succession cases prelims

7/25/2019 Succession Cases PRELIMS

1/49


2/49

create an anomaly, in the sense that intereste" parties oul" !e preu"ice"there!y. here are several persons possessin portions of lan" ithin thelan" a"u"icate" to /amon &lvare an" Jose &lvare. hey possesse" theseportions ith a claim of riht of onership a"verse to that of /amon &lvarean" Jose &lvare.

8e "o not fin" in merit appellant6s contention.

ection % of the * #hil., 21, 2%?, theupreme 5ourt "eclare" that from the evi"ence @it conclusively appears that the lateJose &lvare an" his successors ha" a consi"era!le e(tent of lan" in the same placehere the applicant6s lan" is situate", an" ta'in also into account that the lan" assurveye" for purposes of reistration, e f in" that the eiht of the evi"encein"icates that the lan" claime" !y the opponent /amon &lvare ha" !een inclu"e" in

the applicant6s plan. his lan" has an area of *00 hectares. &ccor"in to /amon&lvare, it appears that his father, 3!o &lvare, ha" hel" the tract since 190* an" thatat the "eath of sai" 3!o &lvare, /amon &lvare an" his co-oner, Jose &lvareentere" into possession an" have remaine" therein since.@

Arom the a!ove, there cannot !e any "ou!t that /amon an" Jose &lvare have !eenfinally "eclare" as the oners of the *00 hectares in Buestion, an" such "eclarationis oo" for all purposes, inclu"in the issuance of the correspon"in certificates oftitle to sai" oners of their successors in interest, such as !uyer MarianoGarchitorena. &ppellant6s alleation that the "ecree of reistration in favor of MarianoGarchitorena for the portions aar"e" to /amon an" Jose &lvare oul" preu"iceintereste" parties is roun"less, !ecause all intereste" parties ere iven fullopportunity to a"vance an" present their respective claims since the oriinalapplication as "uly pu!lishe" an" the procee"ins for reistration, hich are in rem

in character, ere !eun, it appearin that the oriinal application inclu"e" the *00hectares hich ere finally a"u"icate" to /amon an" Jose &lvare. &ny!o"y an"every!o"y ho ha" any leitimate claim to sai" *00 hectares or any part thereof, if

they ante" to, coul" have appeare" !efore the court an" presente" their claims. 3fthey faile" to "o it at the opportune time, it is no too later for them to complain.

A!!EAL O& ANA !ATAAN

his appellant complains that the loer court erre" in hol"in that the free patent titlenum!er 140$ of sai" &na #ataan is null an" voi" ab initio.

he loer court6s actions is !ase" upon the fact that hen the free patent titlenum!er 140$ as issue" in 19%+, the lan" of 10 hectares covere" !y it as part of alarer tract hich as "eclare" private property accor"in to the "ecision of May 14,19%1, hich as later affirme" !y the upreme 5ourt, very much earlier than theissuance of the free patent tit le in Buestion.

8e "o not fin" any error in the loer court6s action.

he "ecision of the upreme 5ourt "eclarin the lan" in Buestion as private propertyas promulate" on March 4, 19%% >Garchitorena vs.7"a. "e 5entenera vs.O!ias,* #hil., 21?, that is more than four years !efore the issuance of the free patent title inBuestion on March 21, 19%+.

Cpon this conclusion, it ill serve no purpose to pass upon the Buestion raise" !yappellant #ataan as to the court6s "enial of her motion for reopenin, !esi"es the factthat the !asis of her contention, that she has not !een mentione" in the oriinalapplication as possessor of the lan" hich she is claimin, appear to !e flimsy !y thefact that she is the ife of enen #an"ai ho as appointe" !y Jose .Garchitorena, to ta'e care of the lan"s in Buestion.

A!!EAL O& VICENTE OTTO

his appellant allees that on March 4, 19%1, the 5ourt of Airst 3nstance of Manilaren"ere" a u"ment or"erin /ita Garchitorena 7"a. 5entenera to pay him theamount of #9$0.4; that !y virtue of a rit of e(ecution issue" on March 22, 19%2,the lots in Buestion ere attache" an" sol" at pu!lic auction, the sheriff issuin to

appellant the "ee" of sale on &uust +, 19%4, hich as later reistere" in the officeof the /eister of =ee"s of 5amarines ur.


3/49

he loer court foun" upon the evi"ence that lots 2, %, an" 4 of oriinal plan #su-$$0$% an" lots * an" of the su!"ivision plan #su-$$0$%-&m". ere a"u"icate", !yvirtue of a "ecision of the upreme 5ourt on March 4, 19%%, to /ita Garchitorena asheiress of her father, &n"res Garchitorena, the a"u"ication su!ect to sections +12an" +1% of the 5o"e of 5ivil #roce"ure.

Aolloin "irectives in sai" "ecision, Mariano Garchitorena an" !rothers file" a

complaint in the 5ourt of Airst 3nstance of 5amarines ur aainst /ita Garchitorena,an" secure" a u"ment on =ecem!er 20, 19%4, or"erin /ita Garchitorena to"eliver to the a"ministrator of the "ecease" &n"res Garchitorena the possession ofthe lan"s "ecree" to !e a"u"icate" to her in this case, ith the "eclaration that thecre"itors of the intestate of &n"res Garchitorena ill have the preferent riht ofretention upon sai" lan"s for costs an" other e(penses cause" !y "elays, an" thatthe u"icial a"ministrator of the intestate as authorie" on July , 19%*, aainstopposition of appellant 7icente otto, to sell at pu!lic auction the a!ove five lots inor"er to pay the cre"its of Mariano, Alor, an" Marcel Garchitorena.

Oppositor 7icente otto appeale" aainst the or"er to the upreme 5ourt, hichaffirme" the appeale" or"er, overrulin later on several motions for reconsi"erationfile" !y sai" appellant.

he u"icial a"ministrator, conseBuently, sol" at pu!lic auction on eptem!er +, 19%*,the lots in Buestion to Mariano Garchitorena, ho happene" to have appeare" as theonly !uyer, at the price of #2,+4*.9%. he "ee" of sale as e(ecute" on eptem!er, 19%*, an" approve" !y the court on &pril 2$, 1940, aainst the opposition ofappellant 7icente otto.

