecti&ely 4eighed" !ight ha&e +een foundpertinent to the decision.

The order appealed fro! is in our opinion 4ithout error" and it is accordingly affir!ed" 4ith costs. Soordered.

Johnson, 9strand, Johns, 1omualdez and 7illa!1eal, JJ., concur.

')ara) O*n*on+

%L!OL%, J., concurring

I concur on the ground that the parties ha&ing e8pressly stipulated and ad!itted that Sinforo de alais a natural son of the deceased edro de ala" and as such entitled to a certain portion of theestate" are no4 estopped to deny those facts. The appellants cannot +e per!itted to ad&ance a ne4theory of the case at this late date intended to de!onstrate that Sinforo de ala has no right to theinheritance left +y edro de ala. Suits should !o&e for4ard not +ac?4ard. There !ust +e an endto litigation so!eti!e. %lthough opposing interests ha&e succeeded in ?eeping Sinforo de ala outof all participation in his inheritance for ten years" they should no longer +e allo4ed to do so. Thereis no need of the *ourt deciding any of the nice legal uestions presented.



"ar&ia v 'a&uesta

G.R. No. L4067 No)/@)r 29, 1951

In <) %a)r o <) C* o N#ERO %ER!DO, &):)a+)&. RO'RIO GR!I, petitioner"&s.J$LIN L!$E'#, E# L., respondents.

5lviro . Peralta and ermenegildo A. Prieto for petitioner.6austino ). 4obia, Juan 8. 8nes and 6ederico 4acason for respondents.

"R', C.J.:

This is an appeal fro! a decision of the *ourt of %ppeals disallo4ing the 4ill of %ntero 'ercadodated 3anuary -" #$-. The 4ill is 4ritten in the Ilocano dialect and contains the follo4ing attestationclause

=e" the undersigned" +y these presents to declare that the foregoing testa!ent of %ntero'ercado 4as signed +y hi!self and also +y us +elo4 his na!e and of this attestation clauseand that of the left !argin of the three pages thereof. age three the continuation of thisattestation clause@ this 4ill is 4ritten in Ilocano dialect 4hich is spo?en and understood +y thetestator" and it +ears the corresponding nu!+er in letter 4hich co!pose of three pages andall the! 4ere signed in the presence of the testator and 4itnesses" and the 4itnesses in thepresence of the testator and all and each and e&ery one of us 4itnesses.

In testi!ony" 4hereof" 4e sign this state!ent" this the third day of 3anuary" one thousandnine hundred forty three" C#$- %.D.

CSgd. NE'1RI%NO 1V%N1>IST% CSgd. KROS1ND% *ORT1S

CSgd. 6I6I%N% I>>1I6>1

The 4ill appears to ha&e +een signed +y %tty. Florentino 3a&ier 4ho 4rote the na!e of %ntero'ercado" follo4ed +elo4 +y K% reugo del testatorK and the na!e of Florentino 3a&ier. %ntero'ercado is alleged to ha&e 4ritten a cross i!!ediately after his na!e. The *ourt of %ppeals"re&ersing the <udge!ent of the *ourt of First Instance of Ilocos Norte" ruled that the attestationclause failed C# to certify that the 4ill 4as signed on all the left !argins of the three pages and at the

end of the 4ill +y %tty. Florentino 3a&ier at the e8press reuest of the testator in the presence of thetestator and each and e&ery one of the 4itnesses@ C2 to certify that after the signing of the na!e of the testator +y %tty. 3a&ier at the for!erJs reuest said testator has 4ritten a cross at the end of hisna!e and on the left !argin of the three pages of 4hich the 4ill consists and at the end thereof@ C-to certify that the three 4itnesses signed the 4ill in all the pages thereon in the presence of thetestator and of each other.

In our opinion" the attestation clause is fatally defecti&e for failing to state that %ntero 'ercadocaused %tty. Florentino 3a&ier to 4rite the testatorJs na!e under his e8press direction" as reuired +y



section /#9 of the *ode of *i&il rocedure. The herein petitioner C4ho is appealing +y 4ay of certiorari fro! the decision of the *ourt of %ppeals argues" ho4e&er" that there is no need for suchrecital +ecause the cross 4ritten +y the testator after his na!e is a sufficient signature and thesignature of %tty. Florentino 3a&ier is a surplusage. etitionerJs theory is that the cross is as !uch asignature as a thu!+!ar?" the latter ha&ing +een held sufficient +y this *ourt in the cases of Deala vs. on)ales and Ona" 5- hil." #0@ Dolar vs. Diancin" 55 hil." ,$@ ayad vs. Tolentino" /2

hil." 99@ Neyra vs. Neyra" ,/ hil." 2$/ and >ope) vs. >i+oro" 9# hil." 2$.

It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the 4ill is the usual signature of %ntero 'ercadoor e&en one of the 4ays +y 4hich he signed his na!e. %fter !ature reflection" 4e are not preparedto li?en the !ere sign of the cross to a thu!+!ar?" and the reason is o+&ious. The cross cannot anddoes not ha&e the trust4orthiness of a thu!+!ar?.

=hat has +een said !a?es it unnecessary for us to deter!ine there is a sufficient recital in theattestation clause as to the signing of the 4ill +y the testator in the presence of the 4itnesses" and +ythe latter in the presence of the testator and of each other.

=herefore" the appealed decision is here+y affir!ed" 4ith against the petitioner. So ordered.

6eria, Pablo, )engzon, Padilla, 1e*es, Jugo and )autista Angelo, JJ., concur.

)RA'*+son v Del RosarioG.R. No. L496? January 29, 195?

%RI $'ON, plaintiff7appellee"&s.

%RI DEL RO'RIO, !ON!E"!ION NE-RED, !ONRDO NE-RED, DO%INDORNE-RED, ND F$'#INO NE-RED, Jr., defendants7appellants.

Priscilo 5vangelista for appellee.

)rigido /. 5strada for appellant.

-$#I'# NGELO, J.

This is an action for reco&ery of the o4nership and possession of fi&e C5 parcels of land situated inthe 'unicipality of >a+rador" ro&ince of angasinan" filed +y 'aria Eson against 'aria del Rosarioand her four children na!ed *oncepcion" *onrado" Do!inador" and Faustino" surna!ed Ne+reda"4ho are all of !inor age" +efore the *ourt of First Instance of angasinan.

'aria Eson 4as the la4ful 4ife of Faustino Ne+reda 4ho upon his death in #$5 left the landsin&ol&ed in this litigation. Faustino Ne+reda left no other heir e8cept his 4ido4 'aria Eson. Bo4e&er"plaintiff clai!s that 4hen Faustino Ne+reda died in #$5" his co!!on7la4 4ife 'aria del Rosariotoo? possession illegally of said lands thus depri&ing her of their possession and en<oy!ent.

Defendants in their ans4er set up as special defense that on Fe+ruary 2#" #$-#" 'aria Eson andher hus+and" the late Faustino Ne+reda" e8ecuted a pu+lic docu!ent 4here+y they agreed to



separate as hus+and and 4ife and" in consideration of their separation" 'aria Eson 4as gi&en aparcel of land +y 4ay of ali!ony and in return she renounced her right to inherit any other propertythat !ay +e left +y her hus+and upon his death C18hi+it #.

%fter trial" at 4hich +oth parties presented their respecti&e e&idence" the court rendered decisionordering the defendants to restore to the plaintiff the o4nership and possession of the lands in

dispute 4ithout special pronounce!ent as to costs. Defendants interposed the present appeal.

There is no dispute that 'aria Eson" plaintiff7appellee" is the la4ful 4ife of Faustino Ne+reda" for!er o4ner of the fi&e parcels of lands litigated in the present case. There is li?e4ise no dispute that'aria del Rosario" one of the defendants7appellants" 4as !erely a co!!on7la4 4ife of the lateFaustino Ne+reda 4ith 4ho! she had four illegiti!ate children" her no4 co7defendants. It li?e4iseappears that Faustino Ne+reda died in #$5 !uch prior to the effecti&ity of the ne4 *i&il *ode. =iththis +ac?ground" it is e&ident that 4hen Faustino Ne+reda died in #$5 the fi&e parcels of land he4as sei)ed of at the ti!e passed fro! the !o!ent of his death to his only heir" his 4ido4 'ariaEson C%rticle /5," old *i&il *ode.%s this *ourt aptly said" KThe property +elongs to the heirs at the!o!ent of the death of the ancestor as co!pletely as if the ancestor had e8ecuted and deli&ered tothe! a deed for the sa!e +efore his deathK CIlustre vs. %laras Frondosa" #, hil." -2#. Fro! that!o!ent" therefore" the rights of inheritance of 'aria Eson o&er the lands in uestion +eca!e&ested.

The clai! of the defendants that 'aria Eson had relinuished her right o&er the lands in uestion+ecause she e8pressly renounced to inherit any future property that her hus+and !ay acuire andlea&e upon his death in the deed of separation they had entered into on Fe+ruary 2#" #$-#" cannot+e entertained for the si!ple reason that future inheritance cannot +e the su+<ect of a contract nor can it +e renounced C# 'anresa" #2-" si8th edition@ Tolentino on *i&il *ode" p. #2@ Osorio vs. Osorioand nchausti Stea!ship *o." # hil." 5-#.

6ut defendants contend that" 4hile it is true that the four !inor defendants are illegiti!ate children of

the late Faustino Ne+reda and under the old *i&il *ode are not entitled to any successional rights"ho4e&er" under the ne4 *i&il *ode 4hich +eca!e in force in 3une" #$50" they are gi&en the statusand rights of natural children and are entitled to the successional rights 4hich the la4 accords to thelatter Carticle 22/ and article 29," ne4 *i&il *ode" and +ecause these successional rights 4eredeclared for the first ti!e in the ne4 code" they shall +e gi&en retroacti&e effect e&en though thee&ent 4hich ga&e rise to the! !ay ha&e occurred under the prior legislation C%rticle 225-" ne4 *i&il*ode.

There is no !erit in this clai!. %rticle 225- a+o&e referred to pro&ides indeed that rights 4hich aredeclared for the first ti!e shall ha&e retroacti&e effect e&en though the e&ent 4hich ga&e rise to the!!ay ha&e occurred under the for!er legislation" +ut this is so only 4hen the ne4 rights do notpre<udice any &ested or acuired right of the sa!e origin. Thus" said article pro&ides that Kif a right

should +e declared for the first ti!e in this *ode" it shall +e effecti&e at once" e&en though the act or e&ent 4hich gi&es rise thereto !ay ha&e +een done or !ay ha&e occurred under the prior legislation"pro&ided said ne4 right does not pre<udice or i!pair any &ested or acuired right" of the sa!eorigin.K %s already stated in the early part of this decision" the right of o4nership of 'aria Eson o&er the lands in uestion +eca!e &ested in #$5 upon the death of her late hus+and and this is so+ecause of the i!perati&e pro&ision of the la4 4hich co!!ands that the rights to succession aretrans!itted fro! the !o!ent of death C%rticle /5," old *i&il *ode. The ne4 right recogni)ed +y the



ne4 *i&il *ode in fa&or of the illegiti!ate children of the deceased cannot" therefore" +e asserted tothe i!pair!ent of the &ested right of 'aria Eson o&er the lands in dispute.

%s regards the clai! that 'aria Eson" 4hile her deceased hus+and 4as lying in state" in a gesture of pity or co!passion" agreed to assign the lands in uestion to the !inor children for the reason thatthey 4ere acuired 4hile the deceased 4as li&ing 4ith their !other and 'aria Eson 4anted to

assuage so!e4hat the 4rong she has done to the!" this !uch can +e said@ apart fro! the fact thatthis clai! is disputed" 4e are of the opinion that said assign!ent" if any" parta?es of the nature of adonation of real property" inas!uch as it in&ol&es no !aterial consideration" and in order that it !ay+e &alid it shall +e !ade in a pu+lic docu!ent and !ust +e accepted either in the sa!e docu!ent or in a separate one C%rticle /--" old *i&il *ode. Inas!uch as this essential for!ality has not +eenfollo4ed" it results that the alleged assign!ent or donation has no &alid effect.

=B1R1FOR1" the decision appealed fro! is affir!ed" 4ithout costs.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, )engzon, Padilla, 4uason, (ontema*or, 1e*es, Jugo and abrador, JJ., concur.

,!arle v PoG.R. No. L5064 F)@ruary 27, 195?

-IEN3ENIDO . I-RLE, plaintiff7appellant"&s.E'"ERNZ %. "O, defendant7appellant.

'uirico del (ar for appellant.

Daniel P. 4umula2 and Conchita 6. (iel appellee.

#$'ON, J.

This action co!!enced in the *ourt of First Instance of *e+u to annul a deed of sale con&eying tothe defendant" in consideration of #",00" one undi&ided half of a parcel of land 4hich pre&iouslyhad +een sold" along 4ith the other half" +y the sa!e &endor to the plaintiffJs grantors. <udg!ent 4asagainst the plaintiff.

The case 4as su+!itted for decision upon an agreed state!ent of facts" the pertinent parts of 4hichare thus su!!ari)ed in the appealed decision

#st. M That >eonard <. =instanley and *atalina Na&arro 4ere hus+and and 4ife" the for!er ha&ing died on 3une /" #$/ lea&ing heir the sur&i&ing spouse and so!e !inor children@

2nd. M hat upon the death of >.3. =instanley" he left a parcel of land descri+ed under Transfer *ertificate of title No. 2-$# of the Registry of Deeds of the ro&ince of *e+u@

-rd. M That the a+o&e !entioned property 4as a con<ugal property@



th. M That on %pril #5" #$/" the sur&i&ing spouse *atalina Na&arro Vda. de =instanleysold the entire parcel of land to the spouses 'aria *anoy" alleging a!ong other things" thatshe needed !oney for the support of her children@

5th. M That on 'ay 2" #$," the spouses 'aria *anoy and Ro+erto *anoy sold the sa!eparcel of land to the plaintiff in this case na!ed 6ien&enido %. 1+arle@

/th. M That the t4o deeds of sale referred to a+o&e 4ere not registered and ha&e ne&er +een registered up to the date@

,th. M That on 3anuary #," #$9 sur&i&ing spouse *atalina Na&arro Vda. de =instanley"after her appoint!ent as guardian of her children +y this court CSpecial proceeding no. 2#27R sold one7half of the land !entioned a+o&e to 1speran)a '. o" defendant in the instantcase" 4hich portion +elongs to the children of the a+o&e na!ed spouses.

%s stated +y the trial 3udge" the sole uestion for deter!ination is the &alidity of the sale to1speran)a '. o" the last purchaser. This uestion in turn depends upon the &alidity of the prior ale

to 'aria *anoy and Ro+erto *anoy.

%rticle /5, of the old *i&il *ode pro&ides KThe rights to the succession of a person are trans!ittedfro! the !o!ent of his death.K in a slightly different language" this article is incorporated in the ne4*i&il *ode as article ,,,.

'anresa" co!!ending on article /5, of the *i&il *ode of Spain" says

The !o!ent of death is the deter!ining factor 4hen the heirs acuire a definite right to theinheritance" 4hether such right +e pure or contingent. It is i!!aterial 4hether a short or longperiod of ti!e lapses +et4een the death of the predecessor and the entry into possession of the property of the inheritance +ecause the right is al4ays dee!ed to +e retroacti&e fro! the

!o!ent of death. C5 'anresa" -#,.

The a+o&e pro&ision and co!!ent !a?e it clear that 4hen *atalina Na&arro Vda. de =instanleysold the entire parcel to the *anoy spouses" one7half of it already +elonged to the sellerJs children.No for!al or <udicial declaration +eing needed to confir! the childrenJs title" it follo4s that the firstsale 4as null and &oid in so far as it included the childrenJs share.

On the other hand" the sale to the defendant ha&ing +een !ade +y authority of the co!petent court4as undenia+ly legal and effecti&e. The fact that it has not +een recorded is of no conseuence. If registration 4ere necessary" still the non7registration 4ould not a&ail the plaintiff +ecause it 4as dueto no other cause than his o4n opposition.

The decision 4ill +e affir!ed su+<ect to the reser&ation" !ade in said decision" of the right of theplaintitff andAor the *anoy spouses to +ring such action against *atalina Na&arro Vda. de =instanleyas !ay +e appropriate for such da!ages as they !ay ha&e incurred +y reason of the &oiding of thesale in their fa&or.

Paras, C.J., 6eria, Pablo, )engzon, Padilla, (ontema*or, 1e*es, Jugo, )autista Angelo and

abrador, JJ.,concur.



#a&ar v #istalG.R. No. L??006 D):)/@)r 8, 1982

NI!NOR N!R" petitioner"

&s.!L$DIO . NI'#L a+ %un*:*a Ju&) o E+)ranBa, u+an &) 'ur, "RO3IN!IL

'(ERIFF o u+an &) 'ur, ILDEFON'O J"I#N an& N#ONIO DOLORI!ON" respondents.

4ranquilino 9. Calo, Jr. for petitioner.

8ldefonso Japitana and Antonio )oloricon for respondents.

G$#IERREZ, JR., J.:

Nicanor Nacar filed this petition for certiorari" prohi+ition" and !anda!us 4ith preli!inary in<unctionto annul an order of the respondent <udge of the !unicipal court of 1speran)a" %gusan del Sur directing the attach!ent of se&en C, cara+aos" to effect the return of four C cara+aos sei)ed under the uestioned order" and to stop the respondent <udge fro! further proceeding in *i&il *ase No. /5.

Respondent Ildefonso 3apitana filed the co!plaint in *i&il *ase No. /5 and entitled it K*lai! %gainstthe 1state of the >ate Isa+elo Nacar =ith reli!inary %ttach!entK On the +asis of this co!plaint"including an allegation Kthat defendant are Csic a+out to re!o&e and dispose the a+o&e7na!edproperty Cse&en cara+aos 4ith intent to defraud plaintiff hereinK" and considering that 'r. 3apitanahad gi&en security according to the Rules of *ourt" 3udge Nistal issued the order co!!anding thepro&incial sheriff to attach the se&en C, heads of cattle in the possession of petitioner Nicanor

Nacar. %ctually only four C cara+aos 4ere attached +ecause three C- cara+aos had earlier +eenslaughtered during the rites preceding the +urial of the late Isa+elo Nacar.

Nicanor Nacar filed a !otion to dis!iss" to dissol&e 4rit of preli!inary attach!ent" and to order thereturn of the cara+aos. ri&ate respondent 3apitana filed an opposition to this !otion 4hileinter&enor %ntonio Doloricon filed a co!plaint in inter&ention asserting that he 4as the o4ner of theattached cara+aos and that the certificates of o4nership of large cattle 4ere in his na!e.

The respondent 3udge denied the !otion to dis!iss pro!pting 'r. Nacar to co!e to the Supre!e*ourt.

In a resolution dated 3anuary #2" #$,#" this *ourt" upon the posting of a +ond in the a!ount of #"000.00" directed the issuance of a preli!inary !andatory in<unction. The respondents 4ereen<oined fro! further enforcing the 4rit of attach!ent and to return the sei)ed cara+aos. The <udge4as restrained fro! further proceeding 4ith *i&il *ase No. /5.

=e find the petition !eritorious.

The pertinent portions of the co!plaint filed +y 'r. 3apitana 4ith the !unicipal court read as follo4s



I>D1FONSO 3%IT%N% *i&il *ase No. /5 laintiff"

FOR

M Versus M

*>%I' %%INST TB1 1ST%T1 NI*%NOR N%*%R TB1 >%T1 IS%61>O N%*%R=ITB Defendant. R1>I'IN%R %TT%*B'1NT 8 7777777777777777777777777777777778

*O'>%INT

*O'1S NO= the undersigned plaintiff and +efore this Bonora+le *ourt" respectfullya&ers

888 888 888

That at &arious dates since the year #$/9" the defendant ha&e Csic incurred

inde+tedness to the plaintiff in the total su! of T=O TBOES%ND S1V1NBENDR1D NIN1T ON1 C2",$#.00 1SOS" 4hich said a!ount had long +eeno&erdue for pay!ent" and 4hich the defendant up to this date ha&e Csic not +eena+le to pay" despite repeated de!ands fro! the plaintiff@

That the defendant Isa+elo Nacar died last %pril" #$,0 lea&ing a!ong other thingspersonal property consisting se&en C, heads of cara+aos no4 in the possession of the defendant Nicanor Nacar@

That plaintiff herein file a clai! against the estate of the late Isa+elo Nacar to reco&er the afore!entioned su! of 2",$#.$$@

That defendant are Csic a+out to re!o&e and dispose the a+o&e !entioned property4ith intent to defraud plaintiff herein@

That plaintiff is 4illing to put up a +ond for the issuance of a preli!inary attach!ent inan a!ount to +e fi8ed +y the *ourt" not e8ceeding the su! of 2",$#.00 4hich is theplaintiffJs clai! herein@

=B1R1FOR1" it is respectfully prayed that pending the hearing of this case" a 4rit of preli!inary attach!ent +e issued against the properties of the defendant to ser&e assecurity for the pay!ent or satisfaction of any <udg!ent that !ay +e reco&eredherein@ and that after due hearing on the principal against the defendant for the su!

of 2",$#"00 4ith legal interest fro! Septe!+er #5" #$,0 plus costs of this suit.C%nne8 K%K" p. , rollo.

In his !otion to dis!iss" the petitioner raised the issue of lac? of <urisdiction and a+sence of a causeof action. 'r. Nacar a&erred that the inde+tedness !entioned in the co!plaint 4as alleged to ha&e+een incurred +y the late Isa+elo Nacar and not +y Nicanor Nacar. There 4as" therefore" no cause of action against hi!. The petitioner also stated that a !unicipal court has no <urisdiction to entertainan action in&ol&ing a clai! filed against the estate of a deceased person.



The sa!e grounds ha&e +een raised in this petition. 'r. Nacar contends

888 888 888

$. That the respondent <udge acted 4ithout <urisdiction.The !unicipal courts or inferior courts ha&e NO <urisdiction to settle the estate of deceased persons. Theproper re!edy is for the creditor to file the proper proceedings in the court of firstinstance and file the corresponding clai!. 6ut assu!ing 4ithout ad!itting that therespondent <udge had <urisdiction" it is &ery patent that he co!!itted a &ery gra&ea+use of discretion and totally disregarded the pro&isions of the Rules of *ourt anddecisions of this honora+le *ourt 4hen he issued an e-!parte 4rit of preli!inaryattach!ent" 4hen there is no sho4ing that the plaintiff therein has a sufficient causeof action" that there is no other security for the clai! sought to +e enforced +y theplaintiff@ or that the a!ount clai!ed in the action is as !uch as the su! for 4hich theorder is prayed for a+o&e all legal counterclai!s@ There 4as no +ond to ans4er for 4hate&er da!ages that herein petitioner !ay suffer@ CRollo" pp. -7 .

888 888 888

The respondent <udge tried to a&oid the conseuences of the issues raised in the !otion to dis!iss+y stating that although the title of the co!plaint styled it a clai! against the estate of the lateIsa+elo Nacar" the allegations sho4ed that the nature of the action 4as really for the reco&ery of aninde+tedness in the a!ount of 2",$#.$$.