On &pril 2+, 19%9, Mariano Garchitorena !ouht the *00 hectares a"u"icate" !y theupreme 5ourt to /amon an" Jose &lvare, comprisin lots 1, $, an" + of thesu!"ivision plan #su-$$0$%-&m".

Arom the foreoin un"ispute" facts, no issue of facts havin !een raise" in any ofthe appeals in this case, it appears that /ita Garchitorena has never !ecome theoner of the lots in Buestion, it appearin that the a"u"ication ma"e in her favor assu!ect to the provisions of sections +12 an" +1% of the 5o"e of 5ivil #roce"ure,

hich in su!stance means ithout preu"ice to the rihts of the cre"itors of her"ecease" father, &n"res Garchitorena.

&lthouh the 5ivil 5o"e provi"es that succession ta'es effect from the time of the"eath of the oner, such provision "oes not create a succession hich, as a matterof fact, "oes not e(ist, as in the case of hat the "ecease" &n"res Garchitorenacoul" have left to his "auhter /ita.

3n the contemplation of the la, no succession shall !e "eclare" unless an" until aliBui"ation of the assets an" "e!ts left !y the "ecease" shall have !een ma"e an" all

his cre"itors fully pai". Cntil a f inal liBui"ation is ma"e an" all "e!ts are pai", there isno ay of "eterminin if his heirs may inherit anythin.

Cntil such a liBui"ation has !een ma"e, the riht of heirs to inherit remains to !einchoate. 3t parta'es of the nature of hope.


4/49

3n the latter case appellant file" on June 4, 19%*, an opposition to have the propertiesin Buestion sol" to satisfy claims of Mariano, Alor an" Marcel Garchitorena aainstthe "ecease" &n"res Garchitorena. 3n sai" opposition appellant allee":

5omparece 7icente otto, por si y en su propia representacion, comotercerista en este asunto, y se opone a la mocion "e Mariano Garchitorena yMarcel Garchitorena, "e fecha 20 "e Mayo "e 19%*, pi"ien"o la venta en

priva"o o en pu!lica su!asta "e las parcelas "e terreno "escritas en lamisma, por el fun"amento "e Bue el infrascrito es el unico y a!soluto"ueDo"e "ichas parcelas "e terreno.

1. )n los asuntos /.G. os. %$%* y %$*4+, titula"os /ita Garchitorena 7"a."e 5enteneracontra ermoenes #. O!ias, et al., y /ita Garchitorena 7"a."e 5entenera contra )l =irector "e errenos y otros, respectivamente, elri!unal upremo "ecreto, en "ecision "e Maro 4, 19%%, Bue to"as lasparcelas "e terreno "escritas en la menciona"a mocion fuesen reistra"as anom!re "e /ita Garchitorena >Gac. Of., 7ol. EEE33, o. 1, "e Ae!rero 10,19%4.?

2. )n el asunto o. %+22 "el Jua"o "e #rimera 3nstancia "e Manila,promovi"o porVicente Sotto contra Rita Garchitorena Vda. de Centenera,se

"icto con fecha %1 "e Mayo "e 19%1 sentencia en favor "el "eman"ante ycontra la "eman"a"a; y, ha!ien"ose Bue"a"o firme y eecutoria "ichasentencia, las parcelas "e terreno en cuestion, Bue son las mismas "escritasen la mocion "e Bue se t rata en el presente asunto, fueron ven"i"as enpu!lica su!asta por el heriff #rovincial "e 5amarines ur, y a"Buiri"as porel compareciente el + "e Julio "e 19%% en Bue se verifico "icha venta enpu!lica su!asta.

%. )l "ia 1.F "e eptiem!re "e 19%% se e(pe"io por el heriff "e 5amarinesur en favor "el compra"or 7icente otto el correspon"iente 5ertifica"o "e7enta, so!re "ichas parcelas "e terreno, y "icho certifica"o "e venta fueanota"o en el /eistro "e la #roprie"a" "e 5amarines ur correspon"ienteel 20 "e eptiem!re "e 19%%; y

4. o ha!ien"ose eercita"o por las eecuta"as en el cita"o asunto su"erecho "e retracto, "entro "el plao leal, el $ "e &osto "e 19%4, elcita"oherifff #rovincial "e 5amarines ur e(pe"io en favor "e 7icente otto elcertifica"o "e 7enta a!soluta, el cual fue iualmente anota"o en el /eistro

"e la #roprie"a" "e 5amarines ur correspon"iente en la misma fecha, yuna copia "el cual se acompaDa a este asunto y se marca como )(hi!ito @&-@ "el infrascrito tercerista.

=e los hechos Bue prece"en como se ve, resulta Bue el aBui tercerista,7icente otto, a"Buirio las parcelas "e terreno en cuestion en virtu" "ecompra en pu!lica su!asta, anuncia"a y lleva"a a ca!o por el heriff

#rovincial "e 5amarines ur el + "e Julio "e 19%%, o sea mucho antes "eBue este Jua"o "ictara el 20 "e =iciem!re "e 19%4 su sentencia en elasunto o. *+2, titula"o Marian "e Garchitorena, Alor Garchitorena yMarcel Garchitorenacontra /ita Garchitorena 7"a. "e 5entenera y Jose .Garchitorena en su capaci"a" "e a"ministra"or u"icial "el a!intestato "elfina"o &n"res Garchitorena.

&ppellant6s contentions ere overrule" !y the 5ourt of Airst 3nstance of 5amarinesur. &ppellant appeale" to the upreme 5ourt, hich, on =ecem!er *, 19% >G./.o. 44*4?, overrulin aain appellant6s contentions, amon others, state":

5laimin to have acBuire" title to the lan" in Buestion !y reason of a sheriff6ssale ma"e in his favor, the appellant, after o!tainin a permission tointervene, file" a ritten opposition to the aforesai" motion of Mariano "e

Garchitorena, Alor Garchitorena an" Marcel Garchitorena. he court !eloreecte" this opposition, on the roun" that, althouh the sheriff6s sale asma"e prior to the ren"ition of the u"ment in civil case o. *+2, it coul" notprevail aainst the sai" u"ment, in vie of the fact, that, prior to the sale, anotice of lis pendensas file" in connection ith that case.

3n support of this appeal, it is no conten"e" that the notice of lis pendenscoul" not preu"ice the riht of the appellant to the lan" in Buestion !ecausesuch notice coul" only affect lan" reistere" un"er &ct o. 49$. &ppellantfurther relies on section 194 of the &"ministrative 5o"e, as amen"e", hichin part provi"es that @any reistration ma"e un"er this section shall !eun"erstoo" to !e ithout preu"ice to a thir" party ith !etter riht.@ he pointthus raise" is set at rest !y the "ecisions of this court in &t'ins, roll H5ompany vs.=omino, 4$ #hil., %$2, an" Aelino vs.an, 44 #hil., $91. 3n

the latter case, this court hel" that @a transfereependente liteof real propertyin litiation is !oun" !y a u"ment aainst his pre"ecessor in interest an" isa proper !ut not an in"ispensa!le part.@


5/49

&ppellant also claims that he coul" not !e affecte" !y the u"ment ren"ere"in civil case o. *+2, !ecause it as frau"ulently o!taine". his contentionis ithout merit. he u"ment in Buestion must !e presume" to !e leal an"vali", unless shon !y conclusive evi"ence to have o!taine" throuh frau".o such evi"ence e(ists in this case.

he Buestions raise" in the a!ove opposition are su!stantially the same as those

raise" in the supplementary opposition file" !y appellant in the case at !ar.

8hen Mariano Garchitorena file" on Ae!ruary 24, 1940, a motion for the approval ofthe sale in his favor of the lots in Buestion, appellant file" an opposition, "ate" March11, 1940, reiteratin his allee" rihts !y virtue of the levy an" sale on e(ecution inhis favor. he opposition as overrule" !y an or"er "ate" &pril 2$, 1940, in hich thesale in favor of Mariano Garchitorena as approve". &ppellant "i" not appeal aainstsai" or"er.

he "ecision of the upreme 5ourt of =ecem!er *, 19%, in case G./. o. 44*4an" the unappeale" or"er of the 5ourt of Airst 3nstance of 5amarines ur "ate" &pril2$, 1940, an" special procee"in o. 21 ha" finally settle" the Buestions raise" !ythe appellant.

Aor all the foreoin, fin"in no merit in the appeals of appellants .#. O!ias, &na#ataan, an" 7icente otto, the or"er of the loer court "ate" June 2, 1941, isaffirme", ith costs aainst appellants.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones, Padilla, and !ason, JJ.,concur.

'p#r#(' Opi$io$)

HILADO, J., concurrin an" "issentin:

3 concur in the "isposition of the case as rear"s the parcels of lan" "ecree" !y this

5ourt in G./. os. %$%* an" %**4+ in favor of /ita Garchitorena, an" "issent f romthe remain"er of the maority "ecision hich affects the parcels covere" !y theoppositions of the herein opponents-appellants.

hese latter parcels, hose reistration in the maority "ecision also "ecrees in favorof movant-appellee Mariano Garchitorena, ere never applie" for in an applicationfor reistration, nor the su!ect of a li'e petition on the part of any opponent in theoriinal reistration cases hich, after havin !een appeale" to this court, ere"oc'ete" an" "ispose" of herein un"er G./. os. %$%* an" %$*4+ >see* #hil.,21?. hose cases ere institute", prosecute" an" "eci"e" un"er &ct o. 49$. heu"ment of this 5ourt "isposin of sai" cases an" promulate" on March 4, 19%%,an" elevate" to the authority of res "!dicataseven years !efore the motion no un"erconsi"eration as file" in the court !elo, an" more than fourteen years ao to"ay,uphel" the oppositions file" !y the =irector of *00 hectares?, an" Januario &lferes >24hectares?, an" or"ere" the amen"ment of the #lan #su-$$0$% @so as to e(clu"e theportions of lan" pertainin to sai" opponents.@ o affirmative relief as rante" sai"opponents in the sense of "ecreein the reistration in their favor of the parcels oflan" respectively covere" !y their oppositions.

efore the amen"ment of sections %4, %+, an" % of &ct o. 49$ !y sections 1, 2,an" % of &ct o. %$21, the court has no uris"iction to "ecreein the same proceedingthe reistration in favor of the opponent, even thouh it shoul" fin" that, as !eteenthe applicant an" the opponent, the lan" !elone" to the latter. 3n ecson vs.Corporacion de los PP. #ominicos >19 #hil., +9, 0?, this 5ourt, inter alia, sai":

. . . this court has hel" heretofore that the uris"iction of the


6/49

. . . he anser >or opposition, as it is often calle"? shall state all theo!ections to the application, an" shall set forth the interest claime" !y theparty filin the sameand appl$ %or the remed$ desired, an" shall !e sine"an" sorn to !y him or !y some person in his !ehalf.

ection %+ of &ct o. 49$ as also amen"e" !y section 2 of &ct o. %$21, so that itpartly rea" as follos:

)5. %+. ((( ((( (((

. . . in a case here there is an a"verse claim, the court shall "etermine theconflictin interests of the applicant an" the a"verse claimant, an" afterta'in evi"ence shall "ismiss the application if neither of them succee"s inshoin that he has proper title for reistration, or shall enter a "ecreeaar"in the lan" applie" for, or any part thereof, to the person entitle"thereto . . ..

ut even after the amen"ment, the un"erscore" portion of the a!ove-Buote"provisions clearly contemplate that in or"er for the opponent to o!tain from the courta "ecree of reistration,he m!st appl$ %or the same remed$.

3t is li'eise true that the same amen"in act reforme" section % of &ct o. 49$ sothat sai" section thereafter rea" thus:

)5. %. 3f the court after hearin fin"s that the applicant or a"verse claimanthas title as state" in his application or a"verse claim an" proper forreistration, a "ecree of confirmation an" reistration shall !e entere".

here can !e no "ispute that in the oriinal reistration cases un"er consi"eration, nopositive "ecree of reistration as praye" for !y any opponent, as cateoricallyreBuire" !y section %4 of &ct o. 49$, as amen"e"; an" certainly none has !een"ecree" !y the a!ovementione" final u"ment of this 5ourt, hich as !eyon" itspoer to amen", much less than of the loer court, hen the latter in rantin themotion un"er consi"eration attempte" to "o so. 3t seems to me evi"ent, therefore,that even if the opponents themselves ha" souht such an amen"ment, it coul" not

have !een leally ma"e at such a late "ate for the simple reason that they ha" notapplie" for a "ecree of reistration in their opposition as reBuire" in sai" provision,an" furthermore, !ecause the u"ment of this 5ourt ha" lon !efore !ecome final

an" irrevoca!le. 3f the opponents themselves coul" not leally have achieve" suchan en", ho coul" their successor-in-interest, the movant-appelleeI