The rule cited +y the <udge is correctly stated +ut it is hardly rele&ant to the contents of the co!plaintfiled +y 'r. 3apitana.

It is patent fro! the portions of the co!plaint earlier cited that the allegations are not only &ague anda!+iguous +ut do4nright !isleading. The second paragraph of the +ody of the co!plaint states that

the defendant Cherein petitioner Nicanor Nacar at &arious dates since the year #$/9 incurred de+tsto the plaintiff in the su! of 2",$#.00. %nd yet" in the su+seuent paragraphs" one clearly gathersthat the de+ts 4ere actually incurred +y the late Isa+elo Nacar" 4ho died se&eral !onths +efore thefiling of the co!plaint. The co!plaint 4hich the respondent <udge reads as one for the collection of asu! of !oney and all the paragraphs of 4hich are incidentally unnu!+ered" e8pressly states as a!aterial a&er!ent

888 888 888

That plaintiff herein file Csic a clai! against the estate of the late Isa+elo Nacar to reco&er theafore!entioned su! of 2",$#.00@

888 888 888

Ender the circu!stances of this case" respondent 3apitana has no cause of action against petitioner Nacar.(atha* v. Consolidated )an2 and 4rust Compan* C59 S*R% 55$ gi&es the ele!ents of a&alid cause of action

% cause of action is an act or o!ission of one party in &iolation of the legal right of the other. Its essential ele!ents are" na!ely C# the e8istence of a legal right in the



plaintiff" C2 a correlati&e legal duty in the defendant" and C- an act or o!ission of thedefendant in &iolation of plaintiffJs right 4ith conseuential in<ury or da!age to theplaintiff for 4hich he !ay !aintain an action for the reco&ery of da!ages or other appropriate relief. C 'a7ao Sugar *entral *o." Inc. &s. 6arrios" et al." ,$ hil. ///"//,@ Ra!itere et al. &s. 'ontinola Vda. de ulo" et al." >7#$,5#" Fe+ruary 29" #$//"#/ S*R% 25#" 255. On the other hand" Section - of Rule / of the Rules of *ourt

pro&ides that the co!plaint !ust state the ulti!ate facts constituting the plaintiffJscause of action. Bence" 4here the co!plaint states ulti!ate facts that constitute thethree essential ele!ents of a cause of action" the co!plaint states a cause of action@C*o!!unity In&est!ent and Finance *orp. &s. arcia" 99 hil. 2#5" 2#9 other4ise"the co!plaint !ust succu!+ to a !otion to dis!iss on that ground.

Indeed" although respondent 3apitana !ay ha&e a legal right to reco&er an inde+tedness due hi!"petitioner Nicanor Nacar has no correlati&e legal duty to pay the de+t for the si!ple reason that thereis nothing in the co!plaint to sho4 that he incurred the de+t or had anything to do 4ith the creationof the lia+ility. %s far as the de+t is concerned" there is no allegation or sho4ing that the petitioner had acted in &iolation of 'r. 3apitanaJs rights 4ith conseuential in<ury or da!age to the latter as4ould create a cause of action against the for!er.

It is also patent fro! the co!plaint that respondent 3apitana filed the case against petitioner Nacar to reco&er se&en C, heads of cara+aos allegedly +elonging to Isa+elo Nacar 4hich 3apitana 4antedto reco&er fro! the possession of the petitioner to ans4er for the outstanding de+t of the late Isa+eloNacar. This !atter" ho4e&er" is only ancillary to the !ain action. The ancillary !atter does not cure afatal defect in the co!plaint for the !ain action is for the reco&ery of an outstanding de+t of the latelsa+elo Nacar due respondent 3apitana" a cause of action a+out 4hich petitioner Nacar has nothingto do.

In fact the fatal defect in the co!plaint 4as noticed +y the respondent court 4hen it ad&isedrespondent 3apitana to a!end his co!plaint to confor! 4ith his e&idence and fro! the courtJs

ad!ission that it 4as inclined to dis!iss the case 4ere it not for the co!plaint in inter&ention of respondent Doloricon. Respondent Doloricon filed his co!plaint for inter&ention on the ground thatthe four cara+aos" su+<ect of the 4rit of attach!ent" 4ere actually his cara+aos. Thus" therespondent court in its Order denying the petitionerJs !otion to dis!iss" to dissol&e 4rit of preli!inary attach!ent and in order the return of the cara+aos said

... %ntonio Doloricon !anifested +efore this *ourt that he is filing a third7partyco!plaint alleging that he is the true and la4ful o4ner of the cara+aos in uestions.

IN VI1= OF %>> TB1 FOR1OIN" this *ourt for the interest of +oth parties 4ill notfor the !eanti!e dis!iss this case. %ntonio Doloricon is here+y gi&en #0 days fro!receipt hereof 4ithin 4hich to file his third7party co!plaint. The plaintiff 4ho in his

opposition to defendantJs !otion to dis!iss pray Csic for the custody of thecara+aos. This *ourt further reuires plaintiff to put up the additional +ond of I"000.00 after 4hich the latter !ay +e entitled of Csic the custody of the cara+aossu+<ect of litigation pending final ter!ination of this case. CRollo" pp. #97#$

The respondent courtJs reason for not dis!issing the case is contrary to applica+le precedents onthe !atter. =e ruled in (atha* v. Consolidated )an2 and 4rust Compan*, supra>



Section I" Rule #/ of the Rules of *ourt" pro&iding in part that

=ithin the ti!e for pleading a !otion to dis!iss !ay +e !ade on anyof the follo4ing grounds@ ...

Cg That the co!plaint states no cause of action. ...

e8plicitly reuires that the sufficiency of the co!plaint !ust +e tested e8clusi&ely on the +asis of theco!plaint itself and no other should +e considered 4hen the ground for !otion to dis!iss is that theco!plaint states no cause of action. ursuant thereto this *ourt has ruled that

%s a rule the sufficiency of the co!plaint" 4hen challenged in a!otion to dis!iss" !ust +e deter!ined e8clusi&ely on the +asis of thefacts alleged thereinJ CEy *hao &s. De >a Ra!a Stea!ship *o." Inc.">7#$5" Septe!+er 2$" #$/2" / S*R% /$" ,2. See also De 3esus" etal. &s. 6elar!ino et al." $5 hil. -/5" -,#@ Dalandan" et at. &s. 3ulio" etal." >7 #$#0#" Fe+ruary 2$" #$/" #0 S*R% 00@ Ra!itere et al. &s.

'ontinola Vda. de ulo" et al." >7#$,5#" Fe+ruary 29" #$//" #/ S*R%250" 25@ %cuna &s. 6atac roducers *ooperati&e 'ar?eting %ssociation" Inc." et al." >720--9" 3une -0" #$/," 20 S*R% 52/" 5-#

Bence" it 4as error for the respondent court not to dis!iss the case si!ply +ecause respondentDoloricon filed the co!plaint for inter&ention alleging that he o4ned the cara+aos.

'oreo&er" e&en assu!ing that respondent 3apitana had a legal right to the cara+aos 4hich 4ere inthe possession of petitioner Nacar" the proper procedure 4ould not +e to file an action for thereco&ery of the outstanding de+ts of the late Isa+elo Nacar against his stepfather" the petitioner Nacar as defendant. %s 4e said in (aspil v. 1omero C/# S*R% #$,

%ppropriate actions for the enforce!ent or defense of rights !ust +e ta?en inaccordance 4ith procedural rules and cannot +e left to the 4hi!s or caprices of litigants. It cannot e&en +e left to the untra!!eled discretion of the courts of <ustice4ithout sacrificing unifor!ity and euality in the application and effecti&ity thereof.

*onsidering the foregoing" the respondent courtJs denial of the !otion to dis!iss the co!plaint andits issuance of a 4rit of attach!ent +ased on the allegations of the co!plaint are i!proper. =ith thisconclusion" 4e find no need to discuss the other issue on 4hether or not the procedural rules on theissuance of a 4rit of attach!ent 4ere follo4ed +y the respondent court in issuing the su+<ect 4rit of attach!ent.

=B1R1FOR1" the petition is here+y granted. The preli!inary !andatory in<unction issued on3anuary #-" #$,# is !ade per!anent and the cash +ond filed +y the petitioner in connectionthere4ith is ordered returned to hi!.

SO ORD1R1D.

4eehan2ee ?Chairman@, (elencio!errera, Plana and 1elova, JJ., concur.



')ara) O*n*on+

3'A$EZ, J., concurring

I concur in the result.

The funda!ental error co!!itted +y the pri&ate respondents 4as in pursuing their clai! in anordinary action@ and that +y the respondent !unicipal <udge in entertaining the sa!e.

%s can +e seen fro! the caption and the +ody of the co!plaint filed in *i&il *ase No. /5" the clai!of the pri&ate respondents 4as not against herein petitioner Nicanor Nacar +ut against the estate of the deceased Isa+elo Nacar. It is a clai! for !oney arising fro! unpaid inde+tedness granted on&arious dates. Isa+elo Nacar died +efore the said co!plaint 4as filed. It does not appear that any

proceeding has +een filed to settle his estate.

Ender these facts" the filing of an ordinary action to reco&er said clai! is not allo4ed in any court.1&en if settle!ent proceedings had +een ta?en to settle the estate of Isa+elo Nacar" the suit toreco&er the clai! of the pri&ate respondents !ay not +e filed against the ad!inistrator or e8ecutor of his estate. This is e8pressly pro&ided for in Section # of Rule 9, of the Rules of *ourt" as follo4s

No action upon a clai! for the reco&ery of !oney or de+t or interest thereon shall +eco!!enced against the e8ecutor or ad!inistrator@ ... .

The clai! of pri&ate respondents" +eing one arising fro! a contract" !ay +e pursued only +y filingthe sa!e in the ad!inistration proceedings that !ay +e ta?en to settle the estate of the deceased

Isa+elo Nacar. If such a proceeding is instituted and the su+<ect clai! is not filed therein 4ithin theperiod prescri+ed" the sa!e shall +e dee!ed K+arred fore&er.K CSec. 5" Rule 9/" Rules of *ourt.1&en if this action 4ere co!!enced during the lifeti!e of Isa+elo Nacar" the sa!e shall ha&e to +edis!issed" and the clai! prosecuted in the proper ad!inistration proceedings CSec. 2#" Rule-" 8bid ..

It 4ould see! that the !ain purpose of the pri&ate respondents in filing *i&il *ase No. /5 4as toattach the se&en cara+aos o4ned +y Isa+elo Nacar. % case had to +e filed in order to <ustify theissuance of a 4rit of attach!ent" unfortunately" said re!edy !ay not +e allo4ed. The cara+aos" if really o4ned +y Isa+elo Nacar" pertained to his estate upon his death. The clai! of the pri&aterespondents !ay only +e satisfied +y a &oluntary act on the part of the heirs of Isa+elo Nacar" or pursued in the appropriate settle!ent proceedings. % !unicipal court !ay not entertain such aproceeding" it not +eing &ested" under the la4 then in force" 4ith pro+ate <urisdiction.

*i&il *ase No. /5 should accordingly +e dis!issed and the 4rit of attach!ent issued thereindissol&ed.

')ara) O*n*on+



3'A$EZ, J., concurring

I concur in the result.

The funda!ental error co!!itted +y the pri&ate respondents 4as in pursuing their clai! in anordinary action@ and that +y the respondent !unicipal <udge in entertaining the sa!e.

%s can +e seen fro! the caption and the +ody of the co!plaint filed in *i&il *ase No. /5" the clai!of the pri&ate respondents 4as not against herein petitioner Nicanor Nacar +ut against the estate of the deceased Isa+elo Nacar. It is a clai! for !oney arising fro! unpaid inde+tedness granted on&arious dates. Isa+elo Nacar died +efore the said co!plaint 4as filed. It does not appear that anyproceeding has +een filed to settle his estate.

Ender these facts" the filing of an ordinary action to reco&er said clai! is not allo4ed in any court.1&en if settle!ent proceedings had +een ta?en to settle the estate of Isa+elo Nacar" the suit toreco&er the clai! of the pri&ate respondents !ay not +e filed against the ad!inistrator or e8ecutor of his estate. This is e8pressly pro&ided for in Section # of Rule 9, of the Rules of *ourt" as follo4s

No action upon a clai! for the reco&ery of !oney or de+t or interest thereon shall +eco!!enced against the e8ecutor or ad!inistrator@ ... .

The clai! of pri&ate respondents" +eing one arising fro! a contract" !ay +e pursued only +y filingthe sa!e in the ad!inistration proceedings that !ay +e ta?en to settle the estate of the deceasedIsa+elo Nacar. If such a proceeding is instituted and the su+<ect clai! is not filed therein 4ithin theperiod prescri+ed" the sa!e shall +e dee!ed K+arred fore&er.K CSec. 5" Rule 9/" Rules of *ourt.1&en if this action 4ere co!!enced during the lifeti!e of Isa+elo Nacar" the sa!e shall ha&e to +edis!issed" and the clai! prosecuted in the proper ad!inistration proceedings CSec. 2#" Rule-" 8bid ..

It 4ould see! that the !ain purpose of the pri&ate respondents in filing *i&il *ase No. /5 4as toattach the se&en cara+aos o4ned +y Isa+elo Nacar. % case had to +e filed in order to <ustify theissuance of a 4rit of attach!ent" unfortunately" said re!edy !ay not +e allo4ed. The cara+aos" if really o4ned +y Isa+elo Nacar" pertained to his estate upon his death. The clai! of the pri&aterespondents !ay only +e satisfied +y a &oluntary act on the part of the heirs of Isa+elo Nacar" or pursued in the appropriate settle!ent proceedings. % !unicipal court !ay not entertain such aproceeding" it not +eing &ested" under the la4 then in force" 4ith pro+ate <urisdiction.

*i&il *ase No. /5 should accordingly +e dis!issed and the 4rit of attach!ent issued thereindissol&ed.

Torres v 'oe

G.R. No. L24569 F)@ruary 26, 1926

%N$EL #ORRE', petitioner7appellant an&L$Z LO"EZ DE -$ENO, appellant"



&s.%RGRI# LO"EZ, opponent7appellee.

Araneta & 3aragoza for appellant.(arcaida, Capili & 9campo and 4homas Car* elch for appellee.

%L!OL%, J.:

This case concerns the pro+ate of the alleged 4ill of the late To!as Rodrigue) y >ope).

To!as Rodrigue) died in the *ity of 'anila hilippine Islands. On Fe+ruary 25" #$2" lea&ing aconsidera+le estate. Shortly thereafter 'anuel Torres" one of the e8ecutors na!ed in the 4ill as?edthat the 4ill of Rodrigue) +e allo4ed. Opposition 4as entered +y 'argarita >ope)" the first cousin of the deceased on the grounds C# That the testator lac?ed !ental capacity +ecause at the ti!eof senile dementia and 4as under guardianship@ C2 that undue influence had +een e8ercised +y thepersons +enefited in the docu!ent in con<unction 4ith others 4ho acted in their +ehalf@ and C- thatthe signature of To!as Rodrigue) to the docu!ent 4as o+tained through fraud and deceit. %fter aprolonged trial <udg!ent 4as rendered denying the legali)ation of the 4ill. In the decision of the trial

<udge appeared" a!ong others" these findings

%ll this e&idence ta?en together 4ith the circu!stances that +efore and at the ti!e To!asRodrigue) 4as caused to sign the supposed 4ill 18hi+it %" and the copies thereof therealready e8isted a final <udg!ent as to his !ental condition 4herein he 4as declaredphysically and !entally incapacitated to ta?e care of hi!self and !anage his estate sho4s ina clear and conclusi&e !anner that at the ti!e of signing the supposed 4ill of To!asRodrigue) did not possess such !ental capacity as 4as necessary to +e a+le hi! to disposeof his property +y the supposed 4ill.

6ut e&en supposing as contended +y petitionerJs counsel that To!as Rodrigue) 4as at theti!e of e8ecution of the 4ill" co!petent to !a?e a 4ill" the court is of the opinion that the 4ill

cannot +e pro+ated for it appears fro! the declaration of the attesting 4itness 1lias 6onoanthat 4hen the legatee >u) >ope) presented the supposed 4ill" 18hi+it %" to To!asRodrigue)" she told hi! to sign said 18hi+it % +ecause it 4as a docu!ent relati&e to theco!plaint against one *astito" 4hich 18hi+it " then pending in the <ustice of the peace court"and for the further reason that said To!as Rodrigue) 4as then under guardianship" due tohis +eing !entally and physically incapacitated and therefore una+le to !anage his propertyand ta?e care of hi!self. It !ust also +e ta?en into account that To!as Rodrigue) 4as an old!an ,/ years of age" and 4as sic? in the hospital 4hen his signature to the supposed 4ill4as o+tained. %ll of this sho4s that the signature of To!as Rodrigue) appearing in the 4ill4as o+tained through fraudulent and deceitful representations of those 4ho 4ere interestedin it. CRecord on %ppeal" p. 2-

Fro! the decision and <udg!ent a+o&e7!entioned the proponents ha&e appealed. T4o errors are

specified" &i) C# The court +elo4 erred in holding that at the ti!e of signing his 4ill" To!asRodrigue) did not possess the !ental capacity necessary to !a?e the sa!e" and C2 the court +elo4erred in holding that the signatures of To!as Rodrigue) to the 4ill 4ere o+tained through fraudulentand deceitful representations" !ade +y persons interested in the e8ecutions of said 4ill.

The record is &olu!inous M close to t4o thousand type4ritten pages" 4ith a &aried assort!ent of e8hi+its. One +rief contains t4o hundred se&enty7four pages" the other four hundred fifteen pages.The usual oral argu!ent has +een had. The court !ust scale this !ountains of e&idence !ore or less rele&ant and of argu!ent intense and prolific to disco&er the fertile &alleys of fact and principle.



The topics suggested +y the assign!ents of error M Testa!entary *apacity and Endue Influence M4ill +e ta?en up separately and in order. %n atte!pt 4ill +e !ade under each su+<ect first to !a?efindings of fact uite separate and apart fro! those of the <udge and second to !a?e findings of la4and the la4 +y rendering <udg!ent.

I. T1ST%'1NT%R *%%*IT

%. 6acts. M For a long ti!e prior to Octo+er" #$2-" To!as Rodrigue) 4as in fee+le health. Bis+rea?do4n 4as undou+tedly due to organic 4ea?ness" to ad&ancing years and to an accident 4hichoccurred in #$2# C18hi+it /. Elti!ately" on %ugust #0 #$2-" on his initiati&e" To!as Rodrigue)designated Vicente F. >ope) as the ad!inistrator of his property C18hi+it ,.

On Octo+er 22" #$2-" 'argarita >ope) petitioned the *ourt of First Instance of 'anila to na!e aguardian for To!as Rodrigue) +ecause of his age and pathological state. This petition 4as opposed+y %ttorney regorio %raneta acting on +ehalf of To!as Rodrigue) for the reason that 4hileRodrigue) 4as far fro! strong on account of his years" he 4as yet capa+le of loo?ing after hisproperty 4ith the assistance of his ad!inistrator" Vicente F. >ope). The deposition of To!asRodrigue) 4as ta?en and a perusal of the sa!e sho4s that he 4as a+le to ans4er nearly all of the

uestions propounded intelligently C18hi+it 57g. % trial had at 4hich considera+le oral testi!ony for the petitioner 4as recei&ed. %t the conclusion of the hearing" an order 4as issued +y the presiding <udge" declaring To!as Rodrigue) incapacitated to ta?e care of hi!self and to !anage his propertyand na!ing Vicente F. >ope) as his guardian. C18hi+it -,.

Inas!uch as counsel for the appellee !a?e such of one incident 4hich occurred in connection 4iththe guardianship proceedings" it !ay as 4ell +e !entioned here as later. This episode concerns theeffort of deputy sheriff 3oauin arcia to !a?e ser&ice on To!as Rodrigue) on Octo+er -#" #$2-.=e 4ill let the 4itness tell in his o4n 4ords 4hat happened on the occasions in uestion

I found hi! lying do4n on his +ed. . . . %nd 4hen it Cthe cleaning of his head 4as finished" Iagain entered his roo!" and told hi! that I had an order of the court 4hich I 4anted to readas I did read to hi!" +ut after reading the order he as?ed !e 4hat the order !eant@ JI read itto you so that you !ay appear +efore the court" understand"J then I read it again" +ut heas?ed 4hat the order said@ in &ie4 of that fact I left the order and departed fro! the house.CS. R." p. /2.

To return to our narrati&e M possi+ly inspired +y the latter portion of the order of 3udge Dia)" To!asRodrigue) 4as ta?en to the hilippine eneral Bospital on No&e!+er 2," #$2-. There he 4as tore!ain sic? in +ed until his death. The physician in charge during this period 4as Dr. 1lias Do!ingo.In the clinical case record of the hospital under the topic KDiagnosis Cin full"K 4e find the follo4ingKSenility@ Bernia inguinal@ Decu+itusK C18hi+it 9.

On the door of the patientJs roo! 4as placed a placard reading M KNo &isitors" e8cept father"!other" sisters" and +rothers.K CTesti!ony of head nurse physician" there 4ere per!itted to &isit the

patient only the follo4ing na!ed persons Santiago >ope)" 'anuel Ra!ire)" Ro!ana >ope)" >u)>ope) de 6ueno" Re!edio >ope)" 6enita >ope)" Trinidad Vi)carra" %polonia >ope)" %ntonio Ba!an"and regorio %raneta CC18hi+it $. The list did not include the na!es of 'argarita >ope) and her hus+and %ntonio Ventura. Indeed the last na!ed persons e8perienced considera+le difficulty inpenetrating in to the roo! of Rodrigue).

Santiago >ope) states that on one occasion 4hen he 4as &isiting To!as Rodrigue) in the hospital "Rodrigue) e8pressed to hi! a desire to !a?e a 4ill and suggested that the !atter +e ta?en up 4ithVicente F. >ope) CS. R." p. 550. This infor!ation Santiago >ope) co!!unicated to Vicente F.



>ope)" 4ho then inter&ie4ed 'a8i!ino 'ina" a practicing attorney in the *ity of 'anila" for thepurpose of securing hi! to prepare the 4ill. In accordance 4ith this reuest" 3udge 'ina conferred4ith To!as Rodrigue) in the hospital in Dece!+er #/th and Dece!+er 2$th. Be ascertained the4ishes of Rodrigue) and 4rote up a testa!ent in rough draft. The attorney e8pected to return to thehospital on Dece!+er -#st to ha&e the 4ill e8ecuted +ut 4as una+le to do so on account of ha&ingto !a?e a trip to the pro&inces. %ccordingly" the papers 4ere left 4ith Santiago >ope).

In corro+oration of the a+o&e state!ents" 4e transcri+e a portion of 3udge 'inaJs testi!ony 4hichhas not +een challenged in any 4ay

%R%N1T% (. =ill you please tell your !oti&e for holding an inter&ie4 4ith Vicente >ope)

'%HI'INO 'IN% %. Then I arri&ed in the house of Vicente >ope)" after the usual greetingand other uni!portant things" he consulted !e or presented the uestion as to 4hether or not D. To!as could !a?e his 4ill" ha&ing announced his desire to do so. I told hi! that itsee!ed that 4e 4ere not called upon to decide or gi&e an opinion as to 4hether or not hecan !a?e a 4ill@ it is a uestion to +e su+!itted to the court" +ut as he had announced hisdesire" it is our duty to co!ply 4ith it. Then he reuested !e to do 4hat 4as necessary to

co!ply 4ith his 4ishes I told hi! I 4as to see hi!@ then 4e agreed that on the !orning ne8tto the follo4ing e&ening that is on the #/th" I should go to the eneral Bospital and so I did.

(. Did you go to the hospital in the e&ening of the #/th M %. es" sir.

(. Did you !eet D. To!as M %. es" sir.

(. Did D. To!as tell you his desire to !a?e a 4ill

O*%'O >eading.

%R%N1T% I 4ithdra4. =hat" if anything" did D. To!as tell you on that occasion 4hen you

sa4 hi! there M %. Be told !e that.

(. lease tell us 4hat con&ersation you had 4ith D. To!as Rodrigue) M %. Thecon&ersation I had 4ith hi! that e&ening M according to !y +est recollection M I cannot tellthe e8act 4ords and perhaps the order. %fter the usual greetings" ood e&ening" D. To!as" Jood e&ening"J Bo4 are you"J J Bo4 do you do Very 4ell" <ust ca!e here in the na!e of D.Vicente >ope) 4hy does he not co!e. Be cannot co!e +ecause he has !any things to do"and +esides it is hard for hi! and !a?es hi! tired" so he told !e to co!e.J 'ina" your tenant" attorney.J %re you an attorney es.J =here do you li&e I li&e in (uiapo.J Oh" in(uiapo" a good district" it is gay a co!!ercial place you !ust ha&e so!e +usiness there+ecause that is a co!!ercial place. Enfortunately" I ha&e none" D. To!as.J =ell" you !ust+e ha&e +ecause the profession alone does not gi&e enough. =here is your office I 4or? inthe office of 'r. *hicote. That 'r. *hicote !ust +e rich" it see!s to !e that he is. Theprofession gi&es al!ost nothing it is +etter to ha&e properties. I a! an attorney +ut do notdepend upon !y profession. I interrupted D. To!as saying" since you 4ant to !a?e a 4ill"4hen and to 4ho! do you 4ant to lea&e your fortune Then he said" To 4ho! else To !ycousin Vicente >ope) and his daughter >u) >ope). =hich properties do you 4ant to gi&e toyour cousin and niece %ll !y properties" =onJt you specify the property to +e gi&en to eachof the! =hat for %ll !y property. DonJt you ha&e any other relati&es es" sir I ha&e. =onJtyou gi&e any to those relati&es =hat for 4as his ans4er. =ell" do you 4ant to specify saidproperties" to say 4hat they are and he again said" =hat for they ?no4 the!" he is !yattorney7in7fact as to all property. I also said" =ell and as legacy 4onJt you gi&e property to



other persons ans4ers" I thin?" so!ething" they 4ill ?no4 it. %fter +eing as?ed" =ho! doyou thin?" 4ould you 4ant to +e your e8ecutor %fter hesitating a little" This Torres" 'anuel or Santiago >ope) also. Then I as?ed hi!" =hat is your religion Be ans4ered" Ro!an

%postolic *atholic" and then he also as?ed !e" and your %lso Ro!an %postolic *atholic"=here ha&e you studiedJ JIn the Eni&ersity of Santo To!as.J JIt is con&enient to preser&e the*atholic religion that our descendants ha&e left us. %nd you" 4hat did you ha&e anything

!ore to say as to your testa!entary dispositions No" he ans4ered. Then I re!ind hi!" Jou?no4 that Vicente >ope) has sent !e to get these dispositions of yours" and he said" es" doit.J I as?ed hi!" =hen do you 4ant it done >ater on" I 4ill send for you. %fter this +elie&ing toha&e done !y duty" I +ade hi! good7+ye.

(. Did you ha&e any other occasion to see hi! M %. es.

(. =hen M %. On Dece!+er 2$" #$2-" also in the e&ening.

(. =hy did you go to see hi! M %. 6ecause as I had not recei&ed any !essage either fro! Vicente >ope) or To!as Rodrigue)" as I had recei&ed notices in connection 4ith thefe4 cases I had in the pro&inces particularly in Taya+as" 4hich co!pelled !e to +e a+sent

fro! 'anila until 3anuary #st at least" for I !ight +e there for se&eral days" so I 4ent to theeneral Bospital of !y o4n accord M since I had not recei&ed any !essages fro! the! M4ith a rough draft 4hich I had prepared in accordance 4ith 4hat he had told !e in our con&ersation. %fter the greetings" I told hi!" Bere I a! D. To!as@ this is the rough draft of your 4ill in accordance 4ith your for!er state!ents to !e in order to su+!it it to you. Do you4ant to read itJ Jlease do !e the fa&or of reading it. I read it slo4ly to hi! in order that hecould understand it . %fter reading" Is it all right" that is the 4ay"M fe4 4ords M you see itta?es only a fe4 !inutes@ no4 I can e8ecute the 4ill. =e can do it ta?es only a fe4 !inutes.JIn &ie4 of that state!ent of his" I called his attention" J 6ut 4e donJt ha&e 4itnesses" D.To!as.J I loo?ed out through the door to see if I could call so!e 4itnesses +ut it 4as latethen and it 4as thought +etter to do it on the -#st of Dece!+er. Then 4e tal?ed a+out other things" and he again as?ed. =here 4ere you +orn I told hi! in (uiapo. %h" good district"and especially no4 that the fiesta of (uiapo is co!ing near"J and then I interrupted hi!" es"

the fiesta of the Boly *hild and of Our >ady of 'ount *ar!elJ +ecause 4e also tal?ed a+outthe fiesta of San Se+astian. I again re!inded hi! that 4e could not do it +ecause the4itnesses 4ere not there and he e8plained" ood *hrist!as present" isnJt itJ I did not tellhi! anything and in &ie4 of that I did not dee! it necessary to stay there any longer.

(. =ith 4ho! did you !a?e the arrange!ent to !a?e the 4ill on the e&ening of the -#st of Dece!+er M you said that it 4as agreed that the 4ill +e e8ecuted on the e&ening of Dece!+er -#st M %. =ith Santiago >ope) and Don To!as.

(. =as the 4ill e8ecuted on the -#st of Dece!+er M %. =hat happened is this In &ie4 of that agree!ent" I fi8ed up the draft 4hich I had" dating it the -#st of Dece!+er" puttinge&erything in order@ 4e agreed that Santiago 4ould !eet !e on -#st day +et4een fi&e and

si8 in the e&ening or a little +efore" +ut it happened that +efore the arri&al of that dateSantiago >ope) ca!e and told !e that I need not trou+le a+out going to the eneralBospital@ +ecause it could not +e carried out for the reason that certain reuisites 4erelac?ing. In &ie4 of this and +earing al4ays in !ind that on the follo4ing day I had to go to thepro&inces" I told Santiago >ope) that I 4ould lea&e the papers 4ith hi! +ecause I !ight go tothe pro&inces.

(. =hat !ay +e the !eaning of those 4ords good *hrist!as present M %. They are gi&ena *hrist!as present 4hen *hrist!as co!es or on the occasion of *hrist!as.



(. I sho4 you this docu!ent 4hich is !ar?ed 18hi+it %" tell !e if that is the 4ill or copy of the4ill 4hich you deli&ered to Santiago >ope) on Dece!+er 2#" -#" #$2- M %. =ith thee8ception of the 4ords J- de enero de #$2J It see!s to +e literally identical. CS. R. pp. 272$.

%s the 4itness stated" the 4ill 4hich 4as prepared +y hi! is identical 4ith that signed +y the testator

and the attesting 4itnesses 4ith the single e8ception of the change of the date fro! Dece!+er -#"#$2-" to 3anuary -" #$2. T4o copies +esides the original of the 4ill 4ere !ade. The 4ill is +rief andsi!ple in ter!inology.

For purposes of record" 4e copy the 4ill as here translated into 1nglish

ON> %1

In the *ity of 'anila" hilippines Islands" this 3anuary -" #$2" I" To!as Rodrigue)" of ageand resident of the *ity of 'anila" hilippine Islands" do freely and &oluntarily !a?e this !y4ill and testa!ent in the Spanish language 4hich I ?no4" 4ith the follo4ing clauses

First I declare that I a! a Ro!an %postolic *atholic" and order that !y +ody +e +uried inaccordance 4ith !y religion" standing and circu!stances.

Second. I na!e !y cousin Vicente F. >ope) and his daughter >u) >ope) de 6ueno as !yonly uni&ersal heirs of all !y property.

Third. I appoint D. 'anuel Torres and D. Santiago >ope) as !y prosecutors.

In 4itness 4hereof I sign this type4ritten 4ill" consisting of one single page" in the presenceof the 4itness 4ho sign +elo4.

CSgd. TO'%S RODRIE1L

C>eft !arginal signaturesTO'%S RODRIE1L1>I%S 6ONO%NV. >. >1%RD%

%. D1 %SIS

=e here+y certify that on the date and in the place a+o&e indicated" Don To!as Rodrigue)e8ecuted this 4ill" consisting of one single type4ritten page" ha&ing signed at the +otto! of the 4ill in the presence of us 4ho sa4 as 4itnesses the e8ecution of this 4ill" 4e signed atthe +otto! thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.

CSgd. V. >. >1%RD%1>I%S 6ONO%N %. D1 %SISC18hi+it %.

On the afternoon of 3anuary -" #$2 there gathered in the uarters of To!as Rodrigue) in thehilippine eneral Bospital" Santiago >ope) and Dr. %. De %sis" attesting 4itness@ and Dr. 1liasFernando *alderon" Dr. 1lias Do!ingo and Dr. Florentino Berrera" physicians" there for purposes of o+ser&ation. CTesti!ony of 1lias 6onoan" S. R." p. 9 of Vl. >egarda" S. R. p. -. ossi+ly also 'rs.



>u) >ope) de 6ueno and 'rs. Nena >ope) 4ere present@ at least they 4ere ho&ering in the+ac?ground.

%s to 4hat actually happened" 4e ha&e in the record t4o a+solutely contradictory accounts. Onee!anates fro! the attesting 4itness" Doctor 6onoan. The other is the united testi!ony of allre!aining persons 4ho 4ere there.

Doctor 1lias 6onoan 4as the first 4itness called at the trial. Be testified on direct e8a!ination as tofor!al !atters" such as the identification of the signatures to the 4ill .On cross7e8a!ination" herather started the proponents of the 4ill +y stating that >u) >ope) de 6ueno told To!as Rodrigue) tosign the docu!ent it concerned a co!plaint against *astito and that no+ody read the 4ill to thetestator. Doctor 6onoanJs testi!ony along this line is as follo4s

(E1STIONS.

'%R*%ID% (. =hy 4ere you a 4itness to the 4ill of To!as Rodrigue)

%raneta I o+<ect to the uestion as +eing i!!aterial.

*ourt O+<ection o&erruled.

Dr. 6onoan %. 6ecause I 4as called up +y 'rs. >u) +y telephone telling !e to +e in thehospital at - oJcloc? sharp in the afternoon of the -d of 3anuary.

(. =ho is that >u) 4ho! you ha&e !entioned M %. >u) >ope)" daughter of Vicente >ope).

(. =hat day" 3anuary -" #$2 %. es" sir.

(. =hen did >u) >ope) tal? to you in connection 4ith your going to the hospital M %. Onthe !orning of the -d she called !e up +y telephone.

(. On the !orning M %. On the !orning.

(. 6efore 3anuary -" #$2" 4hen the 4ill of To!as Rodrigue) 4as signed" did >u) >ope) tal?to you %. es" sir.

(. Bo4 !any days appro8i!ately +efore 4as it M %. I cannot tell the day" it 4asappro8i!ately one 4ee? +efore" M on that occasion 4hen I 4as called up +y her a+out thedeceased Vicente >ope).

(. =hat did she tell you 4hen you 4ent to the house of Vicente >ope) one 4ee?appro8i!ately +efore signing the 4ill 7 %. That To!as Rodrigue) 4ould !a?e a 4ill.

(. DonJt you ?no4 4here the 4ill of To!as Rodrigue) 4as !ade 7 %. In the eneralBospital.

(. =as that docu!ent 4ritten in the hospital M %. I ha&e not seen it.



(. =hen you 4ent to the eneral Bospital on 3anuary -" #$2" 4ho 4ere the persons you!et in the roo! 4here the patients 4as M %. I !et one of the nieces of the deceasedTo!as Rodrigue)" 'rs. Nena >ope) and Dna. >u) >ope).

(. =ere those the only persons M %. es" sir.

(. =hat ti!e appro8i!ately did you go to the eneral Bospital on 3anuary -d M %. %uarter to -.

(. %fter you" 4ho ca!e M %. %ntonio de %sis" Doctor Berrera" later on Doctor *alderonarri&ed 4ith Doctor 1lias Do!ingo and lastly Santiago >ope) ca!e and then 'r. >egarda.

(. =hen you entered the roo! of the patient" D. To!as Rodrigue)" in the eneral Bospitalin 4hat position did you find hi!M %. Be 4as lying do4n.

(. Did you greet D. To!as Rodrigue) %. I did.

(. Did D. To!as Rodrigue) ans4er you M %. Dna. Nena i!!ediately ans4ered in ad&ance

and introduced !e to hi! saying that I 4as the +rother of his godson.

(. Did other persons 4ho! you ha&e !entioned" &i)" 'essrs. *alderon" Berrera" Do!ingo"De %sis and >egarda greet To!as Rodrigue)

%R%N1T% I o+<ect to the uestion as +eing i!proper cross7e8a!ination. It has not +een thesu+<ect of the direct e8a!ination.

*OERT O+<ection o&erruled.

%R%N1T% 18ception.

%. No" sir" they <oined us.

(. =hat 4as D. To!as told 4hen he signed the 4ill. M %. To sign it.

(. =ho told D. To!as to sign the 4ill M %. >u) >ope).

(. =hat did >u) >ope) tell To!as Rodrigue) in order that he should sign the 4ill M %. Shetold hi! to sign the docu!ent@ the deceased To!as Rodrigue) +efore signing the docu!entas?ed 4hat that 4as 4hich he 4as to sign.

(. =hat did any+ody ans4er to that uestion of D. To!as M %. >u) >ope) told hi! to signit +ecause it concerned a co!plaint against *astito. D. To!as said" J=hat is thisK %nd >u)>ope) ans4ered" Jou sign this docu!ent" uncle To!as" +ecause this is a+out the co!plaintagainst *astito.

(. Then To!as Rodrigue) signed the 4ill M %. es" sir.

(. =ho had the 4ill =ho 4as holding it M %. 'r. Vicente >egarda had it his o4n hands.



(. =as the 4ill signed +y To!as Rodrigue) lying do4n" on his feet or seated M %. >yingdo4n.

(. =as the 4ill read +y To!as Rodrigue) or any person present at the ti!e of signing the4ill" did they read it to hi! M %. No+ody read the 4ill to hi!.

(. Did not D. To!as read the 4ill M %. I ha&e not seen it.

(. =ere you present M %. es" sir. C S. R. p. 9

%s it 4ould +e uite i!practica+le to transcri+e the testi!ony of all the others 4ho attended the!a?ing of the 4ill" 4e 4ill let Vicente >. >egarda" 4ho appears to ha&e assu!ed the leading role" tell4hat transpired. Be testified in part

%R%N1T% (. =ho e8hi+ited to you those docu!ents" 18hi+its %" %7#" and %72

>1%RD% %. Santiago >ope).

(. Did he sho4 you the sa!e docu!ent M %. First that is to say the first docu!ent hepresented to !e 4as a rough draft" a tentati&e 4ill" and it 4as dated Dece!+er -#st" and Icalled his attention to the fact that the date 4as not Dece!+er -#" #$2-" and that it 4asnecessary to change the date to 3anuary -" #$2" and it 4as done.

(. %nd it 4as then" 4as it not 4hen 18hi+its %" %7#" and %72 4ere 4ritten M %. es" sir.

(. Do you any ?no4 4here it 4as 4ritten M %. In the eneral Bospital.

(. Did any ti!e elapse fro! your !a?ing the suggestion that the docu!ent 4hich youdeli&ered to Santiago >ope) +e 4ritten until those three 18hi+its %" %7#" and %72 4erepresented to you M %. %+out nine or ten !inutes appro8i!ately.

(. The ti!e to !a?e it clean M %. es" sir.

(. =here 4ere you during that ti!e M %. In the roo! of D. To!as Rodrigue).

(. =ere you tal?ing 4ith hi! during that ti!e. M %. es" sir.

(. %+out 4hat things 4ere you tal?ing 4ith hi! M %. Be 4as as?ing !e a+out !y health"that of !y fa!ily ho4 !y fa!ily 4as !y girl" 4hether 4e 4ere li&ing in asay" he as?ed !ea+out the stea!er Ildefonso" he said that it 4as a pity that it had +een lost +ecause he ?ne4that !y father7in7la4 4as the o4ner of the stea!er Ildefonso.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

(. =hen those docu!ents" 18hi+it %" %7#" and %72" that is the original and t4o copies of the4ill signed +y D. To!as Rodrigue) 4ere 4ritten clean" 4ill you please tell 4hat happenedM %. =hen Santiago >ope) ga&e the! to !e clean" I approached D. To!as Rodrigue) andtold hi! Don To!as" here is this 4ill 4hich is ready for your signature.



(. =hat did D. To!as do 4hen you said that his 4ill you 4ere sho4ing to hi! 4as ready M %. The first thing he as?ed 4as the 4itnesses Then I called the 4itnesses M entle!en"please co!e for4ard" and they ca!e for4ard" and I handed the docu!ents to D. To!as. D.To!as got up and then too? his eyeglasses" put the! on and as he sa4 that the electricla!p at the center 4as not sufficiently clear" he said JThere is no !ore light@J then so!e+odyca!e for4ard +ringing an electric la!p.

(. =hat did D. To!as do 4hen that electric la!p 4as put in place M %. The eyeglasses4ere ad<usted again and then he +egan to read" and as he could not read !uch for a longti!e" for he une8pectedly felt tired and too? off the eyeglasses" and as I sa4 that the poor !an 4as tired" I suggested that it +e read to hi! and he stopped reading and I read the 4illto hi!.

(. =hat happened after you had read it to hi! M %. Be said to !e" J=ell" it is all right. It is!y 4ish and !y 4ill. DonJt you ha&e any penJ I as?ed a pen of those 4ho 4ere there andhanded it to D. To!as.

(. Is it true that To!as Rodrigue) as?ed at that ti!e J=hat is that 4hich I a! going to signJ

and >u) >ope) told hi! JIt is in connection 4ith the co!plaint against *astitoJ M %. It is nottrue" no" sir.

(. During the signing of the 4ill" did you hear >u) >ope) say anything to To!as Rodrigue)M %. No" Sir" she said nothing.

(. %ccording to you" To!as Rodrigue) signed of his o4n accord M %. es" sir.

(. Did no+ody tell hi! to sign M %. No+ody.

(. =hat happened after the signing of the 4ill +y To!as Rodrigue) M %. I called the4itnesses and 4e signed in the presence of each other and of To!as Rodrigue).

(. %fter the signing of the 4ill" did you ha&e any con&ersation 4ith To!as Rodrigue) M %.Doctor *alderon as?ed D. To!as Rodrigue) so!e uestions.

(. Do you re!e!+er the uestions and the con&ersation held +et4een Doctor *alderon andD. To!as after the signing of the 4ill M %. I re!e!+er that after4ards Doctor *alderontal?ed to hi! a+out +usiness. Be as?ed hi! ho4 the +usiness of !a?ing loans at #9 per cent. It see!s that To!as Rodrigue) ans4ered That loan at #9 per cent is illegal" it is usury.CS. R." p. -9.

In addition to the state!ents under oath !ade +y 'r. >egarda" an architect and engineer in the6ureau of u+lic =or?s and professor of engineering and architecture in the Eni&ersity of Santo

To!as" suffice it to say that >u) >ope) de 6ueno denied categorically the state!ents attri+uted toher +y Doctor 6onoan CS. R." p. 5/9. In this stand" she is corro+orated +y Doctor *alderon"Do!ingo" and Berrera" the attending physicians. On this point" Doctor *alderon the Director of thehilippine eneral Bospital and Dean of the *ollege of 'edicine in the Eni&ersity of the hilippines"testified

'r. %R%N1T% (. =hat ha&e you seen or heard 4ith regard to the e8ecution of the 4ill



Dr. *%>D1RON %. 'r. >egarda handled the 4ill to D. To!as Rodrigue). D. To!as as?ed for his eyeglass" 4anted to read and it 4as e8tre!ely hard for hi! to do so. 'r. >egarda offeredto read the 4ill" it 4as read to hi! and he heard that in that 4ill Vicente >ope) and >u) >ope)4ere appointed heirs@ 4e also sa4 hi! sign that 4ill" and he signed not only the original +utalso the other copies of the 4ill and 4e also sa4 ho4 the 4itnesses signed the 4ill@ 4e heardthat D. To!as as?ed for light at that !o!ent@ he heard that D. To!as as?ed for light at that

!o!ent@ he 4as at that ti!e in a perfect !ental state. %nd 4e re!ained there after the 4ill4as e8ecuted. I as?ed hi!" JBo4 do you feel" ho4 are you =ell I a! 4ell" J he ans4ered. JBo4 is the +usiness There is a crisis at there is one good +usiness" na!ely" that of !a?ingloans at the rate of #9 per cent" Jand he ans4ered" JThat is usury.@ =hen a !an ans4ers inthat 4ay" J That is usury it sho4s that he is all right.

(. =ere you present 4hen 'r. >egarda handed the 4ill to hi! M %. es" sir.

(. Did any person there tell Don To!as that 4as a co!plaint to +e filed against one *astitoM %. No" sir" I ha&e not heard anything of the ?ind.

(. It 4as said here that 4hen the 4ill 4as handed to hi!" D. To!as Rodrigue) as?ed 4hat

that 4as 4hich he 4as to sign and that >u) >ope) ans4ered" JThat is +ut a co!plaint inconnection 4ith *astito.J Is that true M %. I ha&e not heard anything of the ?ind.

(. Bad any+ody told that to the deceased" 4ould you ha&e heard it %. es" sir.

(. =as >u) >ope) there M %. I donJt re!e!+er ha&ing seen her@ I a! not sure@ D. Santiago>ope) and the three 4itnesses 4ere there@ I donJt re!e!+er that >u) >ope) 4as there.

(. Bad any+ody told that to the deceased" 4ould you ha&e heard it M %. es" sir.

(. Do you re!e!+er 4hether he 4as gi&en a pen or he hi!self as?ed for it M %. I donJt?no4@ it is a detail 4hich I donJt re!e!+er 4ell@ so that 4hether or not he 4as gi&en a pen or

he hi!self as?ed for it" I do not re!e!+er.

(. 6ut did he sign 4ithout hesitation M %. =ith no hesitation.

(. Did he sign 4ithout any+ody ha&ing indicated to hi! 4here he 4as to sign M %. es"4ithout any+ody ha&ing indicated it to hi!.