8hat coul" !e the purpose of &ct o. %$21, section 1, amen"in &ct o. 49$, section%4, in provi"in that the opponent shall @apply for the reme"y "esire"@I 3t is topresume" that this phrase as there use" for a purpose it oul" !e an insult tothe intellience of the lama'er to un"erstan" the contrary. 8hat coul" !e that

purposeI o my min", it coul" only !e to esta!lish a !asis for the court6s uris"ictionto "ecree reistration in favor of the opponent an" a con"ition prece"ent for thee(ercise thereof. he la un"ou!te"ly aime" at "uly apprisin the applicant an" anyother a"verse claimants that such opponent as assertin a riht to the reistrationan" as prayin for that reme"y, so that such applicant an" other a"verse claimantscoul" "uly meet the pretensions of sai" opponent an" protect their rihts an" interestaccor"inly. Cn"er the provision, if the opponent applie" for a positive reistration inhis favor as the reme"y that he "esire", in case he shoul" prove title in himselfproper for reistration, the court oul" have uris"iction to rant him that reme"y. osay no that even if he shoul" not apply for the reme"y the court coul" still rant it tohim, oul" !e tantamount to "eclarin the Buote" phrase utterly useless an" "evoi"of meanin.

3n Government o% the Philippine &slands vs. ombis ri'o>*0 #hil., +0?, this 5ourtsai":

3n a ca"astral procee"in, a court has no uris"iction to "ecree a lot to oneho has put in no claim to it. he ritten "eclaration claimin certain"escri!e" property is the very !asis of uris"iction to ren"er a u"ment. . . .

8hile the present case is not concerne" ith a ca"astral procee"in, it involves thereistration of lan" li'e such a procee"in an", as is ell-'non, a claim in aca"astral procee"in, hich is "enominate" @anser@ is for the e(press purpose ofsecurin the reistration of the lan" covere" there!y in the name of the claimant.hat @anser@ is the plea"in hich the claimant f iles in vie of an" aainst thepetition or application of the =irector of


7/49

3t is li'eise true that after &ct o. %$21, more specifically on ovem!er 1+, 19%1,&ct o. %901 as enacte", amen"in section 29 of &ct o. 49$ so as to rea" in partas follos:

)5. 29. &fter the filin of the application an" !efore that issuance of the"ecree of title !y the 5hief of the General 2-K? tons in the municipality of an Juan; thatthe oriinal applicant #e"ro O. Araante as a Ailipino 5itien at the time of his"eath; an" that his intestate estate is financially capa!le of maintainin the propose"

service@. he commission, therefore, overrule" the opposition file" in the case an"or"ere" @that un"er the provisions of section 1* of 5ommonealth &ct o. 14$, asamen"e" a certificate of pu!lic convenience !e issue" to the 3ntestate )state of the"ecease" #e"ro Araante, authoriin sai" 3ntestate )state throuh its pecial or


8/49

Ju"icial &"ministrator, appointe" !y the proper court of competent uris"iction, tomaintain an" operate an ice plant ith a "aily pro"uctive capacity of to an" one-half>2-1L2? tons in the Municipality of an Juan an" to sell the ice pro"uce" from sai"plant in the sai" Municipality of an Juan an" in the Municipality of Man"aluyon,/ial, an" in ueon 5ity@, su!ect to the con"itions therein set forth in "etail>petitioner6s !rief, pp. %%-%4?.

#etitioner ma'es four assinments of error in his !rief as follos:

1. he "ecision of the #u!lic ervice 5ommission is not in accor"ance ithla.

2. he "ecision of the #u!lic ervice 5ommission is not reasona!lysupporte" !y evi"ence.

%. he #u!lic ervice 5ommission erre" in not ivin petitioner an" the 3cean" 5ol" torae 3n"ustries of the #hilippines, 3nc., as e(istin operators, areasona!le opportunity to meet the increase" "eman".

4. he "ecision of the #u!lic ervice 5ommission is an unarrante""eparture from its announce" policy ith respect to the esta!lishment an"

operation of ice plant. >#p. 1-2, petitioner6s !rief.?

3n his arument petitioner conten"s that it as error on the part of the commission toallo the su!stitution of the leal representative of the estate of #e"ro O. Araantefor the latter as party applicant in the case then pen"in !efore the commission, an"in su!seBuently rantin to sai" estate the certificate applie" for, hich is sai" to !ein contravention of la.

3f #e"ro O. Araante ha" not "ie", there can !e no Buestion that he oul" have ha"the riht to prosecute his application !efore the commission to its final conclusion. oone oul" have "enie" him that riht. &s "eclare" !y the commission in its "ecision,he ha" investe" in the ice plant in Buestion # %*,000, an" from hat the commissionsai" rear"in his other properties an" !usiness, he oul" certainly have !eenfinancially a!le to maintain an" operate sai" plant ha" he not "ie". is transportation

!usiness alone as nettin him a!out #1,440 a month. e as a Ailipino citien an"continue" to !e such till his "emise. he commission "eclare" in its "ecision, in vieof the evi"ence !efore it, that his estate as financially a!le to maintain an" operatethe ice plant. he aforesai" riht of #e"ro O. Araante to prosecute sai" application

to its conclusion as one hich !y its nature "i" not lapse throuh his "eath. ence,it constitutes a part of the assets of his estate, for hich a riht as property "espitethe possi!ility that in the en" the commission miht have "enie" application, althouhun"er the facts of the case, the commission rante" the application in vie of thefinancial a!ility of the estate to maintain an" operate the ice plant. #etitioner, in hismemoran"um of March 19, 194+, a"mits >pae %? that the certificate of pu!licconvenience once rante" @as a rule, shoul" "escen" to his estate as an [email protected] certificate oul" certainly !e property, an" the riht to acBuire such a

certificate, !y complyin ith the reBuisites of the la, !elone" to the "ece"ent inhis lifetime, an" survive" to his estate an" u"icial a"ministrator after his "eath.

3f #e"ro O. Ararante ha" in his lifetime secure" an option to !uy a piece of lan" an""urin the life of the option he "ie", if the option ha" !een iven him in the or"inarycourse of !usiness an" not out of special consi"eration for his person, there oul" !eno "ou!t that sai" option an" the riht to e(ercise it oul" have survive" to his estatean" leal representatives. 3n such a case there oul" also !e the possi!ility of failureto acBuire the property shoul" he or his estate or leal representative fail to complyith the con"itions of the option. 3n the case at !ar #e"ro O. Ararante6s un"ou!te"riht to apply for an" acBuire the "esire" certificate of pu!lic convenience theevi"ence esta!lishe" that the pu!lic nee"e" the ice plant as un"er the lacon"itione" only upon the reBuisite citienship an" economic a!ility to maintain an"operate the service. Of course, such riht to acBuire or o!tain such certificate of

pu!lic convenience as su!ect to failure to secure its o!ective throuhnonfulfillment of the leal con"itions, !ut the situation here is no "ifferent from theleal stan"point from that of the option in the illustration ust iven.

/ule , section 2, provi"es that the e(ecutor or a"ministrator may !rin or "efen"actions, amon other cases, for the protection of the property or rihts of the"ecease" hich survive, an" it says that such actions may !e !rouht or "efen"e"@in the riht of the "ecease"@.

/ule 2, section 1, pararaph >a?, mentions amon the "uties of the e(ecutor ora"ministrator, the ma'in of an inventory of all oo"s, chattels, rights, cre"its, an"estate of the "ecease" hich shall come to his possession or 'nole"e, or to thepossession of any other person for him.

3n his commentaries on the /ules of 5ourt >7olume 33, 2n" e"., paes %$$, %$+? thepresent chief Justice of this 5ourt "ras the folloin conclusion from the "ecisionscite" !y him:


9/49


10/49

is not complete until there has !een a "ue a"ministration; an" one hofores the name of the "ece"ent to an instrument purportin to !e apromissory note must !e rear"e" as havin inten"e" to "efrau" the estateof the "ece"ent, an" not the natural persons havin "iverse interests in it,since ha cannot !e presume" to have 'non ho those persons ere, orhat as the nature of their respective interest. he frau"ulent intent isaainst the artificial person, the estate an" not the natural persons hohave "irect or continent interest in it. >10+ 3n". *4, **, $ .). 914-91*.?

3n the instant case there oul" also !e a failure of ustice unless the estate of #e"roO. Ararante is consi"ere" a @person@, for Buashin of the procee"ins for no otherreason than his "eath oul" entail preu"icial results to his investment amountin to#%*,000.00 as foun" !y the commission, not countin the e(penses an""is!ursements hich the procee"in can !e presume" to have occasione" him"urin his lifetime, let alone those "efraye" !y the estate thereafter. 3n this uris"ictionthere are ample prece"ents to sho that the estate of a "ecease" person is alsoconsi"ere" as havin leal personality in"epen"ent of their heirs. &mon the mostrecent cases may !e mentione" that of @)state o% Mota vs. Concepcion, *$ #hil.,+12, +1+, herein the principal plaintiff as the estate of the "ecease"


11/49

8ithin the frameor' an" principles of the constitut ion itself, to cite ust one e(ample,un"er the !ill of rihts it seems clear that hile the civil rihts uarantee" therein inthe maority of cases relate to natural persons, the term @person@ use" in section 1 >1?an" >2? must !e "eeme" to inclu"e artificial or uri"ical persons, for otherise theselatter oul" !e ithout the constitutional uarantee aainst !ein "eprive" ofproperty ithout "ue process of la, or the immunity from unreasona!le searchesan" seiures. 8e ta'e it that it as the inten"ment of the framers to inclu"e artificialor uri"ical, no less than natural, persons in these constitutional immunities an" in

others of similar nature. &mon these artificial or uri"ical persons f iure estates of"ecease" persons. ence, e hol" that ithin the frameor' of the 5onstitution, theestate of #e"ro O. Ararante shoul" !e consi"ere" an artificial or uri"ical person forthe purposes of the settlement an" "istri!ution of his estate hich, of course, inclu"ethe e(ercise "urin the u"icial a"ministration thereof of those rihts an" thefulfillment of those o!liations of his hich survive" after his "eath. One of thoserihts as the one involve" in his pen"in application !efore the #u!lic ervice5ommission in the instant case, consistin in the prosecution of sai" application to itsfinal conclusion. &s state" a!ove, an inustice oul" ensue from the opposite course.

o a!out the point of citienshipI 3f !y leal fiction his personality is consi"ere"e(ten"e" so that any "e!ts or o!liations left !y, an" survivin, him may !e pai", an"any survivin rihts may !e e(ercise" for the !enefit of his cre"itors an" heirs,respectively, e fin" no soun" an" coent reason for "enyin the application of the

same fiction to his citienship, an" for not consi"erin it as li'eise e(ten"e" for thepurposes of the aforesai" unfinishe" procee"in !efore the #u!lic ervice5ommission. he outcome of sai" procee"in, if successful, oul" in the en" inure tothe !enefit of the same cre"itors an" the heirs. )ven in that event petitioner coul" notallee any preu"ice in the leal sense, any more than he coul" have "one ifArarante ha" live" loner an" o!taine" the "esire" certificate. he fiction of suche(tension of his citienship is roun"e" upon the same principle, an" motivate" !ythe same reason, as the f iction of the e(tension of personality. he fiction is ma"enecessary to avoi" the inustice of su!ectin his estate, cre"itors an" heirs, solely !yreason of his "eath to the loss of the investment amountin to #%*,000, hich he hasalrea"y ma"e in the ice plant, not countin the other e(penses occasione" !y theinstant procee"in, from the #u!lic ervice 5ommission of this 5ourt.

8e can perceive no vali" reason for hol"in that ithin the intent of the constitution

>&rticle 37?, its provisions on #hilippine citienship e(clu"e the leal principle ofe(tension a!ove a"verte" to. 3f for reasons alrea"y state" our la in"ules the fictionof e(tension of personality, if for such reasons the estate of #e"ro O. Araranteshoul" !e consi"ere" an artificial or uri"ical person herein, e can fin" no

ustification for refusin to "eclare a li'e fiction as to the e(tension of his citienshipfor the purposes of this procee"in.