(. Do you ?no4 4hether D. To!as Rodrigue) as?ed for !ore light +efore signing M %. Beas?ed for !ore lights" as I ha&e said +efore.

(. Do you re!e!+er that detail M %. es" sir. They first lighted the la!ps" +ut as the light4as not sufficient" he as?ed for !ore light.

(. Do you re!e!+er &ery 4ell that he as?ed for light M %. es" sir. CS. R. p.$$-.

% clear preponderance of the e&idence e8ists in fa&or of the testi!ony of Vicente >egarda"corro+orated as it is +y other 4itnesses of the highest standing in the co!!unity. The onlye8planation 4e can offer relati&e to the testi!ony of Doctor 6onoan is that possi+ly he !ay ha&earri&ed earlier than the others 4ith the e8ception of >u) >ope) de 6ueno" and that >u) >ope) de6ueno !ay ha&e !ade so!e sort of an effort to influence To!as Rodrigue). There is ho4e&er nopossi+le e8planation of the state!ent of Doctor 6onoan to the effect that no one read the 4ill to



Rodrigue) 4hen at least fi&e other persons recollect that Vicente >egarda read it to hi! and recallthe details connected 4ith the reading.

There is one curious occurrence 4hich transpired shortly after the !a?ing of the 4ill 4hich shouldhere +e !entioned. It is that on 3anuary ," #$2- C#$2" >u) >ope) de 6ueno signed a docu!ent infa&or of Doctor 6onoan in the a!ount of one thousand pesos C#"000. This paper reads as follo4

)e it 2no0 b* these present>

That I" >u) >ope) de 6ueno in consideration of the ser&ices 4hich at !y instance4ere and 4ill 4hen necessary +e rendered +y Dr. 1lias 6onoan in connection 4iththe e8ecution of the 4ill of !y uncle" Don To!as Rodrigue) and the due pro+atethereof" do here+y agree to pay said doctor" +y 4ay of re!uneratory donation" thesu! of one thousand pesos C#"000" hilippine currency" as soon as said ser&icesshall ha&e +een fully rendered and I shall +e in possession of the inheritance 4hichin said 4ill is gi&en to !e.

In 4itness 4hereof" I sign this docu!ent 4hich 4as freely and spontaneously

e8ecuted +y !e in 'anila" this 3anuary ," #$2-.

CSgd. >EL >O1L D1 6E1NOC18hi+it #

There is a sharp conflict of testi!ony" as is natural +et4een Doctor 6onoan and >u) >ope) de6ueno relati&e to the e8ecution of the a+o&e docu!ent. =e shall not atte!pt to settle thesedifferences as in the final analysis it 4ill not affect the decision one 4ay or the other. The !ostreasona+le supposition is that >u) >ope) de 6ueno i!prudently endea&ored to +ring o&er Doctor 6onoan to her side of the race +y signing and gi&ing to hi! 18hi+it #. 6ut the e&ent cannot easily +ee8plained a4ay.

To!as Rodrigue) passed a4ay in the hilippine eneral Bospital" as 4e said on Fe+ruary 25" #$2.Not e&en prior to his de!ise the t4o actions in the >ope) fa!ily had prepared the!sel&es for a fighto&er the estate. The >u) >ope) faction had secured the ser&ices of Doctor Do!ingo" the physician incharge of the Depart!ent of Insane of San >a)aro Bospital an %ssistant rofessor of Ner&ous and'ental Diseases in the Eni&ersity of the hilippines" as attending physician@ as associated 4ith hi!for purposes of in&estigation Dr. Fernando *alderon the Director of the hilippine eneral Bospitaland Dr. Florentino Berrera" a physician in acti&e practice in the *ity of 'anila@ and had arranged toha&e t4o !e!+ers of the !edical fraternity" Doctors De %sis and 6onoan as attesting 4itnesses.The 'argarita >ope) faction had ta?en eual precautions +y calling a 4itnesses in the guardshipproceedings Dr. Si8to de los %ngeles rofessor and *hief of the Depart!ent of >egal 'edicine in theEni&ersity of the hilippines" and Dr. Sa!uel Tiet)e" 4ith long e8perience in !ental diseases@thereafter +y continuing Doctors de >os %ngeles and Tiet)e to e8a!ine To!as Rodrigue) and +yassociating 4ith the! Dr. =illia! 6ur?e" a 4ell7?no4n physician of the *ity of 'anila. S?illed

la4yers 4ere a&aila+le to aid and a+et the !edical e8perts. Out of such situations" do 4ill contestsarise.

%n e8a!ination of the certificates !ade +y the t4o sets of physicians and of their testi!ony sho4sthat on !ost facts they concur. Their deductions fro! these facts disclose a su+stantial di&ergenceof opinion. It is a hopeless tas? to try to reconcile the &ie4s of these distinguished gentle!en 4hohonestly arri&ed at definite +ut contradictory conclusions. The +est that 4e can do under thecircu!stances is to set forth the findings of the *alderon co!!itted on the hand and of the De >os

%ngeles co!!ittee on the other.



Doctors *alderon" Do!ingo and Berrera e8a!ined To!as Rodrigue) indi&idually and <ointly +eforethe date 4hen the 4ill 4as e8ecuted. %ll of the!" as 4e ha&e noticed 4ere" present at the signing of the 4ill to note the reactions of the testator. On the sa!e day that the 4ill 4as acco!plished" thethree doctors signed the follo4ing certificate

The undersigned" Drs. of 'edicine" 4ith offices in the *ity of 'anila" and engaged in the

practice of their profession do here+y certify

That they ha&e <ointly e8a!ined 'r. To!as Rodrigue)" confined in the eneral Bospital" floor No. -" roo! No. -/# on three different occasion and on different days and ha&e found thatsaid patient is suffering fro! ane!ia" hernia inguinal" chronic dyspepsia and senility.

%s to his !ental state the result of the different tests to 4hich this patient 4as su+!itted isthat his intellectual faculties are sound" e8cept that his !e!ory is 4ea?" 4hich is al!ost aloss for recent facts" or e&ents 4hich ha&e recently occurred" due to his physical conditionand old age.

They also certify that they 4ere present at the ti!e he signed his 4ill on 3anuary -" #$2" at

#25 p.!. and ha&e found his !ental state in the sa!e condition as 4as found +y theundersigned in their for!er e8a!ination and that in e8ecuting said 4ill the testator and full?no4ledge of the contents thereof.

In testi!ony 4hereof" 4e sign in 'anila this 3anuary -" #$2.

CSgd. F>OR1NTINO B1RR1R%Tu+erias #2/(uiapo

CSgd. Dr. F1RN%NDO *%>D1RONeneral Bospital

'anila

CSgd. Dr. 1>I%S DO'INO/#- Re!edios'alate

C18hi+it 1 in relation 4ith 18hi+its * and D.

Doctor *alderon 4hile on the 4itness7stand e8pressed a definite opinion as to the !entalityof To!as Rodrigue) =hat follo4s is possi+ly the !ost significant of the doctorJs state!ents

Dr. *%>D1RON testifying after interruption

%. I 4as naturally interested in finding out the true !ental state of To!as Rodrigue) and that4as the chief reason 4hy I accepted and ga&e !y cooperation to 'essrs. 1lias Do!ingoand Florentino Berrera +ecause had I found that To!as Rodrigue) and Florentino Berrera+ecause had I found that To!as Rodrigue) 4as really insane" I should ha&e ordered histransfer to the San >a)aro Bospital or to other places" and 4ould not ha&e left hi! in theeneral Bospital. ursuant to !y desire" I sa4 To!as Rodrigue) in his roo! alone t4ice toha&e inter&ie4s 4ith his" he +egging a person 4ho! I ?ne4 since se&eral years ago@ at theend of the inter&ie4s I +eca!e con&inced that there 4as nothing 4rong 4ith hi!@ I had not



seen anything indicating that he 4as insane and for this reason I accepted the reuest of !yco!panions and <oined the!@ 4e ha&e +een on fi&e different occasions e8a!ining To!asRodrigue) <ointly fro! the physical standpoint +ut chiefly fro! the standpoint of his !entalstate@ I ha&e +een there 4ith 'essrs. Berrera and 1lias Do!ingo" e8a!ining To!asRodrigue) and su+!itting to a !ental test on the 29" 2$" #0 and -# of Dece!+er and the22nd of 3anuary" #$2 M fi&e consecuti&e days in 4hich he ha&e +een together +esides !y

particular &isits.

(. =ill you place state the result of the o+ser&ation you !ade alone +efore those !ade +ythe three of you <ointly M %. I as?ed To!as Rodrigue) so!e uestions 4hen I 4ent alonethere" I as?ed hi! 4ere he 4as li&ing for!erly and he 4ell re!e!+ered that in Intra!uros"*alle Real@ I as?ed hi! 4hether he re!e!+ered one *alderon 4ho 4as li&ing in the upper floor of the house and then he told !e yes@ than I as?ed hi! a+out his tenant +y the na!e of

%ntonio 3i!ene) and he told !e yes" M no4 I re!e!+er that he had t4o daughters" 'atildeand a). Then I told hi! that I had +een li&ing in the house of the gentle!en" %ntonio3i!ene) already dead M in the upper story of the house +elonged to To!as Rodrigue)@ I toldhi! that %ntonio 3i!ene) 4as his tenant of the upper story" that is that he 4as li&ing on theground floor and %ntonio 3i!ene) upstairs and he re!e!+ered all of this I also +egan to tal?of !y +rother" Felipe *alderon" 4ho he said of course that he ?ne4@ he re!e!+ered hi!+ecause he 4as his co!panion and 4as a successful attorney. This 4as 4hen I had aninter&ie4 4ith hi!. Then in order to o+ser&e +etter and to +e sure of !y <udg!ent or opiniona+out the !ental state of To!as Rodrigue)" I sa4 hi! again and 4e +egan to spea? of so!ething 4hich I donJt re!e!+er no4. In fine" 4e tal?ed of things of interest and as I hadfinally accepted the reuest of Drs. 1lias Do!ino and Florentino Berrera to <oin then the firstand second ti!e that Berrera" Do!ingo and !yself 4ent there" no stenographic notes 4ereta?en of 4hat happened there.

(. So that +efore <oining Doctors Berrera and Do!ingo you had already paid t4o &isits to thepatient M %. es" sir.

(. Fro! the result f the con&ersation you had 4ith To!as Rodrigue) on those t4o &isits 4hat

is your opinion as to his !ental capacity M %. That he 4as sic?@ that he 4as 4ea?" +ut Iha&e found a+solutely no incoherence in his ideas@ he ans4ered !y uestions 4ell and as I4as o+ser&ing hi! there 4ere ti!es 4hen he did not re!e!+er things of the present M+ecause this !ust +e ad!itted M +ut on the other hand he had a 4onderful !e!ory of paste&ents@ in tal?ing 4ith hi!" you 4ould not notice in the con&ersation any alteration in his !indnor that !an had lost the reasoning po4er or logic.

(. Did you notice any loss of !e!ory" or that his !e!ory 4as 4ea?ening a+out things of thepast M %. %+out things of the past" I !ean that you tal? to hi! no4 a+out specific !atters"and after a+out fi&e or ten !inutes he no longer re!e!+ers 4hat had +een tal?ed of.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

(. Do you re!e!+er the con&ersation you had 4ith hi! for the first ti!e 4hen the three of you paid a &isit to the patient M %. I donJt re!e!+er the details" +ut I do re!e!+er theuestions I put to hi!. I as?ed D. To!as Rodrigue) ou are an old !an aged" sic? es" Ia! thin?ing to !a?e a 4ill. 6ut 4hy donJt you decide There is no hurry there is ti!e to !a?ea 4ill" Jhe said. Then in case you decide to !a?e a 4ill" to 4ho! are you going to lea&e your property DonJt you ha&e any relati&es I ha&e a relati&e" Vicente >ope)" !y first cousin" and'argarita >ope) !y first cousin they are +rothers.J In that case" to 4ho!" do you 4ant tolea&e your property =hy" I donJt ha&e !uch" &ery little" +ut I a! decided to lea&e it to !y



cousin" Vicente >ope) and his daughter >u) >ope). =hy 4ould you not gi&e anything to'argarita >ope) No +ecause her hus+and is &ery +ad" Jto use his e8act language is &ery+ad.J

(. Did you tal? 4ith hi! on that occasion a+out his estate M %. es" sir" he told !e that hehad three estates" M one on *alle 'agallanes" another on *alle *a+ildo and the third on

*alle 3uan >una and +esides he had !oney in the 'onte de iedad and Bogar Filipino.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

(. Fro! the uestion !ade +y you and the ans4ers gi&en +y 'r. To!as Rodrigue) on thatoccasion" 4hat is your opinion as to his !ental capacity M %. The follo4ing That the!e!ory of To!as Rodrigue) so!e4hat failed as to things of the present" +ut is all right 4ithregard to !atters or facts of the past@ that his ideas 4ere incoherent@ that the thought 4ithlogic" argued e&en 4ith po4er and generally in so!e of the inter&ie4s I ha&e arri&ed at theconclusion that To!as Rodrigue) had an initiati&e of his o4n" did not need that any+odyshould !a?e hi! any suggestion +ecause he ans4ered in such a 4ay that if you per!it !eno4 to sho4 you !y stenographic notes" they 4ill pro&e to you conclusi&ely that he had an

initiati&e of his o4n and had no need of any+ody !a?ing hi! any uestion. CS. R. p. ,2.

Doctor 1lias Do!ingo" 4ho 4as the attending physician for To!as Rodrigue) throughout all the ti!ethat Rodrigue) in the hospital had e8a!ined hi!" 4as li?e4ise certain that Rodrigue) possessedsufficient !entality to !a?e a 4ill. %!ong other things" Doctor Do!ingo testified

%R%N1T% (. Ba&e you ?no4n D. To!as Rodrigue)

Dr. DO'INO %. es" sir.

(. Did you attend D. To!as Rodrigue) as physician M %. es" sir.

(. =hen did you +egin to attend hi! as physician M %. On No&e!+er 29" until his death.

(. On No&e!+er 29 or Octo+er 29" #$2-" do you re!e!+er M %. I had +een attending hi!as physician fro! No&e!+er 29th although it true that I had opportunities to see ande8a!ine hi! during the !onths of Octo+er and No&e!+er.

(. =hat 4as the o+<ect of your &isits or attendance during the !onths of Octo+er andNo&e!+er M %. It 4as for the purpose of o+ser&ing his !ental state.

(. Did you really e8a!ine his !ental condition or capacity during the !onths of Octo+er andNo&e!+er M %. es" sir.

(. Bo4 !any ti!es did you &isit hi! M %. I donJt re!e!+er e8actly +ut I &isited hi! a+outfi&e or si8 ti!es.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

(. lease tell us the result of your e8a!ination during those !onths of Octo+er andNo&e!+er M %. I e8a!ined hi! physically and !entally@ I a! not going to tell here thephysically result +ut the result of the !ental e8a!ination" and that is eneral *onduct In!ost of the ti!es that I ha&e seen hi! I found hi! lying on his +ed" s!o?ing a cigarette and



as?ed for a +ottle of le!onade fro! ti!e to ti!e@ I also o+ser&ed that he 4as &ery careful4hen thro4ing the ash of the cigarette" seeing to it that it did not fall on the +lan?ets@ he also4as careful not to thro4 the stu+ of the cigarette in any place to a&oid fire@ I !ade !oreo+ser&ations as to his general conduct and I found that so!eti!es Don To!as could !o&e4ithin the place although 4ith certain difficulty. On t4o occasions I found hi! seated" onceseated at the ta+le" seated in the chair" and other on a roc?ing chair. I also e8a!ined his

!anner of tal?ing and to all uestions that I put to hi! he ans4ered 4ith a coherence and ina rele&ant !anner" although so!eti!es he sho4ed eagerness and certain delay. I +asedthese points of !y declaration on the uestions 4hich are usually as?ed 4hen !a?ing a!ental e8a!ination for instance I as?ed hi!" =hat is your na!e" Jand he correctly ans4eredTo!as Rodrigue)@ I as?ed hi! if he 4as !arried and he ans4ered JNo@J I as?ed hi! hisprofession and he ans4ered that for!erly he 4as an attorney +ut that at the ti!e I 4as!a?ing the e8a!ination he 4as not practising the profession@ I as?ed hi! 4ith 4hat hesupported hi!self and he said that he li&ed upon his inco!e" he said &er+ati!" JI li&e on !yinco!e.J I also as?ed hi! 4hat the a!ount of hi! inco!e 4as and he ans4ered that it 4asa+out $00@ I as?ed hi! 4hat the source of this inco!e 4as and he said that it ca!e fro!his property.

(. Did you as? hi! a+out his property M %. No" at that ti!e.

(. roceed. M %. I also o+ser&ed his e!otional status and effecti&ity. I found it rather superficial" and he oftenti!es got angry due to his physical disease@ I as?ed hi! if he hadany relati&es and he ans4ered correctly saying that he had. Be !entioned Vicente >ope)"'argarita >ope)" and >u) >ope). %s to his !e!ory. Bis !e!ory of the past. Be &ery easilyre!e!+ered past e&ents and 4hen he descri+ed the! he did it 4ith such pleasure the heused to s!ile after4ards M if it 4as a fact upon 4hich one !ust s!ile" Bis !e!ory of recentfacts 4as &ery !uch lessened. I say this +ecause on &arious occasions and not ha&ing?no4n !e 4hen he had a +etter !e!ory" after I had seen hi! thrice he re!e!+ered !yna!e and he recogni)ed !e. Insight and <udg!ent. I arri&ed at the conclusion that he hadfair ?no4ledge of hi!self +ecause he ?ne4 that he 4as sic? and could not +e !o&ing 4ithease" +ut he +elie&ed that he could perfor! 4ith sufficient ease !ental acts@ his <udg!ent

4as also all right +ecause I as?ed hi! this uestion JSupposing that you could find a +ill of 5 in the &esti+ule of a hotel" 4hat 4ould you do 4ith it J Be told !e that he 4ould ta?e the+ill and gi&e it to the !anager in order that the latter !ay loo? for the o4ner if possi+le. Bisreasoning. I found that he sho4ed a !oderated retardation in the flo4 of his thought"especially 4ith regard to recent e&ents" +ut 4as uite all right as to past e&ents" Bis capacity"Be +elie&ed that he 4as capa+le of thin?ing properly although 4hat did not per!it hi! to doso 4as his physical decrepit condition. The conclusion is that his !e!ory is lost for recente&ents tho not totally and di!inution of his intellectual &igor. This is in fe4 4ords the result of !y e8a!ination.

To!as Rodrigue) 4as li?e4ise e8a!ined thoroughly +y Doctors De los %ngeles" Tiet)e" and 6ur?e.Doctor De los %ngeles had +een a 4itness in the gurardianship proceedings and had seen thepatient of No&e!+er / and ," #$2-. Doctor Tiet)e had also +een a 4itness in the guardianship caseand had &isited the patient on No&e!+er $ and #2" #$2-" and on 3anuary #5" #$2. Doctors Tiet)eand 6ur?e together e8a!ined Rodrigue) on 3anuary #," 20" and 2" #$2. The three physiciansconducted a <oint e8a!ination result" on 'arch #5" #$2" they prepared and signed the follo4ing

'1DI*%> *1RTIFI*%T1

In the 'atter of To!as Rodrigue) y >ope)" !ale" ,/ years of age" single and residing or +eing confined in the hilippine eneral Bospital.



=e" the undersigned Doctors" Si8to de los %ngeles" =. 6. 6ur?e" and Sa!uel Tiet)e" dohere+y certify as follo4s

#. That 4e are physicians" duly registered under the 'edical %ct" and are in the actualpractice of the !edical profession in the hilippines.

2. That on 3anuary 2,th and 29th" and Fe+ruary #0th" #$2" at the hilippine eneralBospital" 4e three ha&e 4ith care the diligence <ointly and personally e8a!ined the person of said To!as Rodrigue) y >ope)@ and pre&ious to these dated" 4e ha&e separately and partly

<ointly o+ser&ed and e8a!ined said patient on &arious occasions@ Dr. Si8to de los %ngeles" atthe patientJs ho!e" 2/ 'agallanes St." 'anila" on No&e!+er /th and ,th " #$2-@ Dr.Sa!uel Tiet)e" at the patientJs ho!e on No&e!+er $th and #2th" #$2-" and at the hilippineeneral Bospital no 3anuary #,th" 20th" and 2" #$2@ and as a result of the !edicale8a!inations and the history of the case 4e found and here+y certify to the follo4ingconclusions

Ca That he 4as of unsound !ind suffering fro! senile dementia" or of !ental i!pair!ente8ceeding to a pathological e8tent the unusual conditions and changes found to occur in the

in&olutional period of life.

C+ That he 4as under the influence of the a+o&e condition continuously" at least fro!No&e!+er" #$2-" till the date of our <oint ree8a!ination" 3anuary 2,th and 29th" andFe+ruary #0th" #$2@ and that he 4ould naturally ha&e continued 4ithout i!pro&e!ent" asthese cases of insanity are due to organic pathological changes of the +rain. This for! of !ental disease is progressi&e in its pathological tendency" going on to progressi&e atropyand degeneration of the +rain" the !ental sy!pto!s" of course" running parallel 4ith suchpathological +asis.

Cc That on account of such disease and conditions his !ind and !e!ory 4ere so greatlyi!paired as to !a?e hi! una+le to ?no4 or to appreciate sufficiently the nature" effect" andconseuences of the +usiness he 4as engaged in@ to understand and co!prehend thee8tent and condition of his properties@ to collect and to hold in his !ind the particulars anddetails of his +usiness transactions and his relations to the persons 4ho 4ere or !ight ha&e+een the o+<ects of his +ounty@ and to free hi!self fro! the influences of i!portunities"threats and ingenuities" so that 4ith a relati&ely less resistance" he !ight had +een inducedto do 4hat others 4ould not ha&e done.

-. =e ha&e diagnosed this case as senile demential of the si!ple type" approaching thedeteriorated stage upon the follo4ing detailed !ental e8a!ination

Ca Disorder of memor* . M There 4as al!ost an a+solute loss of !e!ory of recent e&ents"to the e8tent that things and occurrences seen or o+ser&ed only a fe4 !inutes pre&iously4ere co!pletely forgotten. Faces and na!es of person introduced to hi! 4ere not

re!e!+ered after a short !o!ent e&en 4ithout lea&ing his +edside . Be sho4ed noco!prehension of the ele!ental routine reuired in the !anage!ent of his properties" i.e.4ho 4ere the lessees of his houses" 4hat rents they 4ere paying" 4ho 4as the ad!inistrator of his properties" in 4hat +an?s he deposited his !oney or the a!ount of !oney depositedin such +an?s. Regarding his personal relation" he forgot that 'r. %ntonio Ventura is thehus+and of his nearest 4o!an cousin@ the 'rs. 'argarita >ope) 4as !arried" saying thatthe latter 4as single or spinster" in spite of the fact that for!erly" during the past t4enty7fi&eyears" he 4as a4are of their !arriage life" Be did not ?no4 the na!es of the sons anddaughters of 'r. Vicente >ope)" one of his nearest relati&es" e&en failing to na!e 'rs. >u)



>ope) de 6ueno" a daughter of said Vicente >ope)" and 4ho no4 appears to +e the onlyli&ing +eneficiary of his 4ill. Be also stated that 'r. Vicente >ope) freuently &isited hi! inthe hospital" though the latter died on 3anuary ,th" #$2. Be did not recogni)ed andre!e!+er the na!e and face of Doctor Do!ingo" his o4n physician. Bo4e&er" the !e!oryfor re!ote e&ents 4as generally good" 4hich is a characteristic sy!pto! of senile dementia.