#e"ro O. Ararante as a Ailipino citien, an" as such, if he ha" live", in vie of theevi"ence of recor", he oul" have o!taine" from the commission the certificate forhich he as applyin. he situation has suffere" !ut one chane, an" that is, his"eath. is estate as that of a Ailipino citien. &n" its economic a!ility toappropriately an" a"eBuately operate an" maintain the service of an ice plant asthe same that it receive" from the "ece"ent himself. 3n the a!sence of a contraryshoin, hich "oes not e(ist here, his heirs may !e assume" to !e also Ailipinocitiens; an" if they are not, there is the simple e(pe"ient of revo'in the certificate orenoinin them from inheritin it.

Cpon the hole, e are of the opinion that for the purposes of the prosecution of sai"case o. 4*+2 of the #u!lic ervice 5ommission to its final conclusion, !oth thepersonality an" citienship of #e"ro O. Ararante must !e "eeme" e(ten"e", ithinthe meanin an" intent of the #u!lic ervice &ct, as amen"e", in harmony ith theconstitution: it is so a"u"e" an" "ecree".

=ecision affirme", ithout costs. o or"ere".

'p#r#(' Opi$io$)

!ER&ECTO, J., "issentin:

5ommonealth &ct o. 14$ reserves to Ailipino citiens the riht to o!tain acertificate of pu!lic convenience to operate an ice plant in an Juan, /ial. helimitation is in accor"ance ith section of &rticle E37 of the 5onstitution hichprovi"es

o franchise, certificate, or any other form of authoriation for the operationof a pu!lic utility shall !e rante" e(cept to citiens of the #hilippines or tocorporations or other entities oranie" un"er the las of the #hilippines,si(ty per centum of the capital of hich is one" !y citiens of the#hilippines, nor such franchise, certificate or authoriation !e e(clusive in

character or for a loner perio" than fifty years. o franchise rante" to anyin"ivi"ual, firm or corporation, e(cept un"er the con"ition that it shall !esu!ect to amen"ment, alteration, or repeal !y 5onress hen the pu!licinterest so reBuires.


12/49

he main Buestion in this case is hether the estate of #e"ro O. Ararante fulfills thecitienship reBuirement. o our min", the Buestion can !e restate" !y as'in hetherthe heirs of #e"ro O. Ararante fulfill the citienship reBuirement of the la.

he estate is an a!stract entity. &s such, its leal value "epen"s on hat itrepresents. 3t is a "evice !y hich the la ives a 'in" of personality an" unity toun"etermine" tani!le persons, the heirs. hey inherit an" replace the "ecease" atthe very moment of his "eath. &s there are proce"ural reBuisites for theiri"entification an" "etermination that nee" time for their compliance, a leal fiction has!een "evise" to represent them. hat leal fiction is the estate, a liBui" con"ition inprocess of soli"ification.

he estate, therefore, has only a representative value. 8hat the la calls estate is, amatter of fact, inten"e" to "esinate the heirs of the "ecease". he Buestion,therefore, in this case, !oils "on to the citienship of the heirs of Ararante.

here is nothin in the recor" to sho conclusively the citienship of the heirs ofArarante. 3f they are Ailipino citiens, the action ta'en !y the #u!lic ervice5ommission shoul" !e affirme". 3f they are not, it shoul" !e reverse".

#etitioner allees that the estate is ust a front or "ummy for aliens to o aroun" the

citienship constitutional provision. 3t is allee" that Ga uy, the speciala"ministrator of the estate, is an alien.

8e are of the opinion that the citienship of the heirs of Ararante shoul" !e"etermine" !y the 5ommission upon evi"ence that the party shoul" !e present. 3tshoul" also "etermine the "ummy Buestion raise" !y the petitioner.

8e are of opinion an" so vote that the "ecision of the #u!lic ervice 5ommission ofMay 21, 194$, !e set asi"e an" that the 5ommission !e instructe" to receiveevi"ence of the a!ove factual Buestions an" ren"er a ne "ecision accor"inly.

G.R. No. 559 M#r 14, 1903

MAN/EL "ARRIO "ARREDO,plaintiff-appellant,

vs.MARIA !AC/ALA DOLOR, ET AL.,"efen"ants-appellees.

he plaintiff has !rouht an action for the recovery from the "efen"ants, heirs of thelate =on 5iriaco =emontever"e, of one-half of a suar estate an" the stoc' thereon,hich he claims to have purchase" from the sai" =on 5iriaco =emontever"e. 3nsupport of his contention as to the la of the case he attache" to the complaint apu!lic instrument hich appears to have !een e(ecute" !y himself an"=emontever"e, Ae!ruary %, 1%, in hich, accor"in to the plaintiff, a stipulation isma"e for a contract of partnership for the operation of the sai" estate, an",furthermore, a community, of onership is esta!lishe" ith respect to the estate in

favor of the to parties to this instrument. 3t "oes not appear that this instrument has!een recor"e" in the reistry of property.

ervice of the complaint havin !een ha" on the "efen"ants, =oDa Maria #ascuala=olor raise" an inci"ental issue as a previous Buestion, prayin that the instrumentreferre" to !e rule" out of evi"ence on the roun" that it ha" not !een recor"e" in thereistry of property, an" that it !e returne" to the plaintiff ithout leavin in the recor"any transcript or copy thereof or e(tract therefrom, restin this contention upon article%9 of the Mortae


13/49


14/49

inth inscription. -rban propert$. & parcel of lan" an" a house of astron materials, tile roofe", !uilt thereon, mar'e" num!er eiht, situate" in5alle


15/49

in this action as ill have the effect of preventin the sale of this lan" un"er theplaintiff6s foreclosure procee"ins, free of the claims of cre"itors of the "ecease",!ecause, if the plaintiffs in this action ere permitte" to foreclosure their mortaean" to recover their "e!t from the sale of the lan" in Buestion, it miht ell !e thatthere oul" not !e sufficient property in the estate to pay the amount of the claim ofthe intervener aainst the estate.

a" the transactions a!ove set out in ta'en place un"er the system of la in force in

these 3slan"s imme"iately prior to the 1st "ay of Octo!er, 1901, hen the ne 5o"eof 5ivil #roce"ure ent into effect, there oul" !e no "ifficulty in "eterminin therespective rihts of the various parties to this action. &rticle $*+ of the 5ivil 5o"eprovi"es that os derechos a la s!ccession de !na persona se transmiten desde elmomento de s! m!erte.>he rihts to the succession of another are transmitte" fromthe moment of his "eath?; an" article $$1 provi"es that os herederos s!ceden aldi%!nto por el hecho solo de s! m!erte en todos s!s derechos $ obligaciones.>eirssuccee" the "ecease" !y the mere fact of his "eath, in all r ihts an" o!liations?.Cn"er these, an" co-relate" provisions of the 5ivil 5o"e, a sole an" e(clusive heir>as "efine" in article $$0 of the 5ivil 5o"e? !ecame the oner of the property an"as chare" ith the o!liations of the "ecease" at the moment of his "eath, uponprecisely the same terms an" con"itions as the property as hel" an" as theo!liations ha" !een incurre" !y the "ecease" prior to his "eath, save only thathen he accepte" the inheritance, @ith !enefit of an inventory@ he as not hel"

lia!le for the "e!ts an" o!liations of the "ecease" !eyon" the value of the propertyhich came into his han"s.

he property of the "ecease", !oth real an" personal, !ecame the property of theheir !y the mere fact of "eath of his pro"ecessor in interest, an" he coul" "eal ith itin precisely the same ay in hich the "ecease" coul" have "ealt ith it, su!ectonly to the limitations hich !y la or !y contract ere impose" upon the "ecease"himself. e coul" alienate or mortae it ith the same free"om as coul" the"ecease" in his lifetime; the unsecure" "e!ts an" other personal o!liations of the"ecease" !ecomin the unsecure" "e!ts an" personal o!liations of the heir forhich he as hel" personally responsi!le in precisely the same manner as the"ecease", save only, as has !een sai" !efore, here he availe" himself of theprivilee of ta'in the estate @ith the !enefit of an inventory,@ in hich case thee(tent of his lia!ility as limite" to the value of the estate hich came into his han"s,

thouh in other respects its character as a personal lia!ility remaine" unchane".hus "eath create" no ne lien in favor of cre"itors upon the property of the"ecease", hich as not in e(istence at the time of his "eath; personal "e!ts an"o!liations of the "ecease" !ecomin the personal "e!ts an" o!liations of the heir,

to hom the cre"itor as compelle" to loo' for payment, ith no ne riht in or to theproperty of the "ecease, in the han"s of the heir, hich he "i" not have in or to suchproperty in the han"s of the "ecease". >itle %, oo' of the 5ivil 5o"e.?

panish proce"ural la provi"e" an action 'non as an action for the "eclaration ofheirship >declaracion de herederos? here!y one claimin the status of heir coul"have his riht thereto u"icially "eclare", an" this u"icial "eclaration of heirshipunless an" until set asi"e or mo"ifie" in a proper u"icial procee"in, as evi"ence of

the fact of heirship hich the officials chare" ith the 'eepin of the pu!lic recor"s,inclu"in the lan" reistry, ere !oun" to accept as a sufficient !asis for the formalentry, in the name of the heir, of onership of the property of the "ecease".

3t is evi"ent therefore that, unless the provisions of panish proce"ural an"su!stantive la, in force hen the ne 5o"e of 5ivil #roce"ure ent into effect, have!een repeale" or mo"ifie" there!y, the "efen"ant in this action, ilvina 5hio-aysan,ho as u"icially "eclare" to !e the sole an" universal heir of &velina 5a!allero,"ecease", !ecame, !y the mere fact of the "eath of 5a!allero, the a!solute oner ofthe tract of lan" in Buestion, su!ect only to such liens thereon as may have e(iste"prior thereto, the personal o!liations of the "ecease" also passin to her at thesame time; that, upon proof of such u"icial "eclaration of heirship, the reister of"ee"s of the city of Manila properly entere" 5hio-aysan in the lan" reistry as theoner of this lan" !y riht of inheritance; an" that the


16/49

3t must !e a"mitte" that e can not point out the specific section of the ne 5o"e of5ivil #roce"ure hich in e(press terms repeals the ol" la an" formally enacts thene "octrine of succession ust lai" "on; !ut e thin' that an e(amination of thevarious provisions of that co"e touchin the a"ministration of the estates of "ecease"person leaves no room for "ou!t that they "o so !y necessary implication.

he leislators ho enacte" this co"e ere more especially acBuainte" ith the&merican an" )nlish systems of leislation, an" in most of its provisions closely

a"here" to &merican prece"ent. 3t su!stantially repeals in toto the procee"insprescri!e" un"er the ol" la for the a"ministration of estates of "ecease" persons,an" su!stitutes therefor a system similar to that enerally a"opte" in the Cnite"tates; most of its provisions havin !een !orroe" or" for or" from the co"es ofone or other of the various tates. he su!stantive la in force in these 3slan"s !einin many respects, an" especially in rear" to rihts of inheritance, holly "ifferentfrom that in force in the various tates from hich the ne system of a"ministrationof the estates of "ecease" persons as a"opte", many irreconcila!le conflicts are to!e foun" !eteen the provisions of the ne an" the ol" la, so that it !ecomesnecessary either to "eclare a reat part of the provisions of the ne 5o"e of#roce"ure voi" an" no effect, as holly inapplica!le, or to hol" that in such cases theprovisions of su!stantive as ell as proce"ural la in conflict or inconsistent ith theprovisions of the ne 5o"e of #roce"ure are repeale", or amen"e" !y thesu!stitution of such other provisions as are clearly necessary as a !asis upon hich

the ne provisions of proce"ural la are pre"icate".

&n e(amination more especially of sections *9+, $44, $9*, +2+, +29, +%1, +%%, an"+49 of the 5o"e of 5ivil #roce"ure, rea" toether ith the remainin provisions forthe a"ministration of the estates of "ecease" persons, clearly in"icates that theprovisions of articles $$0 an" $$1 of the 5ivil 5o"e have !een a!roate".

hese provisions of the ne co"e clearly "emonstrate that the terms herederoan"legatario,as "efine" in the 5ivil 5o"e >art. $$0?, are not synonymous ith the or"s@heir@ an" @leatee,@ as use" in the ne co"e; the or" @heir@ in the ne co"e !eintechnically an" applica!le only to a relative ta'in property of an intestate !y virtue ofthe las of "escent, "evisee an" leatee !ein reserve" for all persons hetherrelatives or not, ta'in respectively real or personal property !y virtue of a ill; hileherederoin the 5ivil 5o"e as applica!le not only to one ho oul" !e calle" an

@heir,@ un"er the provisions of the ne co"e, !ut also to one, hether relative or not,ho too' hat miht !e calle" @a resi"uary estate un"er a ill@ >el /!e s!cede atit!lo !niversal?.