C+ Disorientation of time, place and persons. M Be could not na!e the date 4hen as?edCday or !onth@ could not na!e the hospital 4herein he 4as confined@ and failed torecogni)e the fact that Doctor Do!ingo 4as his physician.

Cc Disorders of perception. M Be 4as al!ost co!pletely indifferent to 4hat 4as going ona+out hi!. Be also failed to recogni)e the true &alue of o+<ects sho4n hi!" that is he failed torecogni)ed the JSaturday 1&ening ostJ nor 4ould he deny that it 4as a 4ill 4hen presentedas such. Be also failed to sho4 nor!al intellectual perception. 'a?ing no effort to correlatefacts or to understand !atters discussed in their proper light.

Cd 5motional deterioration. M The patient 4as not ?no4n during his ti!e of physicalincapacity to e8press in any 4ay or la!ent the fact that he 4as una+le to en<oy the

happiness that 4as due hi! 4ith his 4ealth. %s a !atter of fact" he sho4ed co!pleteindifference. Be sho4ed loss of e!otional control +y furious out+rea?s o&er trifling !atter and actually +eha&ed li?e a child@ for e8a!ple" if his food did not arri&e i!!ediately of 4henhis cigar 4as not lit soon" he 4ould +eco!es a+usi&e in his language and sho4 !ar?ede!otional out+urst. If the ser&ants did not i!!ediately ans4er his call" he 4ould +rea? do4nand cry as a child.

Ce S*mptoms of decreased intellectual capacit* . M There 4as a la8ity of the internalconnection of ideas. The patient has sho4n no insight regarding his o4n condition. Be didnot appreciate the attitude of the parties concerned in his case@ he 4ould on se&eraloccasion +eco!e suspicious and fail to co!prehend the purpose of our e8a!ination. Be4as inconsistent in his ideas and failed to grasp the !eaning of his o4n state!ents. =henuestioned 4hether he 4ould !a?e a 4ill" he stated to Doctor Tiet)e that he intended to

+eueath his !oney to San 3uan de Dios Bospital and Bospicio de San 3ose. =hen Be 4asinfor!ed" ho4e&er" that he had !ade a 4ill on 3anuary -#" #$2" he denied the latter state!ent" and failed to e8plain the for!er. %lthough for a long ti!e confined to +ed andseriously ill for a long period" he e8pressed hi!self as sound physically and !entally" and inthe false +elief that he 4as fully a+le to ad!inister his +usiness personally.

Bis i!pair!ent of the intellectual field 4as further sho4n +y his ina+ility" despite his?no4ledge of 4orld affairs" to appreciate the relati&e &alue of the state!ent !ade +y Doctor Tiet)e as follo4s J=e ha&e here a cheue of 2"000 fro! the Ging of %frica paya+le to youso that you !ay deposit it in the +an?. Do you 4ant to accept the cheueJ Bis ans4er 4asas follo4s JNo4 I cannot gi&e !y ans4er. It !ay +e a surprise.J Such ans4er gi&en +y a !anafter long e8perience in +usiness life" 4ho had handled real estate property" 4ell &ersed in

the transaction of cheues" certainly sho4s a +rea?ing do4n of the a+o&e field. No proper uestion 4ere as?ed 4hy the cheue 4as gi&en +y the Ging" 4ho the Ging 4as" 4hy he 4asselected +y the Ging of %frica" or if there is a Ging of %frica at present. Be further sho4sdou+t in his !ental capa+ility +y the follo4ing uestions and ans4ers

K'%R*%ID% . Tiene usted actual!ente algn asunto en los tri+unales de <usticiade 'anila 77 R. No recuerdo en este !o!ento.



K. De tener usted algn asunto propio en los tri+unales de <usticia de 'anila" a ua+ogado confiarUa usted la defensa del !is!o77R. %l Sr. 'arcaida" co!o conocidoantiguo.

K. Ba ha+lado usted y conferenciado alguna &e) o &arias &eces en estos dUas" osea desde el 25 de octu+re de #$2- hasta hoy" con algn a+ogado para ue le

defendiera algn asunto ante el 3u)gado de ri!era Instancia de 'anila77R. *onninguno" porue en caso de no!+rar" no!+rarUa al Sr. 'arcaida. C. 5" deposition"No&. #$" #$2-.

K%R%N1T% . No recuerda usted ue usted !e ha enco!endado co!o a+ogadopara ue !e oponga a ue le declaren a usted loco o incapacitado77R. SU" sePor"uien ha solicitado C. $" deposition" No&. #$" #$2-.

KDr. DO'INO . Don To!s" !e conoce usted Se acuerda usted ue soy elDoctor Do!ingo77R. SU. C. ," sten. N." 3an. 29" #$2.

K. (uin soy" Don To!s" usted !e conoce77R. No s. C. /" sten. N." Fe+. #0"

#$2.

KDr. WN1>1S . 'e conoce usted" D. To!s77R. >e cono)co de &ista. C. /"sten. N." 3an. 29" #$2.

K. Nos &a!os a despedir ya" Don To!s" de usted. o soy el Doctor Wngeles" !econoce usted77R. De no!+re.

K. 1ste es el Doctor 6ur?e" le conoce usted77R. De no!+re.

K. 1ste es el Doctor Do!ingo" le conoce usted77R. De &ista.

K. 1ste es el Doctor 6ur?e" recuerda usted su no!+re77R. No. C. #0" sten. N."3an. 29" #$2.

K.Ested conoce a este Doctor CSePalando al Doctor 6ur?e.77R. De &ista@ suno!+re ya lo he ol&idado" ya no !e acuerdo.

K.Ested nos &e a los tres CDoctores Wngeles" 6ur?e y Tiet)e.77R. a lo creo.

KDr. 6ERG1 . (u profesiXn tene!os CSePalando a los Sres. Wngeles" 6ur?e yTiet)e.77R. O creo ue son doctores.

K. lso dos CSePalando a los Doctores Wngeles y Tiet)e.77R. No. s.

K. este sePor CSePalando al Doctor Wngeles.77R. No !e acuerdo en este!o!ento. C. . %nd 5" sten. N." Fe+. #0" #$2.

Cf 9ther facts bearing upon the histor* of the case obtained b* investigation of Doctor Angeles>

I. 6amil* istor*. M Bis parents 4ere noted to +e of ner&ous te!per and irrita+le.



II. Personal histor* . M Be 4as a la4yer" +ut did not pursue his practice" de&oting the greater part of his life to collecting antiuities" Be 4as generally regarded +y his neigh+ors as!iserly and erratic in the ordinary ha+its of life. Be lead a &ery unhygienic life" !a?ing noatte!pt to clean the filth of dirt that 4as around hi!. Be 4as neglectful in personal ha+its. On

%pril" #$2#" he suffered an in<ury to his forehead" fro! 4hich he +eca!e te!porarilyunconscious" and 4as confined in the hilippine eneral Bospital for treat!ent. Be

freuently co!plained of attac?s of di))iness and headache" follo4ing this in<ury@ sufferedfor! a large hernia@ and a+out t4o years ago" he 4as fined for failure in filing his inco!e ta8"fro! 4hich incident" 4e ha&e reason to +elie&e" the onset of his !ental condition too? place.This incident itself can !ost pro+a+ly +e considered as a failure of !e!ory. Bis condition+eca!e progressi&ely 4orse up to his death.

. The undersigned ha&e stated all the a+o&e facts contained in this certificate to the +est of our ?no4ledge and +elief.

'anila" .I." 'arch #5" #$2.

CSgd. SIHTO D1 >OS %N1>1S

=.6. 6ERG1" '.D.S%'E1> TI1TL1

C18hi+it -- in relation 4ith 18hi+its 29 and 2$.

%nother angle to the condition of the patient on or a+out 3anuary -" #$2" is disclosed +y thetreat!ent record ?ept daily +y the nurses" in 4hich appear the nurseJs re!ar?s. C18hi+its 97%" 976"and 97*. In this connection" the testi!ony of the nurses is that Rodrigue) 4as in the ha+it for noreason at all of calling K'aria" 4here are !y 50 centa&os" 4here is !y ?ey.K In e8planation of theo+ser&ation !ade +y the nurses" the nurse %polonio Flore)a testified.

Direct uestions of %ttorney O*%'O

(. %!ong your o+ser&ations on the #st of 3anuary" #$2" you say J4ith pains all o&er the+ody" and uttered so!e incoherent 4ords of the sa!e topics 4hene&er is a4a?ened.J Bo4could you o+ser&e that he had pains all o&er the +ody

%O>ONIO F>OR1L%" nurse %. I o+ser&ed that +y the fact that 4hene&er I touched the+ody of the patient he co!plained of so!e pain.

(. On 4hat part of the +ody did you touch hi! M %. On all the parts of his +ody.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

(. Bo4 did you touch hi!" strongly or not M %. Slightly.

(. =hen you touched hi! slightly" 4hat did he do M %. Be said that it 4as aching.

(. =hat 4ords did he say 4hen" according to your note" he uttered incoherent 4ords4hene&er he a4a?es M %. %s for instance" J'aria"J repeating it J=here are !y 50 centa&os"4here is !y ?eyJ

(. Did you hear hi! tal? of 'aria M %. Only the 4ord 'aria.



(. Bo4 long appro8i!ately 4as he tal?ing uttering the na!e of J'aria" =here are !y 50centa&os"J and 4here is !y ?ey M %. For t4o or three !inutes.

(. *an you tell the court 4hether on those occasions 4hen he said the na!e of 'aria hesaid other 4ords and 4as tal?ing 4ith so!e+ody M %. Be 4as tal?ing to hi!self.

(. This re!ar? on 18hi+it 976 4hen 4as it 4ritten +y you %. 3anuary 2" #$2.

(. In the o+ser&ation correspondingly to 3anuary 2" #$2 you say" J=ith pains o&er the +ody"Jand later on tal?ed too !uch 4hene&er patient is a4a?ened.J Bo4 did you happen to ?no4the pain 4hich you ha&e noted here %. The pains all o&er the +ody" I ha&e o+ser&ed the!4hen gi&ing hi! +aths.

(. 6esides saying that it ached 4hen you touched the +ody" do you ?no4 4hether he did anye8traordinary thing %. ou !ean to say acts

(. %cts or 4ords %. es" sir" li?e those 4ords 4hich I ha&e already said 4hich he used tosay M 'aria" the ?ey" 50 centa&os.

(. ou say that he called 'aria. =hat did he say a+out 'aria on that date 3anuary 2" #$2M %. Be used to say 'aria 4here is 'aria

(. On that date 3anuary 2" #$2" did you ans4er hi! 4hen he said 'aria M %. No sir.

(. In this o+ser&ation of yours appearing on page 97* you say a!ong other things 4ith painall o&er the +ody and shouted 4hene&er he is gi&en in<ection.J Did you really o+ser&e this inthe patient M %. es" sir.

(. Bo4 did he shout

%R%N1T% O+<ection as +eing i!!aterial.

*OERT O&erruled.

%R%N1T% 18ception.

%. In a loud &oice.

(. 6esides shouting do you re!e!+er 4hether he said anything M % . Be repeated thesa!e 4ords I ha&e said +efore M 'aria the 50 centa&os the ?ey.

(. =hen did this o+ser&ation occur 4hich appear on page 97* M %. On 3anuary -" #$2.CS. R. p. 55$5.

On certain facts pertaining to the condition of To!as Rodrigue) there is no dispute. On 3anuary -"#$2" Rodrigue) had reached the ad&anced age of ,/ years. Be 4as suffering fro! ane!ia" herniainguinal" chronic dypsia" and senility. hysically he 4as a 4rec?.

%s to the !ental state of To!as Rodrigue) on 3anuary -" #$2" Doctors *alderon" Do!ingo andBerrera ad!it that he 4as senile. They" together 4ith Doctors De los %ngeles" Tiet)e" and 6ur?e"



further declare that his !e!ory ho4e&er for re!ote e&ents 4as generally good. Be 4as gi&en toirrational e8cla!ations sy!pto!atic of a deceased !ind.

=hile" ho4e&er" Doctors *alderon Do!ingo" and Berrera certify that the intellectual faculties of thepatient are Ksound" e8cept that his !e!ory is 4ea?"K and that in e8ecuting the 4ill the testator hadfull understanding of the act he 4as perfor!ing and full ?no4ledge of the contents thereof" Doctors

De >os %ngeles" Tiet)e and 6ur?e certify that To!as Rodrigue) 4as of unsound !ind and that theydiagnosed his case as senile dementia of the si!ple type approaching the deteriorated stage.=ithout atte!pting at this stage to pass in <udg!ent on the antagonistic conclusions of the !edical4itnesses" or on other disputed point" insofar as the facts are concerned" a resolution of the caseco!es do4n to this Did To!as Rodrigue) on 3anuary -" #$2" possess sufficient !entality to !a?ea 4ill" or had he passed so far along in senile dementia as to reuire the court to find hi! of unsound =e lea&e the facts in this situation to pass on to a discussion of the legal phases of thecase.

6. >a4. M The *ode of *i&il rocedure prescri+es as a reuisite to the allo4ance of a 4ill that thetestator +e of Ksound !indK C*ode of *i&il rocedure" sec. /#. % Ksound !indK is a Kdisposing!ind.K One of the grounds for disallo4ing a 4ill is KIf the testator 4as insane or other4ise !entally

incapa+le of the e8ecution.K C*ode of *i&il rocedure" sec. /- :2;. redicated on these statutorypro&isions" this court has adopted the follo4ing definition of testa!entary capacity KJTesta!entarycapacity is the capacity to co!prehend the nature of the transaction in 4hich the testator is engagedat the ti!e" to recollect the property to +e disposed of and the persons 4ho 4ould naturally +esupposed to ha&e clai!s upon the testator" and to co!prehend the !anner in 4hich the instru!ent4ill distri+ute his property a!ong the o+<ects of his +ounty.JK C6ugnao &s. E+ag :#$0$;" # hil." #/-"follo4ed in 6agtas &s. aguio :#$#2;" / hil." ,0#. The !ental capacity of the testator isdeter!ined as of the date of the e8ecution of his 4ill C*i&il *ode" art. ///.

Various tests of testa!entary capacity ha&e +een announced +y the courts only later to +e re<ectedas inco!plete. Of the specific tests of capacity" neither old age" physical infir!ities" fee+leness of !ind" 4ea?ness of the !e!ory" the appoint!ent of a guardian" nor eccentricities are sufficient singlyor <ointly to sho4 testa!entary incapacity. 1ach case rests on its o4n facts and !ust +e decided +y

its o4n facts.

There is one particular test relati&e to the capacity to !a?e a 4ill 4hich is of so!e practical utility.This rule concerns the nature and rationality of the 4ill. Is the 4ill si!ple or co!plicated Is it naturalor unnatural The !ere e8clusion of heirs 4ill not" ho4e&er" in itself indicate that the 4ill 4as theoffspring of an unsound !ind.

On the issue of testa!entary capacity" the e&idence should +e per!itted to ta?e a 4ide range inorder that all facts !ay +e +rought out 4hich 4ill assist in deter!ining the uestion. The testi!ony of su+scri+ing 4itnesses to a 4ill concerning the testatorJs !ental condition is entitled to great 4eight4here they are truthful and intelligent. The e&idence of those present at the e8ecution of the 4ill andof the attending physician is also to +e relied upon. C%le8ander on =illis" &ol. I" pp. --" 9@

=harton StilleJs 'edical 3urisprudence" &ol. I pp. #00 et se.

The presu!ption is that e&ery adult is sane. It is only 4hen those see?ing to o&erthro4 the 4ill ha&eclearly esta+lished the charge of !ental incapacity that the courts 4ill inter&ene to set aside atesta!entary docu!ent. CBernae) &s. Bernae) :#$0-;" # hil." /9$@ 6agtas &s. aguio" supra.

*ounsel for the appellee !a?e capital of the testator +eing under guardianship at the ti!e he !adehis 4ill. *iting section -0/ of the *ode of *i&il rocedure and certain authorities" they insist that theeffect of the <udg!ent is conclusi&e 4ith respect to the condition of the person. To this state!ent 4e



cannot 4rite do4n our confor!ity. The pro&isions of the cited section 4ere ta?en fro! *alifornia" andthere the Supre!e court has ne&er held 4hat is no4 urged upon us +y the appellee. The ruleannounced that in so!e states" +y force of statute" the finding of insanity is conclusi&e as to thee8istence of insanity during the continuance of ad<udication" is found to rest on local statutes" of 4hich no counterpart is found in the hilippines. C-2 *.3." /,@ ridley &s. 6oggs :#992;" /2 *al."#$0@ In the !atter of the 1state of 3ohnson :#99#;" 5, *al." 52$. 1&en 4here the uestion of

insanity is out in issue in the guardianship proceedings" the !ost that can +e said for the finding isthat it raises a presu!ption of incapacity to !a?e a 4ill +ut does not in&alua+le the testa!ent if co!petency can +e sho4n. The +urden of pro&iding sanity in such case is cast upon the proponents.

It is here clai!ed that the unsoundness of !ind of the testator 4as the result of senile dementia.This is the for! of !ental decay of the aged upon 4hich 4ill are !ost often contested. % Ne4ton"aschal" a *ooley suffering under the &aria+le 4eather of the !ind" the flying &apors of incipientlunacy"K 4ould ha&e pro&ed historic su+<ects for e8pert dispute. Bad Sha?espeareJs Ging >ear !adea 4ill" 4ithout any uestion it 4ould ha&e in&ited litigation and dou+t.

Senile dementia usually called childishness has &arious for!s and stages. To constituteco!plete senile dementiathere !ust +e such failure of the !ind as to depri&e the testator of

intelligent action". In the first stages of the diseases" a person !ay possess reason and ha&e 4illpo4er. C2, >. R. %." N. S. :#$#0;" p. 9$@ =harton StilleJs 'edical 3urisprudence" &ol. I. pp. ,$# etse.@ Schouler on =ills" &ol. I" pp. #5 et se.

It is a rather re!ar?a+le coincidence that of all the leading cases 4hich ha&e gone forth fro! thiscourt" relating to the testator ha&ing a sound and disposing !ind" and 4hich ha&e +een +rought toour notice +y counsel" e&ery one of the! has allo4ed the 4ill" e&en 4hen it 4as necessary tore&erse the <udg!ent of the trial court. % study of these cases discloses a consistent tendency toprotect the 4ishes of the deceased 4hene&er it +e legally possi+le. These decisions also sho4 greattenderness on the part of the court to4ards the last 4ill and testa!ent of the aged. CSee Bernae) &s.Bernae) :#$0-;" # hil." /9$" per %rellano" *. 3." In the !atter of the 4ill o f 6utalid :#$09; #0 hil."2, per %rellano" *. 3.@ 6ugnao &s. E+ag :#$0$; #. hil." #/-" per *arson" 3.@ 'acapinlac &s.

%li!urong :#$#0;" #/ hil." #" per %rellano" *.3.@ 6agtas &s. aguio :#$#2;" 22 hil." 22," per Trent"

3.@ al&e) &s. al&e) :#$#-;" 2/ hil." 2-" per Torres" 3.@ Sa!son &s. *orrales Tan (uintin :#$2-;" hil." 5,-" per Ostrand" 3.@ and 3ocson &s. 3ocson :#$22;" / hil." ,0#" per Villa!or" 3. 6ecauseof their peculiar applica+ility" 4e propose to !a?e particular !ention of four of the earlier cases of this court.

In the case of Bernae) &s. Bernae) supra the su+<ect of the action 4as the 4ill e8ecuted +y Dona3uana 1spinosa. The annul!ent of the 4ill 4as sought first upon the ground of the incapacity of thetestatri8. She 4as o&er 90 years of age" so ill that three days e8tre!e unction" and t4o daysafter4ards she died. rior thereto she 4al?ed in a stooping attitude and ga&e contradictory orders"Kas a result of her senile de+ility.K The chief 3ustice reached the conclusion that neither fro! the factselicited +y the interrogatories nor the docu!ents presented Kcan the conclusion +e reached that thetestatri8 4as depri&ed of her !ental faculties.K The 4ill 4as held &alid and efficacious.

In the case of In the !atter of the 4ill of 6utalid" supra" the 4ill 4as contested for the reason thatDo!inga 6utalid at the date of the e8ecution of the docu!ent 4as not in the date of the e8ecution of the docu!ent 4as not in the free use of her intellectual po4ers" she +eing o&er $0 years of age"lying in +ed seriously ill" senseless and una+le to utter a single 4ord so that she did not ?no4 4hatshe 4as doing 4hen she e8ecuted the 4ill 4hile the docu!ent 4as clai!ed to ha&e +een e8ecutedunder the influence and +y the direction of one of the heirs designated in the 4ill. et after ane8a!ination of the e&idence in the 4ill. et after an e8a!ination of the e&idence in the 4ill. The *hief



3ustice rendered <udg!ent re&ersing the <udg!ent appealed fro! and declaring the 4ill presentedfor legali)ation to +e &alid and sufficient.

In the case of 6ugnao &s. E+ag" supra the court ga&e credence to the testi!ony of the su+scri+ing4itnesses 4ho s4ore positi&ely that at the ti!e of the e8ecution of the 4ill the testator 4as of sound!ind and !e!ory. 6ased on these and other facts" 'r. 3ustice *arson" spea?ing for court" laid do4n

the follo4ing legal principles

6et4een the highest degree of soundness of !ind and !e!ory 4hich unuestiona+lycarries 4ith it full testa!entary ?no4n as insanity or idiocy there are nu!+erless degrees of !ental capacity or incapacity and 4hile on one hand it had +een held that !ere 4ea?ness of !ind or partial i!+ecility fro! disease of +ody" or fro! age" 4ill to render a person incapa+leof !a?ing a 4ill a 4ea? or fee+le !inded person !ay !a?e a &alid 4ill pro&ided he hasunderstanding and !e!ory sufficient to ena+le hi! to ?no4 4hat he is a+out and ho4 or to4ho! he is disposing of his propertyJ C>odge &s. >odge" 2 Boust. :Del.; #9@ that" KToconstitute a sound +e un+ro?en or uni!paired" unshattered +y disease or other4ise CSloan&s. 'a84ell" Y N. 3. 1." 5/-@ that it has not +een understood that a testator !ust possessthese ualities Cof sound and disposing !ind and !e!ory in the highest degree. . . .Fe4

indeed 4ould +e the 4ills confir!ed it this is correct. ain" sic?ness" de+ility of +ody fro! ageor infir!ity" 4ould according to its &iolence or duration in a greater or less degree" +rea? inupon" 4ea?en" or derange the !ind" +ut the derange!ent !ust +e such as depri&es hi! of the rational faculties co!!on to !anJ CDen. &s. Vancle&e" 5 N. 3. >." /90@ and that Sound!ind does not !ean a perfectly +alanced !ind. The uestion of soundness is one of degreeJC6oughton &s. Gnight. >. R." - . D." /@ 2 >. . ." 25@ on the other hand" it has +een heldthat testa!entary incapacity does not necessarily reuire that a person shall actually +einsane or of an unsound !ind. =ea?ness of intellect" 4hether it arises fro! e8tre!e old age"fro! disease" or great +odily infir!ities of suffering" or fro! all these co!+ined" !ay render the testator in capa+le of !a?ing a &alid 4ill" pro&iding such 4ea?ness really disualifies for fro! ?no4ing or appreciating the nature" effects" or conseuences of the act she is engagedin C'anatt &s. Scott" #0/ Io4a" 20-@ /9 %!. St. Rep." 2$-" -02.

In the case of Nagtas &s. auio" supra" the record sho4s that the testator for so!e fourteen or fifteen years prior to the ti!e of his death suffered fro! a paralysis of the left side of his +ody" that afe4 years prior to his death his hearing +eca!e i!paired and that he had lost the po4er of speech.Bo4e&er" he retained the use of his hand and could 4rite fairly 4ell. Through the !ediu! of signs"he 4as a+le to indicate his 4ishes to his fa!ily. The 4ill 4as attac?ed n the ground that the testator lac?ed !ental capacity at the ti!e of its e8ecution. The 4ill 4as ne&ertheless ad!itted to pro+ate"'r. 3ustice Trent" spea?ing for the court" announce!ent the follo4ing pertinent legal doctrines

Z Z Z There are !any cases and authorities 4hich 4e !ight cite to sho4 that the courts ha&erepeatedly held that !ere 4ea?ness of !ind and +ody" induced +y age and disease do notrender a person incapa+le of !a?ing a 4ill. The la4 does not reuire that a person shallcontinue in the full en<oy!ent and use of his pristine physical and !ental po4ers in order to

e8ecute a &alid 4ill. If such 4ere the legal standard fe4 indeed 4ould +e the nu!+er of 4illsthat could !eet such e8acting reuire!ents. The authorities" +oth !edical and legal areuni&ersal in the state!ent that the uestion of !ental capacity is one of degree and thatthere are !any graduations fro! the highest degree of !ental soundness to the lo4estconditions of diseased !entality 4hich are deno!inated as insanity and idiocy.

The right to dispose of property +y testa!entary disposition is as sacred as any other right4hich a person !ay e8ercise and this right should +e nullified unless !ental incapacity isesta+lished in a positi&e and conclusi&e !anner. In discussing the uestion of testa!entary



capacity" it is stated in &olu!e 29" page ,0" of the %!erican and 1nglish 1ncyclopedia of >a4 that M

J*ontrary to the &ery pre&alent lay i!pression perfect soundness of !ind is not essential totesta!entary capacity. % testator !ay +e afflicted 4ith a &ariety of !ental 4ea?ness"disorders or peculiarities and still +e capa+le in la4 of e8ecuting a &alid 4ill.J CSee the

nu!erous cases there cited in support of this state!ent.

The rule relating to testa!entary capacity is stated in 6us4el on Insanity" section -/5 anduoted 4ith appro&al in *a!p+ell &s. *a!p+ell C#-0 Ill. // as follo4s

To constitute a sound and disposing !ind" it is not necessary that the !ind shall +e 4hollyun+ro?en uni!paired or unshattered +y disease or other4ise or that the testator should +e inthe full possession of his reasoning faculties.

In note" # 3arnan on =ills" -9" the rule is thus stated

The uestion is not so !uch" 4hat 4as the degree of !e!ory possessed +y the testator as

had" he a disposing !e!ory =as he a+le to re!e!+er the property he 4as a+out to+eueth the !anner of distri+uting it and the o+<ect of his +ounty In a 4ord" 4ere his !indand !e!ory sufficiently sound to ena+le hi! to ?no4 and understand the +usiness in 4hichhe 4as engaged at the ti!e 4hen he e8ecuted his 4ill.J CSee authorities there cited

In =ilson &s. 'itchell C#0# enn." $5" the follo4ing facts appeared upon the trial of thecase The testator died at the age of nearly #02 years. In his early years he 4as an intelligentand 4ell infor!ed !an. %+out se&en years prior to his death he suffered a paralytic stro?eand fro! that ti!e his !ind and !e!ory 4ere !uch enfee+led. Be +eca!e &ery dull of hearing and in conseuence of the shrin?ing of his +rain he 4as affected 4ith senile cataractcausing total +lindness. Be +eca!e filthy and o+scene in his ha+its" although for!erly he4as o+ser&ant of the proprieties of life. The court" in co!!enting upon the case" said

Neither age" nor sic?ness" nor e8tre!e distress" nor de+ility of +ody 4ill affect the capacity to!a?e a 4ill" if sufficient intelligence re!ains. The failure of !e!ory is not sufficient to createthe incapacity" unless it +e total or e8tend to his i!!ediate fa!ily to property. . . .

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Dougal Cthe testator had li&ed o&er one hundred years +efore he !ade the 4ill and hisphysical and !ental 4ea?ness and defecti&e !e!ory 4ere in stri?ing contrast 4ith their strength in the !eridian of his life. Be 4as +lind@ not deaf" +ut hearing i!paired@ his !indacted slo4ly" he 4as forgetful of recent e&ents" especially of na!es and repeated uestionsin con&ersation@ and so!eti!es" 4hen aroused fro! sleep or slu!+er" 4ould see!+e4ildered. It is not singular that so!e of those 4ho had ?no4n hi! 4hen he 4asre!ar?a+le for &igor and intelligence are of the opinion that his reason 4as so far gone thathe 4as incapa+le of !a?ing a 4ill" although they ne&er heard hi! utter an irrationale8pression.

In the a+o&e case the 4ill 4as sustained. In the case at +ar 4e !ight dra4 the sa!e contractas 4as pictured +y the court in the case <ust uoted. . . .



The particular difference +et4een all of the hilippine case 4hich are cited and the case at +ar arethat in none of the hilippine cases 4as there any declaration of inco!plicated and in none of the!4ere the facts uite as co!plicated as they are here. % case in point 4here the 4ill 4as contested"+ecause the testator 4as not of sound and disposing !ind and !e!ory and +ecause at the ti!e of the !a?ing of the 4ill he 4as acting under the undue influence of his +rothers and 4here he had aguardian 4hen he e8ecuted his 4ill" is %!esJ =ill C:#$02; 0 Ore." $5. 'r. 3ustice 'oore" deli&ering

the opinion of the court" in part said

It is contended +y contestantJs counsel that on the day said pretended 4ill purports to ha&e+een e8ecuted" >o4ell 4as declared inco!petent +y a court 4hich had <urisdiction of theperson and su+<ect7!atter and that the decree therein appointing a guardian of his personand estate raises the dista+le presu!ption that he did not possess sufficient testa!entarycapacity at the ti!e to o&erco!e 4hich reuired e&idence so strong as to lea&e noreasona+le dou+t as to his capacity to !a?e a &alid 4ill" and the testi!ony introduced +y theproponent +eing insufficient for that purpose the court erred in ad!itting it to pro+ate.

The appoint!ent of a guardian of a person alleged to +e non compos mentis" +y a courtha&ing <urisdiction !ust necessarily create a presu!ption of the !ental infir!ity of the 4ard@

+ut such decree does not conclusi&ely sho4 that the testa!entary capacity of the personunder guardianship is entirely destroyed and the presu!ption thus created !ay +eo&erco!e +y e&idence pro&ing that such person at the ti!e he e8ecuted a 4ill 4as in fact of sound and disposing !ind and !e!ory Stone &s. Da!on" #2 'ass." 9,@ 6reed &s. ratt"#9 ic?" ##5 In re SlingerJs =ill" ,2 =is." 22 C-, N. =. 2-/.

The testi!ony sho4s that the testator retained a &i&id recollection of the contents of the+oo?s he had read and studied 4hen he 4as young +ut that he could not readily recall to his!ind the ordinary incidents of his later life. The depth and intensity of !ental i!pressional4ays depend upon and are !easured +y the degree of attention gi&en to the perception of truth" 4hich de!ands reflection@ and hence the ina+ility of a person to recollect e&ents andhence the ina+ility is e&idence of !ental decay" +ecause it !anifest a 4ant of po4er onconcentration of the !ind. The aged li&e in the past and the i!pression retained in their

!inds are those that 4ere !ade in their younger days" +ecause at that period of their li&esthey 4ere a+le to e8ercise 4ill po4er +y gi&ing attention. =hile the ina+ility of a person of ad&anced years to re!e!+er recent e&ents distinctly undou+tedly indicates a decay of thehu!an faculties" it does not conclusi&ely esta+lish senile dementia" 4hich is so!ething !orethan a !ere loss of !ental po4er" resulting fro! old age and is not only a fee+le condition of the !ind +ut a derange!ent thereof. . . . The rule is settled in this state that if a testator atthe ti!e he e8ecutes his 4ill understand the +usiness in 4hich he is engaged and has a?no4ledge of his property and ho4 he 4ishes to dispose of it a!ong those entitled to his+ounty" he possess sufficient testa!entary capacity" not4ithstanding his old age" sic?nessde+ility of +ody" or e8tre!e distress.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

It is contented +y contestantJs counsel that if >o4ell at the ti!e he e8ecuted the pretended4ill" 4as not 4holly lac?ing in testa!entary capacity" he 4as" in conseuence of age illhealth" de+ility of +ody and infir!ity of 4ill po4er" %ndre4 and 3oseph ha&ing ?no4ledgethereof too? ad&antage of his physical and !ental condition and unduly influenced hi! tode&ice and +eueth his property in the !anner indicated" atte!pting there+y to depri&e thecontestant of all interest therein e8cept such as 4as gi&en her +y statute. . . . %ssu!ing thathe 4as easily persuaded and that his +rothers and the persons e!ployed +y the! to care for hi! too? ad&antage of his enfee+led condition and pre<udiced his !ind against the



contestant did such undue influence render the 4ill therefore e8ecuted &oid . . . =hen a 4illhas +een properly e8ecuted" it is the duty of the courts to uphold it" if the testator possesseda sound and disposing !ind and !e!ory and 4as free fro! restraint and not acting under undue influence not4ithstanding sy!pathy for persons legally entitled to the testatorJs +ountyand a sense of innate <ustice !ight suggest a different testa!entary disposition.

6elie&ing" as 4e do" that the findings of the circuit court are supported +y the 4eight of thetesti!ony its decree is affir!ed.

Insofar as the la4 on testa!entary capacity to !a?e a 4ill is concerned and carrying alone one stepfurther the uestion suggested at the end of the presentation of the facts on the sa!e su+<ect aresolution of the case co!es do4n to this Did To!as Rodrigue) on 3anuary -" #$2" possesssufficient !entality to !a?e a 4ill 4hich 4ould !eet the legal test regarding testa!entary capacityand ha&e the proponents of the 4ill carried successfully the +urden of proof and sho4n hi! to +e of sound !ind on that date

II. ENDE1 INF>E1N*1

%. 6acts. M The 4ill 4as attac?ed on the further ground of undue influence e8ercised +y the persons+enefited in the 4ill in colla+oration 4ith others. The trial <udge found this allegation to ha&e +eenesta+lished and !ade it one of the +ases of his decision. it is no4 for us to say if the facts <ustify thisfinding.

To!as Rodrigue) &oluntary na!ed Vicente F. >ope) as his ad!inistrator. The latter su+seuently+eca!e his guardian. There is e&ery indication that of all his relati&es To!as Rodrigue) reposed the!ost confidence in Vicente F. >ope) and his daughter >u) >ope) de 6ueno. %gain" it 4as Vicente F.>ope)" 4ho" on the suggestion of Rodrigue) secured 'a8i!ino 'ina to prepare the 4ill" and it 4as>u) >ope) de 6ueno 4ho appears to ha&e gathered the 4itnesses and physicians for the e8ecutionof the 4ill. This faction of the >ope) fa!ily 4as also a fa&or through the orders of Doctor Do!ingo asto 4ho could +e ad!itted to see the patient.

The trial <udge entertained the opinion that there e8isted Ka preconcei&ed plan on the part of thepersons 4ho surrounded To!as Rodrigue)K to secure his signature to the testa!ent. The trial <udge!ay +e correct in this supposition. It is hard to +elie&e" ho4e&er" that !en of the standing of 3udge'ina" Doctors *alderon" Do!ingo" Berrera" and De %sis and 'r. >egarda 4ould so de!eanthe!sel&es and so fully their characters and reputation as to participate in a sche!e ha&ing for itspurpose to delude and to +etray an old !an in his age" rather na!ed 4as acting according to the+est of his a+ility to assist in a legiti!ate act in a legiti!ate !anner. 'oreo&er" considering theattitude of To!as Rodrigue) to4ard 'argarita >ope) and her hus+and and his apparent en!ityto4ard the!" it see!s fairly e&ident that e&en if the 4ill had +een !ade in pre&ious years 4henRodrigue) 4as !ore nearly in his pri!e" he 4ould ha&e prepared so!e4hat a si!ilar docu!ent.

6. A . M One of the grounds for disallo4ing a 4ill is that it 4as procured +y undue and i!proper

pressure and influence on the art of the +eneficiary or so!e other person for his +enefit C*ode of *i&il rocedure" sec." /-:;. Endue influence" as here !entioned in connection 4ith the la4 of 4illsand as further !entioned in the *i&il *ode Cart. #2/5" !ay +e defined as that 4hich co!pelled thetestator to do that 4hich is against the 4ill fro! fear the desire of peace or fro! other feeling 4hichis una+le to resist.

The theory of undue influence is totally re<ected as not pro&ed.

III. 3ED'1NT



To restate the co!+ined issued of fact and la4 in this case pertaining to testa!entary capacity DidTo!as Rodrigue) on 3anuary -" #$2" possess sufficient !entality to !a?e a 4ill 4hich 4ould !eetthe legal test regarding testa!entary capacity and ha&e the proponents of the 4ill carriedsuccessfully the +urden of proof and sho4n hi! to +e of sound !ind on that date

T4o of the su+scri+ing 4itnesses to the 4ill" one a physician clearly to the regular !anner in 4hich

the 4ill 4as e8ecuted and to the testatorJs !ental condition. The other su+scri+ing 4itness" also" aphysician on the contrary testified to a fact 4hich" if su+stantiated" 4ould reuire the court to disallo4the 4ill. The attending physician and three other e!inent !e!+ers of the !edical fraternity" 4ho4ere present at the e8ecution of the 4ill" e8pressed opinions entirely fa&ora+le to the capacity of thetestator. %s against this 4e ha&e the professional speculations of three other eually e!inent!e!+ers of the !edical profession 4hen the 4ill 4as e8ecuted. The ad&antage on those facts is all4ith those 4ho offer the 4ill for pro+ate.

The 4ill 4as short. It could easily +e understood +y a person in physical distress. It 4as reasona+le"that is" it 4as reasona+le if 4e ta?e into account the e&ident pre<ustice of the testator against thehus+and of 'argarita >ope).

=ith special reference of the definition of testa!entary capacity" 4e !ay say this On 3anuary -"#$2" To!as Rodrigue)" in our opinion co!prehended the nature of the transaction in 4hich he 4asengaged. Be had t4o conferences 4ith his la4yer" 3udge 'ina" and ?ne4 4hat the 4ill 4as tocontain. The 4ill 4as read to hi! +y 'r. >egarda. Be signed the 4ill and its t4o copies in the proper places at the +otto! and on the left !argin. %t that ti!e the testator recollected the property to +edisposed of and the persons 4ho 4ould naturally +e supposed to ha&e clai!s upon hi! =hile for so!e !onths prior to the !a?ing of the 4ill he had not !anage his property he see! to ha&eretained a distinct recollection of 4hat it consisted and of his inco!e. Occasionally his !e!ory failedhi! 4ith reference to the na!es of his relati&es. Ordinarily" he ?ne4 4ho they 4ere" he see!ed toentertain a prediliction to4ards Vicente F. >ope) as 4ould +e natural since >ope) 4as nearest in4hich the instru!ent distri+uted the property na!ing the o+<ects of his +ounty. Bis con&ersations4ith 3udge 'ina disclosed as insistence on gi&ing all of his property to the t4o persons 4ho! hespecified.

On 3anuary -" #$2" To!as Rodrigue) !ay ha&e +een of ad&anced years" !ay ha&e +eenphysically decrepit" !ay ha&e +een 4ea? in intellect" !ay ha&e suffered a loss of !e!ory" !ay ha&ehad a guardian and !ay ha&e a +een e8tre!ely eccentric" +ut he still possessed the spar? of reasonand of life" that strength of !ind to for! a fi8ed intention and to su!!on his enfee+led thoughts toenforce that intention" 4hich the la4 ter!s Ktesta!entary capacity.K That in effect is the definiteopinion 4hich 4e reach after an e8hausti&e and e8hausting study of a tedious record" after 4eighingthe e&idence for the oppositors" and after gi&ing to the case the serious consideration 4hich itdeser&es.

The <udg!ent of the trial court 4ill +e set aside and the 4ill of To!as Rodrigue) 4ill +e ad!itted topro+ate 4ithout special pronounce!ent as to costs in this instance.

AvanceGa, C. J., Johnson, 7illamor, Johns, 1omualdez, and 7illa!1eal, JJ., concur.

')ara) O*n*on+

'#REE# ND O'#RND, JJ., dissenting



=e are of the opinion that the <udg!ent 4hich is the su+<ect of appeal in this case is in all respectscorrect and should +e affir!ed. The testator 4as clearly suffering fro! senile dementia and lac?edthe Kdisposing !ind and !e!oryK the possession of 4hich is a condition precedent to the e8ercise of testa!entary po4er.

Doroteo v CAG.R. No. 108581 D):)/@)r 8, 1999

LO$RDE' L. DORO#(EO, petitioner"&s.!O$R# OF ""EL', NILD D. A$IN#N, or ()r+) an& a+ orn)y*nFa: o 3I!EN#E

DORO#(EO an& JO'E DORO#(EO, respondents.

NRE''N#IGO, J.:

'ay a last 4ill and testa!ent ad!itted to pro+ate +ut declared intrinsically &oid in an order that has+eco!e final and e8ecutory still +e gi&en effect This is the issue that arose fro! the follo4ingantecedents

ri&ate respondents 4ere the legiti!ate children of %le<andro Dorotheo and %niceta Reyes. Thelatter died in #$/$ 4ithout her estate +eing settled. %le<andro died thereafter. So!eti!e in #$,,"after %le<androJs death" petitioner" 4ho clai!s to ha&e ta?en care of %le<andro +efore he died" filed aspecial proceeding for the pro+ate of the latterJs last 4ill and testa!ent. In #$9#" the court issued anorder ad!itting %le<androJs 4ill to pro+ate. ri&ate respondents did not appeal fro! said order. In#$9-" they filed a K'otion To Declare The =ill Intrinsically Void.K The trial court granted the !otion

and issued an order" the dispositi&e portion of 4hich reads

=B1R1FOR1" in &ie4 of the foregoing" Order is here+y issued declaring >ourdes>egaspi not the 4ife of the late %le<andro Dorotheo" the pro&isions of the last 4ill andtesta!ent of %le<andro Dorotheo as intrinsically &oid" and declaring the oppositorsVicente Dorotheo" 3ose Dorotheo and Nilda Dorotheo (uintana as the only heirs of the late spouses %le<andro Dorotheo and %niceta Reyes" 4hose respecti&e estatesshall +e liuidated and distri+uted according to the la4s on intestacy upon pay!entof estate and other ta8es due to the go&ern!ent. 1

etitioner !o&ed for reconsideration arguing that she is entitled to so!e co!pensation since shetoo? care of %le<andro prior to his death although she ad!itted that they 4ere not !arried to each

other. Epon denial of her !otion for reconsideration" petitioner appealed to the *ourt of %ppeals" +utthe sa!e 4as dis!issed for failure to file appellantJs +rief 4ithin the e8tended periodgranted. 2 This dis!issal +eca!e final and e8ecutory on Fe+ruary -" #$9$ and a corresponding entry of

<udg!ent 4as forth4ith issued +y the *ourt of %ppeals on 'ay #/" #$9$. % 4rit of e8ecution 4as issued+y the lo4er court to i!ple!ent the final and e8ecutory Order. *onseuently" pri&ate respondents filedse&eral !otions including a !otion to co!pel petitioner to surrender to the! the Transfer *ertificates of Titles CT*T co&ering the properties of the late %le<andro. =hen petitioner refused to surrender the T*TJs"pri&ate respondents filed a !otion for cancellation of said titles and for issuance of ne4 titles in their na!es. etitioner opposed the !otion.



%n Order 4as issued on No&e!+er 2$" #$$0 +y 3udge Lain 6. %ngas setting aside the final ande8ecutory Order dated 3anuary -0" #$9/" as 4ell as the Order directing the issuance of the 4rit of e8ecution" on the ground that the order 4as !erely KinterlocutoryK" hence not final in character. Thecourt added that the dispositi&e portion of the said Order e&en directs the distri+ution of the estate of the deceased spouses. ri&ate respondents filed a !otion for reconsideration 4hich 4as denied inan Order dated Fe+ruary #" #$$#. Thus" pri&ate respondents filed a petition +efore the *ourt of

%ppeals" 4hich nullified the t4o assailed Orders dated No&e!+er 2$" #$$0 and Fe+ruary #" #$$#.

%ggrie&ed" petitioner instituted a petition for re&ie4 arguing that the case filed +y pri&ate respondents+efore the *ourt of %ppeals 4as a petition under Rule /5 on the ground of gra&e a+use of discretionor lac? of <urisdiction. etitioner contends that in issuing the t4o assailed orders" 3udge %ngascannot +e said to ha&e no <urisdiction +ecause he 4as particularly designated to hear the case.etitioner li?e4ise assails the Order of the *ourt of %ppeals upholding the &alidity of the 3anuary -0"#$9/ Order 4hich declared the intrinsic in&alidity of %le<androJs 4ill that 4as earlier ad!itted topro+ate.

etitioner also filed a !otion to reinstate her as e8ecutri8 of the estate of the late %le<andro and to!aintain thestatus quo or lease of the pre!ises thereon to third parties. ? ri&ate respondentsopposed the !otion on the ground that petitioner has no interest in the estate since she is not the la4ful4ife of the late %le<andro.

The petition is 4ithout !erit. % final and e8ecutory decision or order can no longer +e distur+ed or reopened no !atter ho4 erroneous it !ay +e. In setting aside the 3anuary -0" #$9/ Order that hasattained finality" the trial court in effect nullified the entry of <udg!ent !ade +y the *ourt of %ppeals.It is 4ell settled that a lo4er court cannot re&erse or set aside decisions or orders of a superior court"for to do so 4ould +e to negate the hierarchy of courts and nullify the essence of re&ie4. It has +eenruled that a final <udg!ent on pro+ated 4ill" al+eit erroneous" is +inding on the 4hole 4orld. 4

It has +een consistently held that if no appeal is ta?en in due ti!e fro! a <udg!ent or order of the

trial court" the sa!e attains finality +y !ere lapse of ti!e. Thus" the order allo4ing the 4ill +eca!efinal and the uestion deter!ined +y the court in such order can no longer +e raised ane4" either inthe sa!e proceedings or in a different !otion. The !atters of due e8ecution of the 4ill and thecapacity of the testator acuired the character of res judicata and cannot again +e +rought intouestion" all <uridical uestions in connection there4ith +eing for once and fore&er closed. 5 Such finalorder !a?es the 4ill conclusi&e against the 4hole 4orld as to its e8trinsic &alidity and due e8ecution. 6

It should +e noted that pro+ate proceedings deals generally 4ith the e8trinsic &alidity of the 4illsought to +e pro+ated" 7 particularly on three aspects

n 4hether the 4ill su+!itted is indeed" the decedentJslast 4ill and testa!ent@

n co!pliance 4ith the prescri+ed for!alities for thee8ecution of 4ills@

n the testa!entary capacity of the testator@ 8

n and the due e8ecution of the last 4ill and testa!ent. 9



Ender the *i&il *ode" due e8ecution includes a deter!ination of 4hether the testator 4as of soundand disposing !ind at the ti!e of its e8ecution" that he had freely e8ecuted the 4ill and 4as notacting under duress" fraud" !enace or undue influence and that the 4ill is genuine and not aforgery" 10 that he 4as of the proper testa!entary age and that he is a person not e8pressly prohi+ited +yla4 fro! !a?ing a 4ill. 11

The intrinsic &alidity is another !atter and uestions regarding the sa!e !ay still +e raised e&enafter the 4ill has +een authenticated. 12 Thus" it does not necessarily follo4 that an e8trinsically &alid last4ill and testa!ent is al4ays intrinsically &alid. 1&en if the 4ill 4as &alidly e8ecuted" if the testator pro&idesfor dispositions that depri&es or i!pairs the la4ful heirs of their legiti!e or rightful inheritance according tothe la4s on succession" 1? the unla4ful pro&isionsAdispositions thereof cannot +e gi&en effect. This isspecially so 4hen the courts had already deter!ined in a final and e8ecutory decision that the 4ill isintrinsically &oid. Such deter!ination ha&ing attained that character of finality is +inding on this *ourt4hich 4ill no longer +e distur+ed. Not that this *ourt finds the 4ill to +e intrinsically &alid" +ut that a finaland e8ecutory decision of 4hich the party had the opportunity to challenge +efore the higher tri+unals!ust stand and should no longer +e ree&aluated. Failure to a&ail of the re!edies pro&ided +y la4constitutes 4ai&er. %nd if the party does not a&ail of other re!edies despite its +elief that it 4as aggrie&ed+y a decision or court action" then it is dee!ed to ha&e fully agreed and is satisfied 4ith the decision or

order. %s early as #$#9" it has +een declared that pu+lic policy and sound practice de!and that" at theris? of occasional errors" <udg!ents of courts !ust at so!e point of ti!e fi8ed +y la4 14+eco!e finalother4ise there 4ill +e no end to litigation. 8nteres rei publicae ut finis sit litium M the &ery o+<ect of 4hichthe courts 4ere constituted 4as to put an end to contro&ersies. 15 To fulfill this purpose and to do sospeedily" certain ti!e li!its" !ore or less ar+itrary" ha&e to +e set up to spur on the slothful. 16 The onlyinstance 4here a party interested in a pro+ate proceeding !ay ha&e a final liuidation set aside is 4henhe is left out +y reason of circu!stances +eyond his control or through !ista?e or inad&ertence noti!puta+le to negligence" 17 4hich circu!stances do not concur herein.

etitioner 4as pri&y to the suit calling for the declaration of the intrinsic in&alidity of the 4ill" as sheprecisely appealed fro! an unfa&ora+le order therefro!. %lthough the final and e8ecutory Order of 3anuary -0" #$9/ 4herein pri&ate respondents 4ere declared as the only heirs do not +ind those

4ho are not parties thereto such as the alleged illegiti!ate son of the testator" the sa!econstitutes res judicata 4ith respect to those 4ho 4ere parties to the pro+ate proceedings. etitioner cannot again raise those !atters ane4 for relitigation other4ise that 4ould a!ount to foru!7shopping. It should +e re!e!+ered that foru! shopping also occurs 4hen the sa!e issue hadalready +een resol&ed ad&ersely +y so!e other court. 18 It is clear fro! the e8ecutory order that theestates of %le<andro and his spouse should +e distri+uted according to the la4s of intestate succession.

etitioner posits that the 3anuary -0" #$9/ Order is !erely interlocutory" hence it can still +e setaside +y the trial court. In support thereof" petitioner argues that Kan order !erely declaring 4ho areheirs and the shares to 4hich set of heirs is entitled cannot +e the +asis of e8ecution to reuiredeli&ery of shares fro! one person to another particularly 4hen no pro<ect of partition has +eenfiled.K 19 The trial court declared in the 3anuary -0" #$9/ Order that petitioner is not the legal 4ife of

%le<andro" 4hose only heirs are his three legiti!ate children Cpetitioners herein" and at the sa!e ti!e itnullified the 4ill. 6ut it should +e noted that in the sa!e Order" the trial court also said that the estate of the late spouses +e distri+uted according to the la4s of intestacy. %ccordingly" it has no option +ut toi!ple!ent that order of intestate distri+ution and not to reopen and again re7e8a!ine the intrinsicpro&isions of the sa!e 4ill.

It can +e clearly inferred fro! %rticle $/0 of the *i&il *ode" on the la4 of successional rights thattestacy is preferred to intestacy. 20 6ut +efore there could +e testate distri+ution" the 4ill !ust pass thescrutini)ing test and safeguards pro&ided +y la4 considering that the deceased testator is no longer



a&aila+le to pro&e the &oluntariness of his actions" aside fro! the fact that the transfer of the estate isusually onerous in nature and that no one is presu!ed to gi&e M :emo praesumitur donare. 21 Nointestate distri+ution of the estate can +e done until and unless the 4ill had failed to pass +oth its e8trinsicand intrinsic &alidity. If the 4ill is e8trinsically &oid" the rules of intestacy apply regardless of the intrinsic&alidity thereof. If it is e8trinsically &alid" the ne8t test is to deter!ine its intrinsic &alidity M that is 4hether the pro&isions of the 4ill are &alid according to the la4s of succession. In this case" the court had ruled

that the 4ill of %le<andro 4as e8trinsically &alid +ut the intrinsic pro&isions thereof 4ere &oid. Thus" therules of intestacy apply as correctly held +y the trial court.

Further!ore" %le<androJs disposition in his 4ill of the alleged share in the con<ugal properties of hislate spouse" 4ho! he descri+ed as his Konly +elo&ed 4ifeK" is not a &alid reason to re&erse a finaland e8ecutory order. Testa!entary dispositions of properties not +elonging e8clusi&ely to the testator or properties 4hich are part of the con<ugal regi!e cannot +e gi&en effect. 'atters 4ith respect to4ho o4ns the properties that 4ere disposed of +y %le<andro in the &oid 4ill !ay still +e properly&entilated and deter!ined in the intestate proceedings for the settle!ent of his and that of his latespouseJs estate.

etitionerJs !otion for appoint!ent as ad!inistratri8 is rendered !oot considering that she 4as not

!arried to the late %le<andro and" therefore" is not an heir.

=B1R1FOR1" the petition is D1NI1D and the decision appealed fro! is %FFIR'1D.

SO ORD1R1D.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, apunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Balus v Balus

#(IRD DI3I'ION



!ELE'#INO -L$',etitioner"

7 versus 7

'#$RNINO -L$' an&LEONRD-L$' 3D. DE !L$NOD,Respondents.

G.R. No. 168970 "r)+)n

*ORON%" J., Chairperson,V1>%S*O" 3R."

N%*BER%"1R%>T%" and'1NDOL%" JJ. "ro/ua)&

3anuary #5" 20#0

877777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777778

DE!I'ION

"ERL#, J .

%ssailed in the present petition for re&ie4 on certiorari under Rule 5 of the Rules of *ourt is theDecision:#; of the *ourt of %ppeals C*% dated 'ay -#" 2005 in *%7.R. *V No. 590# 4hich setaside the Fe+ruary ," #$$, Decision of the Regional Trial *ourt CRT* of >anao del Norte"

6ranch in *i&il *ase No. -2/-. The facts of the case are as follo4sBerein petitioner and respondents are the children of the spouses Rufo and Se+astiana 6alus.Se+astiana died on Septe!+er /" #$,9" 4hile Rufo died on 3uly /" #$9.On 3anuary -" #$,$" Rufo !ortgaged a parcel of land" 4hich he o4ns" as security for a loan heo+tained fro! the Rural 6an? of 'aigo" >anao del Norte C6an?. The said property 4asoriginally co&ered +y Original *ertificate of Title No. 7-$C,99 and !ore particularly descri+edas follo4s

% parcel of land 4ith all the i!pro&e!ents thereon" containing an area of -.0,0hectares" !ore or less" situated in the 6arrio of >agundang" 6una4an" Iligan *ity"

and +ounded as follo4s 6ounded on the N1." along line #72" +y >ot 5#22" *sd72$2@ along line 27#2" +y Dodiongan Ri&er@ along line #27#- +y >ot /$" *sd72$2@and along line #27#" +y >ot //#" *sd72$2. 8 8 8 :2;

Rufo failed to pay his loan. %s a result" the !ortgaged property 4as foreclosed and 4assu+seuently sold to the 6an? as the sole +idder at a pu+lic auction held for thatpurpose.On No&e!+er 20" #$9#" a *ertificate of Sale :-; 4as e8ecuted +y the sheriff in fa&or of the 6an?. The property 4as not redee!ed 4ithin the period allo4ed +y la4. 'ore than t4o

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/168970.htm#_ftn1










years after the auction" or on 3anuary 25" #$9" the sheriff e8ecuted a Definite Deed of Sale :; inthe 6an?Js fa&or. Thereafter" a ne4 title 4as issued in the na!e of the 6an?. On Octo+er #0" #$9$" herein petitioner and respondents e8ecuted an 18tra<udicial Settle!ent of 1state:5; ad<udicating to each of the! a specific one7third portion of the su+<ect propertyconsisting of #0"2/ suare !eters. The 18tra<udicial Settle!ent also contained pro&isions

4herein the parties ad!itted ?no4ledge of the fact that their father !ortgaged the su+<ectproperty to the 6an? and that they intended to redee! the sa!e at the soonest possi+le ti!e. Three years after the e8ecution of the 18tra<udicial Settle!ent" herein respondents +ought thesu+<ect property fro! the 6an?. On Octo+er #2" #$$2" a Deed of Sale of Registered >and :/; 4ase8ecuted +y the 6an? in fa&or of respondents. Su+seuently" Transfer *ertificate of Title CT*TNo. T7-$"9Ca.f.:,; 4as issued in the na!e of respondents.'ean4hile" petitioner continuedpossession of the su+<ect lot. On 3une 2," #$$5" respondents filed a *o!plaint:9; for Reco&ery of ossession and Da!agesagainst petitioner" contending that they had already infor!ed petitioner of the fact that they 4erethe ne4 o4ners of the disputed property" +ut the petitioner still refused to surrender possession

of the sa!e to the!. Respondents clai!ed that they had e8hausted all re!edies for thea!ica+le settle!ent of the case" +ut to no a&ail. On Fe+ruary ," #$$," the RT* rendered a Decision:$; disposing as follo4s

=B1R1FOR1" <udg!ent is here+y rendered" ordering the plaintiffs to e8ecute aDeed of Sale in fa&or of the defendant" the one7third share of the property inuestion" presently possessed +y hi!" and descri+ed in the deed of partition" asfollo4s

% one7third portion of Transfer *ertificate of Title No. T7-$"9Ca.f." for!erly Original *ertificate of Title No. 7,99" no4 in thena!e of Saturnino 6alus and >eonarda 6. Vda. de *alunod"situated at >agundang" 6una4an" Iligan *ity" +ounded on theNorth +y >ot 5#22@ 1ast +y shares of Saturnino 6alus and>eonarda 6alus7*alunod@ South +y >ot /$" Dodiongan Ri&er@=est +y >ot //#" consisting of #0"2/ suare !eters" includingi!pro&e!ents thereon.

and dis!issing all other clai!s of the parties. The a!ount of /",--.-- consigned +y the defendant 4ith the *ler? of *ourt ishere+y ordered deli&ered to the plaintiffs" as purchase price of the one7thirdportion of the land in uestion. laintiffs are ordered to pay the costs. SO ORD1R1D.:#0;

The RT* held that the right of petitioner to purchase fro! the respondents his share in thedisputed property 4as recogni)ed +y the pro&isions of the 18tra<udicial Settle!ent of 1state"4hich the parties had e8ecuted +efore the respondents +ought the su+<ect lot fro! the 6an?.



















%ggrie&ed +y the Decision of the RT*" herein respondents filed an appeal 4ith the *%. On 'ay -#" 2005" the *% pro!ulgated the presently assailed Decision" re&ersing and settingaside the Decision of the RT* and ordering petitioner to i!!ediately surrender possession of the su+<ect property to the respondents. The *% ruled that 4hen petitioner and respondents did

not redee! the su+<ect property 4ithin the rede!ption period and allo4ed the consolidation of o4nership and the issuance of a ne4 title in the na!e of the 6an?" their co7o4nership 4ase8tinguished. Bence" the instant petition raising a sole issue" to 4it

=B1TB1R OR NOT *O7O=N1RSBI %'ON TB1 1TITION1R %ND TB1R1SOND1NTS OV1R TB1 RO1RT 1RSIST1DA*ONTINE1D TO 1HISTC1V1N %FT1R TB1 TR%NSF1R OF TIT>1 TO TB1 6%NG 6 VIRTE1 OF TB1%RTI1SJ %R11'1NT RIOR TO TB1 R1ER*B%S1 TB1R1OF 6 TB1R1SOND1NTS@ TBES" =%RR%NTIN TB1 1TITION1RJS %*T OF

1NFOR*IN TB1 %R11'1NT 6 R1I'6ERSIN TB1 R1SOND1NTS OFBIS C1TITION1RJS 3EST SB%R1 OF TB1 R1ER*B%S1 RI*1.:##;

The !ain issue raised +y petitioner is 4hether co7o4nership +y hi! and respondents o&er thesu+<ect property persisted e&en after the lot 4as purchased +y the 6an? and title theretotransferred to its na!e" and e&en after it 4as e&entually +ought +ac? +y the respondents fro!the 6an?. etitioner insists that despite respondentsJ full ?no4ledge of the fact that the title o&er thedisputed property 4as already in the na!e of the 6an?" they still proceeded to e8ecute thesu+<ect 18tra<udicial Settle!ent" ha&ing in !ind the intention of purchasing +ac? the propertytogether 4ith petitioner and of continuing their co7o4nership thereof.

etitioner posits that the su+<ect 18tra<udicial Settle!ent is" in and +y itself" a contract +et4eenhi! and respondents" +ecause it contains a pro&ision 4here+y the parties agreed to continuetheir co7o4nership of the su+<ect property +y redee!ing or repurchasing the sa!e fro! the6an?. This agree!ent" petitioner contends" is the la4 +et4een the parties and" as such" +indsthe respondents. %s a result" petitioner asserts that respondentsJ act of +uying the disputedproperty fro! the 6an? 4ithout notifying hi! inures to his +enefit as to gi&e hi! the right to clai!his rightful portion of the property" co!prising #A- thereof" +y rei!+ursing respondents theeui&alent #A- of the su! they paid to the 6an?. The *ourt is not persuaded. etitioner and respondents are arguing on the 4rong pre!ise that" at the ti!e of the e8ecution

of the 18tra<udicial Settle!ent" the su+<ect property for!ed part of the estate of their deceasedfather to 4hich they !ay lay clai! as his heirs.

%t the outset" it +ears to e!phasi)e that there is no dispute 4ith respect to the fact that thesu+<ect property 4as e8clusi&ely o4ned +y petitioner and respondentsJ father" Rufo" at the ti!ethat it 4as !ortgaged in #$,$. This 4as stipulated +y the parties during the hearing conducted+y the trial court on Octo+er 29" #$$/.:#2; 1&idence sho4s that a Definite Deed of Sale :#-; 4asissued in fa&or of the 6an? on 3anuary 25" #$9" after the period of rede!ption e8pired. Thereis neither any dispute that a ne4 title 4as issued in the 6an?Js na!e +efore Rufo died on 3uly /"










#$9. Bence" there is no uestion that the 6an? acuired e8clusi&e o4nership of the contestedlot during the lifeti!e of Rufo. The rights to a personJs succession are trans!itted fro! the !o!ent of his death. :#; In addition"the inheritance of a person consists of the property and trans!issi+le rights and o+ligationse8isting at the ti!e of his death" as 4ell as those 4hich ha&e accrued thereto since the opening

of the succession.:#5; In the present case" since Rufo lost o4nership of the su+<ect propertyduring his lifeti!e" it only follo4s that at the ti!e of his death" the disputed parcel of land nolonger for!ed part of his estate to 4hich his heirs !ay lay clai!. Stated differently" petitioner and respondents ne&er inherited the su+<ect lot fro! their father. etitioner and respondents" therefore" 4ere 4rong in assu!ing that they +eca!e co7o4ners of the su+<ect lot. Thus" any issue arising fro! the supposed right of petitioner as co7o4ner of thecontested parcel of land is negated +y the fact that" in the eyes of the la4" the disputed lot didnot pass into the hands of petitioner and respondents as co!pulsory heirs of Rufo at any gi&enpoint in ti!e. The foregoing not4ithstanding" the *ourt finds a necessity for a co!plete deter!ination of the

issues raised in the instant case to loo? into petitionerJs argu!ent that the 18tra<udicialSettle!ent is an independent contract 4hich gi&es hi! the right to enforce his right to clai! aportion of the disputed lot +ought +y respondents. It is true that under %rticle #-#5 of the *i&il *ode of the hilippines" contracts are perfected +y!ere consent@ and fro! that !o!ent" the parties are +ound not only to the fulfill!ent of 4hathas +een e8pressly stipulated +ut also to all the conseuences 4hich" according to their nature"!ay +e in ?eeping 4ith good faith" usage and la4.

%rticle #-0/ of the sa!e *ode also pro&ides that the contracting parties !ay esta+lish suchstipulations" clauses" ter!s and conditions as they !ay dee! con&enient" pro&ided these arenot contrary to la4" !orals" good custo!s" pu+lic order or pu+lic policy.

In the present case" ho4e&er" there is nothing in the su+<ect 18tra<udicial Settle!ent to indicateany e8press stipulation for petitioner and respondents to continue 4ith their supposed co7o4nership of the contested lot. On the contrary" a plain reading of the pro&isions of the 18tra<udicial Settle!ent 4ould not" inany 4ay" support petitionerJs contention that it 4as his and his si+lingJs intention to +uy thesu+<ect property fro! the 6an? and continue 4hat they +elie&ed to +e co7o4nership thereof. It isa cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts that the intention of the parties shall +e accordedpri!ordial consideration.:#/; It is the duty of the courts to place a practical and realisticconstruction upon it" gi&ing due consideration to the conte8t in 4hich it is negotiated and thepurpose 4hich it is intended to ser&e.:#,; Such intention is deter!ined fro! the e8press ter!s of

their agree!ent" as 4ell as their conte!poraneous and su+seuent acts.:#9;

%+surd and illogicalinterpretations should also +e a&oided.:#$;

For petitioner to clai! that the 18tra<udicial Settle!ent is an agree!ent +et4een hi! and hissi+lings to continue 4hat they thought 4as their o4nership of the su+<ect property" e&en after the sa!e had +een +ought +y the 6an?" is stretching the interpretation of the said 18tra<udicialSettle!ent too far.


















In the first place" as earlier discussed" there is no co7o4nership to tal? a+out and no property topartition" as the disputed lot ne&er for!ed part of the estate of their deceased father. 'oreo&er" petitionerJs asse&eration of his and respondentsJ intention of continuing 4ith their supposed co7o4nership is negated +y no less than his assertions in the present petition that onse&eral occasions he had the chance to purchase the su+<ect property +ac?" +ut he refused to

do so. In fact" he clai!s that after the 6an? acuired the disputed lot" it offered to re7sell thesa!e to hi! +ut he ignored such offer. Bo4 then can petitioner no4 clai! that it 4as also hisintention to purchase the su+<ect property fro! the 6an?" 4hen he ad!itted that he refused the6an?Js offer to re7sell the su+<ect property to hi! In addition" it appears fro! the recitals in the 18tra<udicial Settle!ent that" at the ti!e of thee8ecution thereof" the parties 4ere not yet a4are that the su+<ect property 4as alreadye8clusi&ely o4ned +y the 6an?. Nonetheless" the lac? of ?no4ledge on the part of petitioner andrespondents that the !ortgage 4as already foreclosed and title to the property 4asalready transferred to the 6an? does not gi&e the! the right or the authority to unilaterallydeclare the!sel&es as co7o4ners of the disputed property@ other4ise" the disposition of thecase 4ould +e !ade to depend on the +elief and con&iction of the party7litigants and not on the

e&idence adduced and the la4 and <urisprudence applica+le thereto. Further!ore" petitionerJs contention that he and his si+lings intended to continue their supposedco7o4nership of the su+<ect property contradicts the pro&isions of the su+<ect 18tra<udicialSettle!ent 4here they clearly !anifested their intention of ha&ing the su+<ect property di&idedor partitioned +y assigning to each of the petitioner and respondents a specific #A- portion of thesa!e. artition calls for the segregation and con&eyance of a deter!inate portion of theproperty o4ned in co!!on. It see?s a se&erance of the indi&idual interests of each co7o4ner"&esting in each of the! a sole estate in a specific property and gi&ing each one a right to en<oyhis estate 4ithout super&ision or interference fro! the other. :20; In other 4ords" the purpose of partition is to put an end to co7o4nership" :2#; an o+<ecti&e 4hich negates petitionerJs clai!s in thepresent case.

(EREFORE" the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the *ourt of %ppeals"dated 'ay -#" 2005 in *%7.R. *V No. 590#" is FFIR%ED. 'O ORDERED.

DIO'DDO %. "ERL# %ssociate 3ustice

+nion!an v *anti!ane

S1*OND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 149926. F)@ruary 2?, 2005]








$NION -N OF #(E "(ILI""INE', petitioner, vs. ED%$ND 'N#I-EZ an& FLOREN!E'N#I-EZ RIOL, respondents.

D E ! I ' I O N

!LLEJO, 'R., J .

6efore us is a petition for re&ie4 on certiorari under Rule 5 of the Re&ised Rules of *ourt4hich see?s the re&ersal of the Decision :#; of the *ourt of %ppeals dated 'ay -0" 200# in *%7.R. *V No. 99-# affir!ing the dis!issal:2; of the petitioners co!plaint in *i&il *ase No. #9$0$+y the Regional Trial *ourt CRT* of 'a?ati *ity" 6ranch /-.

The antecedent facts are as follo4s

On 'ay -#" #$90" the First *ountryside *redit *orporation CF*** and 1frai! '.Santi+ae) entered into a loan agree!ent:-; in the a!ount of #29"000.00. The a!ount 4asintended for the pay!ent of the purchase price of one C# unit Ford //00 %gricultural %ll7urpose Diesel Tractor. In &ie4 thereof" 1frai! and his son" 1d!und" e8ecuted a pro!issorynote in fa&or of the F***" the principal su! paya+le in fi&e eual annual a!orti)ations

of -",5.$/ due on 'ay -#" #$9# and e&ery 'ay -#st thereafter up to 'ay -#" #$95.On Dece!+er #-" #$90" the F*** and 1frai! entered into another loan agree!ent" :; this

ti!e in the a!ount of #2-"#5/.00. It 4as intended to pay the +alance of the purchase price of another unit of Ford //00 %gricultural %ll7urpose Diesel Tractor" 4ith accessories" and one C#unit Bo4ard Rota!otor 'odel %R /0G. %gain" 1frai! and his son" 1d!und" e8ecuted apro!issory note for the said a!ount in fa&or of the F***. %side fro! such pro!issory note"they also signed a *ontinuing uaranty %gree!ent:5; for the loan dated Dece!+er #-" #$90.

So!eti!e in Fe+ruary #$9#" 1frai! died" lea&ing a holographic 4ill. :/; Su+seuently in'arch #$9#" testate proceedings co!!enced +efore the RT* of Iloilo *ity" 6ranch ," doc?etedas Special roceedings No. 2,0/. On %pril $" #$9#" 1d!und" as one of the heirs" 4asappointed as the special ad!inistrator of the estate of the decedent.:,; During the pendency of

the testate proceedings" the sur&i&ing heirs" 1d!und and his sister Florence Santi+ae) %riola"e8ecuted a 3oint %gree!ent:9; dated 3uly 22" #$9#" 4herein they agreed to di&ide +et4eenthe!sel&es and ta?e possession of the three C- tractors@ that is" t4o C2 tractors for 1d!undand one C# tractor for Florence. 1ach of the! 4as to assu!e the inde+tedness of their latefather to F***" corresponding to the tractor respecti&ely ta?en +y the!.

On %ugust 20" #$9#" a Deed of %ssign!ent 4ith %ssu!ption of >ia+ilities:$; 4as e8ecuted +yand +et4een F*** and Enion Sa&ings and 'ortgage 6an?" 4herein the F*** as the assignor"a!ong others" assigned all its assets and lia+ilities to Enion Sa&ings and 'ortgage 6an?.

De!and letters:#0; for the settle!ent of his account 4ere sent +y petitioner Enion 6an? of the hilippines CE6 to 1d!und" +ut the latter failed to heed the sa!e and refused to pay.Thus" on Fe+ruary 5" #$99" the petitioner filed a *o!plaint :##; for su! of !oney against the heirs

of 1frai! Santi+ae)" 1d!und and Florence" +efore the RT* of 'a?ati *ity" 6ranch #50"doc?eted as *i&il *ase No. #9$0$. Su!!onses 4ere issued against +oth" +ut the one intendedfor 1d!und 4as not ser&ed since he 4as in the Enited States and there 4as no infor!ation onhis address or the date of his return to the hilippines. :#2; %ccordingly" the co!plaint 4asnarro4ed do4n to respondent Florence S. %riola.

On Dece!+er ," #$99" respondent Florence S. %riola filed her %ns4er :#-; and alleged thatthe loan docu!ents did not +ind her since she 4as not a party thereto. *onsidering that the <oint

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn1































agree!ent signed +y her and her +rother 1d!und 4as not appro&ed +y the pro+ate court" it4as null and &oid@ hence" she 4as not lia+le to the petitioner under the <oint agree!ent.

On 3anuary 2$" #$$0" the case 4as unloaded and re7raffled to the RT* of 'a?ati *ity"6ranch /-.:#; *onseuently" trial on the !erits ensued and a decision 4as su+seuentlyrendered +y the court dis!issing the co!plaint for lac? of !erit. The decretal portion of the RT*

decision reads

=B1R1FOR1" <udg!ent is here+y rendered DIS'ISSIN the co!plaint for lac? of !erit.:#5;

The trial court found that the clai! of the petitioner should ha&e +een filed 4ith the pro+atecourt +efore 4hich the testate estate of the late 1frai! Santi+ae) 4as pending" as the su! of !oney +eing clai!ed 4as an o+ligation incurred +y the said decedent. The trial court also foundthat the 3oint %gree!ent apparently e8ecuted +y his heirs" 1d!und and Florence" on 3uly 22"#$9#" 4as" in effect" a partition of the estate of the decedent. Bo4e&er" the said agree!ent 4as&oid" considering that it had not +een appro&ed +y the pro+ate court" and that there can +e no&alid partition until after the 4ill has +een pro+ated. The trial court further declared that petitioner failed to pro&e that it 4as the no4 defunct Enion Sa&ings and 'ortgage 6an? to 4hich the

F*** had assigned its assets and lia+ilities. The court also agreed to the contention of respondent Florence S. %riola that the list of assets and lia+ilities of the F*** assigned toEnion Sa&ings and 'ortgage 6an? did not clearly refer to the decedents account. Ruling thatthe <oint agree!ent e8ecuted +y the heirs 4as null and &oid" the trial court held that thepetitioners cause of action against respondent Florence S. %riola !ust necessarily fail.

The petitioner appealed fro! the RT* decision and ele&ated its case to the *ourt of %ppeals C*%" assigning the follo4ing as errors of the trial court

#. TB1 *OERT A '=9 1RR1D IN FINDIN TB%T TB1 3OINT %R11'1NTC1HBI6IT % SBOE>D 61 %ROV1D 6 TB1 RO6%T1 *OERT.

2. TB1 *OERT A '=9 1RR1D IN FINDIN TB%T TB1R1 *%N 61 NO V%>ID%RTITION %'ON TB1 B1IRS ENTI> %FT1R TB1 =I>> B%S 611NRO6%T1D.

-. TB1 *OERT A '=9 1RR1D IN NOT FINDIN TB%T TB1 D1F1ND%NT B%D=%IV1D B1R RIBT TO B%V1 TB1 *>%I' R17>ITI%T1D IN TB1 1ST%T1RO*11DIN.:#/;

The petitioner asserted +efore the *% that the o+ligation of the deceased had passed to hislegiti!ate children and heirs" in this case" 1d!und and Florence@ the unconditional signing of the <oint agree!ent !ar?ed as 18hi+it % estopped respondent Florence S. %riola" and that shecannot deny her lia+ility under the said docu!ent@ as the agree!ent had +een signed +y +othheirs in their personal capacity" it 4as no longer necessary to present the sa!e +efore thepro+ate court for appro&al@ the property partitioned in the agree!ent 4as not one of thoseenu!erated in the holographic 4ill !ade +y the deceased@ and the acti&e participation of theheirs" particularly respondent Florence S. %riola" in the present ordinary ci&il action 4astanta!ount to a 4ai&er to re7litigate the clai! in the estate proceedings.

On the other hand" respondent Florence S. %riola !aintained that the !oney clai! of thepetitioner should ha&e +een presented +efore the pro+ate court.:#,;

The appellate court found that the appeal 4as not !eritorious and held that the petitioner should ha&e filed its clai! 4ith the pro+ate court as pro&ided under Sections # and 5" Rule 9/ of the Rules of *ourt. It further held that the partition !ade in the agree!ent 4as null and &oid"











since no &alid partition !ay +e had until after the 4ill has +een pro+ated. %ccording to the *%"page 2" paragraph Ce of the holographic 4ill co&ered the su+<ect properties Ctractors in genericter!s 4hen the deceased referred to the! as all other properties. 'oreo&er" the acti&eparticipation of respondent Florence S. %riola in the case did not a!ount to a 4ai&er. Thus" the*% affir!ed the RT* decision" viz.

=B1R1FOR1" pre!ises considered" the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial *ourt of 'a?ati *ity" 6ranch /-" is here+y %FFIR'1D in toto.

SO ORD1R1D.:#9;

In the present recourse" the petitioner ascri+es the follo4ing errors to the *%

I.

TB1 BONOR%6>1 *OERT OF %1%>S 1RR1D IN FINDIN TB%T TB1 3OINT %R11'1NT SBOE>D 61 %ROV1D 6 TB1 RO6%T1 *OERT.

II.

TB1 *OERT OF %1%>S 1RR1D IN FINDIN TB%T TB1R1 *%N 61 NO V%>ID%RTITION %'ON TB1 B1IRS OF TB1 >%T1 1FR%I' S%NTI6%1L ENTI> %FT1R TB1=I>> B%S 611N RO6%T1D.

III.

TB1 *OERT OF %1%>S 1RR1D IN NOT FINDIN TB%T TB1 R1SOND1NT B%D=%IV1D B1R RIBT TO B%V1 TB1 *>%I' R17>ITI%T1D IN TB1 1ST%T1 RO*11DIN.

I3.

R1SOND1NTS *%N" IN F%*T" 61 B1>D 3OINT> %ND S1V1R%>> >I%6>1 =ITB TB1RIN*I%> D16TOR TB1 >%T1 1FR%I' S%NTI6%1L ON TB1 STR1NTB OF TB1*ONTINEIN E%R%NT %R11'1NT 1H1*ET1D IN F%VOR OF 1TITION1R7

%1>>%NT ENION 6%NG.

3.

TB1 RO'ISSOR NOT1S D%T1D '% -#" #$90 IN TB1 SE' OF #29"000.00 %NDD1*1'61R #-" #$90 IN TB1 %'OENT OF #2-"000.00 *%T1ORI*%>> 1ST%6>ISB1DTB1 F%*T TB%T TB1 R1SOND1NTS 6OEND TB1'S1>V1S 3OINT> %ND S1V1R%>>

>I%6>1 =ITB TB1 >%T1 D16TOR 1FR%I' S%NTI6%1L IN F%VOR OF 1TITION1R ENION6%NG.:#$;

The petitioner clai!s that the o+ligations of the deceased 4ere trans!itted to the heirs aspro&ided in %rticle ,, of the *i&il *ode@ there 4as thus no need for the pro+ate court toappro&e the <oint agree!ent 4here the heirs partitioned the tractors o4ned +y the deceasedand assu!ed the o+ligations related thereto. Since respondent Florence S. %riola signed the

<oint agree!ent 4ithout any condition" she is no4 estopped fro! asserting any position contrarythereto. The petitioner also points out that the holographic 4ill of the deceased did not include







nor !ention any of the tractors su+<ect of the co!plaint" and" as such 4as +eyond the a!+it of the said 4ill. The acti&e participation and resistance of respondent Florence S. %riola in theordinary ci&il action against the petitioners clai! a!ounts to a 4ai&er of the right to ha&e theclai! presented in the pro+ate proceedings" and to allo4 any one of the heirs 4ho e8ecuted the

<oint agree!ent to escape lia+ility to pay the &alue of the tractors under consideration 4ould +eeui&alent to allo4ing the said heirs to enrich the!sel&es to the da!age and pre<udice of the

petitioner.

The petitioner" li?e4ise" a&ers that the decisions of +oth the trial and appellate courts failedto consider the fact that respondent Florence S. %riola and her +rother 1d!und e8ecuted loandocu!ents" all esta+lishing the vinculum juris or the legal +ond +et4een the late 1frai!Santi+ae) and his heirs to +e in the nature of a solidary o+ligation. Further!ore" the ro!issoryNotes dated 'ay -#" #$90 and Dece!+er #-" #$90 e8ecuted +y the late 1frai! Santi+ae)"together 4ith his heirs" 1d!und and respondent Florence" !ade the o+ligation solidary as far asthe said heirs are concerned. The petitioner also proffers that" considering the e8presspro&isions of the continuing guaranty agree!ent and the pro!issory notes e8ecuted +y thena!ed respondents" the latter !ust +e held lia+le <ointly and se&erally lia+le thereon. Thus"there 4as no need for the petitioner to file its !oney clai! +efore the pro+ate court. Finally" the

petitioner stresses that +oth sur&i&ing heirs are +eing sued in their respecti&e personalcapacities" not as heirs of the deceased.

In her co!!ent to the petition" respondent Florence S. %riola !aintains that the petitioner istrying to reco&er a su! of !oney fro! the deceased 1frai! Santi+ae)@ thus the clai! shouldha&e +een filed 4ith the pro+ate court. She points out that at the ti!e of the e8ecution of the

<oint agree!ent there 4as already an e8isting pro+ate proceedings of 4hich the petitioner ?ne4a+out. Bo4e&er" to a&oid a clai! in the pro+ate court 4hich !ight delay pay!ent of theo+ligation" the petitioner opted to reuire the! to e8ecute the said agree!ent.

%ccording to the respondent" the trial court and the *% did not err in declaring that theagree!ent 4as null and &oid. She asserts that e&en if the agree!ent 4as &oluntarily e8ecuted+y her and her +rother 1d!und" it should still ha&e +een su+<ected to the appro&al of the court

as it !ay pre<udice the estate" the heirs or third parties. Further!ore" she had not 4ai&ed anyrights" as she e&en stated in her ans4er in the court a quo that the clai! should +e filed 4ith thepro+ate court. Thus" the petitioner could not in&o?e or clai! that she is in estoppel.

Respondent Florence S. %riola further asserts that she had not signed any continuingguaranty agree!ent" nor 4as there any docu!ent presented as e&idence to sho4 that she hadcaused herself to +e +ound +y the o+ligation of her late father.

The petition is +ereft of !erit.

The *ourt is posed to resol&e the follo4ing issues a 4hether or not the partition in the %gree!ent e8ecuted +y the heirs is &alid@ + 4hether or not the heirs assu!ption of theinde+tedness of the deceased is &alid@ and c 4hether the petitioner can hold the heirs lia+le onthe o+ligation of the deceased.

%t the outset" 4ell7settled is the rule that a pro+ate court has the <urisdiction to deter!ine allthe properties of the deceased" to deter!ine 4hether they should or should not +e included inthe in&entory or list of properties to +e ad!inistered.:20; The said court is pri!arily concerned4ith the ad!inistration" liuidation and distri+ution of the estate.:2#;

In our <urisdiction" the rule is that there can +e no &alid partition a!ong the heirs until after the 4ill has +een pro+ated







In testate succession" there can +e no &alid partition a!ong the heirs until after the 4ill has+een pro+ated. The la4 en<oins the pro+ate of a 4ill and the pu+lic reuires it" +ecause unless a4ill is pro+ated and notice thereof gi&en to the 4hole 4orld" the right of a person to dispose of his property +y 4ill !ay +e rendered nugatory. The authentication of a 4ill decides no other uestion than such as touch upon the capacity of the testator and the co!pliance 4ith thosereuire!ents or sole!nities 4hich the la4 prescri+es for the &alidity of a 4ill. :22;

This" of course" presupposes that the properties to +e partitioned are the sa!e propertiese!+raced in the 4ill.:2-; In the present case" the deceased" 1frai! Santi+ae)" left a holographic4ill:2; 4hich contained" inter alia" the pro&ision 4hich reads as follo4s

Ce %ll other properties" real or personal" 4hich I o4n and !ay +e disco&ered later after !yde!ise" shall +e distri+uted in the proportion indicated in the i!!ediately preceding paragraphin fa&or of 1d!und and Florence" !y children.

=e agree 4ith the appellate court that the a+o&e7uoted is an all7enco!passing pro&isione!+racing all the properties left +y the decedent 4hich !ight ha&e escaped his !ind at thatti!e he 4as !a?ing his 4ill" and other properties he !ay acuire thereafter. Included thereinare the three C- su+<ect tractors. This +eing so" any partition in&ol&ing the said tractors a!ongthe heirs is not &alid. The <oint agree!ent:25; e8ecuted +y 1d!und and Florence" partitioning thetractors a!ong the!sel&es" is in&alid" specially so since at the ti!e of its e8ecution" there 4asalready a pending proceeding for the pro+ate of their late fathers holographic 4ill co&ering thesaid tractors.

It !ust +e stressed that the pro+ate proceeding had already acuired <urisdiction o&er allthe properties of the deceased" including the three C- tractors. To dispose of the! in any 4ay4ithout the pro+ate courts appro&al is tanta!ount to di&esting it 4ith <urisdiction 4hich the *ourtcannot allo4.:2/; 1&ery act intended to put an end to indi&ision a!ong co7heirs and legatees or de&isees is dee!ed to +e a partition" although it should purport to +e a sale" an e8change" aco!pro!ise" or any other transaction. :2,; Thus" in e8ecuting any <oint agree!ent 4hich appears

to +e in the nature of an e8tra7<udicial partition" as in the case at +ar" court appro&al isi!perati&e" and the heirs cannot <ust di&est the court of its <urisdiction o&er that part of theestate. 'oreo&er" it is 4ithin the <urisdiction of the pro+ate court to deter!ine the identity of theheirs of the decedent.:29; In the instant case" there is no sho4ing that the signatories in the <ointagree!ent 4ere the only heirs of the decedent. =hen it 4as e8ecuted" the pro+ate of the 4ill4as still pending +efore the court and the latter had yet to deter!ine 4ho the heirs of thedecedent 4ere. Thus" for 1d!und and respondent Florence S. %riola to ad<udicate untothe!sel&es the three C- tractors 4as a pre!ature act" and pre<udicial to the other possi+le heirsand creditors 4ho !ay ha&e a &alid clai! against the estate of the deceased.

The uestion that no4 co!es to fore is 4hether the heirs assu!ption of the inde+tednessof the decedent is +inding. =e rule in the negati&e. erusing the <oint agree!ent" it pro&idesthat the heirs as parties thereto have agreed to divide bet0een themselves and ta2e possessionand use the above!described chattel and each of them to assume the indebtednesscorresponding to the chattel ta2en as herein after stated 0hich is in favor of 6irst Countr*sideCredit Corp.:2$; The assu!ption of lia+ility 4as conditioned upon the happening of an e&ent" thatis" that each heir shall ta?e possession and use of their respecti&e share under the agree!ent.It 4as !ade dependent on the &alidity of the partition" and that they 4ere to assu!e theinde+tedness corresponding to the chattel that they 4ere each to recei&e. The partition +eingin&alid as earlier discussed" the heirs in effect did not recei&e any such tractor. It follo4s thenthat the assu!ption of lia+ility cannot +e gi&en any force and effect.
























The *ourt notes that the loan 4as contracted +y the decedent. The petitioner" purportedly acreditor of the late 1frai! Santi+ae)" should ha&e thus filed its !oney clai! 4ith the pro+atecourt in accordance 4ith Section 5" Rule 9/ of the Re&ised Rules of *ourt" 4hich pro&ides

Section 5. Claims 0hich must be filed under the notice. 8f not filed barredH e-ceptions. %ll clai!sfor !oney against the decedent" arising fro! contract" e8press or i!plied" 4hether the sa!e +e

due" not due" or contingent" all clai!s for funeral e8penses for the last sic?ness of the decedent"and <udg!ent for !oney against the decedent" !ust +e filed 4ithin the ti!e li!ited in the notice@other4ise they are +arred fore&er" e8cept that they !ay +e set forth as counterclai!s in anyaction that the e8ecutor or ad!inistrator !ay +ring against the clai!ants. =here an e8ecutor or ad!inistrator co!!ences an action" or prosecutes an action already co!!enced +y thedeceased in his lifeti!e" the de+tor !ay set forth +y ans4er the clai!s he has against thedecedent" instead of presenting the! independently to the court as herein pro&ided" and !utualclai!s !ay +e set off against each other in such action@ and if final <udg!ent is rendered infa&or of the defendant" the a!ount so deter!ined shall +e considered the true +alance againstthe estate" as though the clai! had +een presented directly +efore the court in thead!inistration proceedings. *lai!s not yet due" or contingent" !ay +e appro&ed at their present&alue.

The filing of a !oney clai! against the decedents estate in the pro+ate court is !andatory.:-0; %s 4e held in the &intage case of P* 5ng Chong v. errera:-#;

This reuire!ent is for the purpose of protecting the estate of the deceased +y infor!ing thee8ecutor or ad!inistrator of the clai!s against it" thus ena+ling hi! to e8a!ine each clai! andto deter!ine 4hether it is a proper one 4hich should +e allo4ed. The plain and o+&ious designof the rule is the speedy settle!ent of the affairs of the deceased and the early deli&ery of theproperty to the distri+utees" legatees" or heirs. The la4 strictly reuires the pro!pt presentationand disposition of the clai!s against the decedentJs estate in order to settle the affairs of theestate as soon as possi+le" pay off its de+ts and distri+ute the residue.:-2;

erusing the records of the case" nothing therein could hold pri&ate respondent Florence S. %riola accounta+le for any lia+ility incurred +y her late father. The docu!entary e&idencepresented" particularly the pro!issory notes and the continuing guaranty agree!ent" 4eree8ecuted and signed only +y the late 1frai! Santi+ae) and his son 1d!und. %s the petitioner failed to file its !oney clai! 4ith the pro+ate court" at !ost" it !ay only go after 1d!und as co7!a?er of the decedent under the said pro!issory notes and continuing guaranty" of course"su+<ect to any defenses 1d!und !ay ha&e as against the petitioner. %s the court had notacuired <urisdiction o&er the person of 1d!und" 4e find it unnecessary to del&e into the !atter further.

=e agree 4ith the finding of the trial court that the petitioner had not sufficiently sho4n thatit is the successor7in7interest of the Enion Sa&ings and 'ortgage 6an? to 4hich the F***

assigned its assets and lia+ilities.:--;

The petitioner in its co!plaint alleged that b* virtue of theDeed of Assignment dated August "$, I# e-ecuted b* and bet0een 6irst Countr*side Credit Corporation and =nion )an2 of the Philippines:-; Bo4e&er" the docu!entary e&idence:-5; clearlyreflects that the parties in the deed of assign!ent 4ith assu!ption of lia+ilities 4ere the F***"and the Enion Sa&ings and 'ortgage 6an?" 4ith the confor!ity of 6anco! hilippine Boldings"Inc. No4here can the petitioners participation therein as a party +e found. Further!ore" nodocu!entary or testi!onial e&idence 4as presented during trial to sho4 that Enion Sa&ings and'ortgage 6an? is no4" in fact" petitioner Enion 6an? of the hilippines. %s the trial courtdeclared in its decision
















:T;he court also finds !erit to the contention of defendant that plaintiff failed to pro&e or did notpresent e&idence to pro&e that Enion Sa&ings and 'ortgage 6an? is no4 the Enion 6an? of thehilippines. 3udicial notice does not apply here. The po4er to ta?e <udicial notice is to :+e;e8ercised +y the courts 4ith caution@ care !ust +e ta?en that the reuisite notoriety e8ists@ ande&ery reasona+le dou+t upon the su+<ect should +e pro!ptly resol&ed in the negati&e. CRepu+lic&s. *ourt of %ppeals" #0, S*R% 50.:-/;

This +eing the case" the petitioners personality to file the co!plaint is 4anting.*onseuently" it failed to esta+lish its cause of action. Thus" the trial court did not err indis!issing the co!plaint" and the *% in affir!ing the sa!e.

IN LIG(# OF LL #(E FOREGOING, the petition is here+y D1NI1D. The assailed *ourtof %ppeals Decision is %FFIR'1D. No costs.

'O ORDERED.

Puno, ?Chairman@, Austria!(artinez, 4inga, and Chico!:azario, JJ., concur .



full text cases on succession

Documents