3t appears also from an e(amination of these provisions that the leislature hasprovi"e" no machinery here!y an a!solute riht on the part of the heir to succee"!y the mere fact of "eath to allthe rihts an" property of the "ecease" may !eenforce", ithout previous payment or provision of the payment of the "e!ts; an" onthe other han", it has provi"e" machinery for the enforcement of the "e!ts an" othero!liations of the "ecease", not as "e!ts or o!liations of the heir, !ut as "e!t oro!liations of the "ecease", to the payment of hich the property of the "ecease"may !e su!ecte" herever it !e foun". hus section *9+ e(pressly provi"es that, in

those cases here settlement of an intestate estate may !e ma"e ithout lealprocee"ins, either !y a family council, as 'non un"er the panish la, or !y anareement in ritin e(ecute" !y all the heirs, the real estate of the "ecease"remains chare" ith lia!ility to cre"itors of the "ecease" for to years after thesettlement, @notithstan"in any transfers thereof that may have !een ma"e;@ an"e thin' the inference is clear that the leislator in this section reconies an" affirmsthe "octrine that, prior to the "ate of such settlement, the real estate at least aschare" in li'e manner ith the "e!ts of the "ecease". o it ill !e foun" that, herethe leal procee"ins are ha" loo'in to the settlement of testate or intestate estates,provision is ma"e for the recovery of claims aainst the "ecease", not !yprocee"ins "irecte" aainst the heir, !ut !y procee"ins loo'in "irectly to thesu!ection of the property of the "ecease" to the payment of such claims; theproperty !oth real an" personal !ein, in e(press terms, ma"e charea!le ith thepayment of these "e!ts, the e(ecutor or a"ministrator havin the riht to the

possession of the real as ell as the personal property, to the e(clusion of the heirs,so lon as may !e necessary for that purpose >secs. +2+ an" +29?.

Aor practical purposes it may ell !e sai" that in the eye of the la, here there is noreme"y to enforce an allee" riht hen it is inva"e", the e(istence of the riht maysafely !e "enie"; an" here the la furnishes a reme"y here!y one may enforce aclaim, that claim is a riht reconie" an" esta!lishe" !y the la. he ne 5o"e of#roce"ure furnishin no reme"y here!y the provisions of article $$1 of the of the5ivil 5o"e may !e enforce", in so far as they impose upon the heredero >heir? the"uty of assumin as a personal o!liation all the "e!ts of the "ecease", at least tothe e(tent of the value of the property receive" from the estate; or in so far as theyive to theherederothe reciprocal riht to receive the property of the "ecease",ithout such property !ein specifically su!ecte" to the payment of the "e!ts to the"ecease" !y the very fact of his "ecease", these provisions of article $$1 may

properly !e hel" to have !een a!roate"; an" the ne co"e havin provi"e" areme"y here!y the property of the "ecease" may alays !e su!ecte" to thepayment of his "e!ts in hatever han"s it may !e foun", the riht of a cre"itor to alien upon the property of the "ecease", for the payment of the "e!ts of the "ecease",


17/49


18/49


19/49


20/49

here is no "ispute that Maria Cson, plaintiff-appellee, is the laful ife of Aaustinoe!re"a, former oner of the five parcels of lan"s litiate" in the present case. hereis li'eise no "ispute that Maria "el /osario, one of the "efen"ants-appellants, asmerely a common-la ife of the late Aaustino e!re"a ith hom she ha" fourilleitimate chil"ren, her no co-"efen"ants. 3t li'eise appears that Aaustinoe!re"a "ie" in 194* much prior to the effectivity of the ne 5ivil 5o"e. 8 ith this!ac'roun", it is evi"ent that hen Aaustino e!re"a "ie" in 194* the five parcels oflan" he as seie" of at the time passe" from the moment of his "eath to his only

heir, his i"o Maria Cson >&rticle $*+, ol" 5ivil 5o"e?.&s this 5ourt aptly sai", @heproperty !elons to the heirs at the moment of the "eath of the ancestor ascompletely as if the ancestor ha" e(ecute" an" "elivere" to them a "ee" for thesame !efore his "eath@ >3lustre vs. &laras Aron"osa, 1+ #hil., %21?. Arom thatmoment, therefore, the rihts of inheritance of Maria Cson over the lan"s in Buestion!ecame veste".

he claim of the "efen"ants that Maria Cson ha" relinBuishe" her riht over the lan"sin Buestion !ecause she e(pressly renounce" to inherit any future property that herhus!an" may acBuire an" leave upon his "eath in the "ee" of separation they ha"entere" into on Ae!ruary 21, 19%1, cannot !e entertaine" for the simple reason thatfuture inheritance cannot !e the su!ect of a contract nor can it !e renounce" >1Manresa, 12%, si(th e"ition; olentino on 5ivil 5o"e, p. 12; Osorio vs. Osorio an"Qnchausti teamship 5o., 41 #hil., *%1?.

ut "efen"ants conten" that, hile it is true that the four minor "efen"ants areilleitimate chil"ren of the late Aaustino e!re"a an" un"er the ol" 5ivil 5o"e are notentitle" to any successional rihts, hoever, un"er the ne 5ivil 5o"e hich !ecamein force in June, 19*0, they are iven the status an" rihts of natural chil"ren an" areentitle" to the successional rihts hich the la accor"s to the latter >article 22$4 an"article 2+, ne 5ivil 5o"e?, an" !ecause these successional rihts ere "eclare"for the first time in the ne co"e, they shall !e iven retroactive effect even thouhthe event hich ave rise to them may have occurre" un"er the prior leislation>&rticle 22*%, ne 5ivil 5o"e?.

here is no merit in this claim. &rticle 22*% a!ove referre" to provi"es in"ee" thatrihts hich are "eclare" for the f irst time shall have retroactive effect even thouhthe event hich ave rise to them may have occurre" un"er the former leislation,

!ut this is so only hen the ne rihts "o not preu"ice any veste" or acBuire" rihtof the same oriin. hus, sai" article provi"es that @if a riht shoul" !e "eclare" forthe first time in this 5o"e, it shall !e effective at once, even thouh the act or eventhich ives rise thereto may have !een "one or may have occurre" un"er the prior

leislation, provi"e" sai" ne riht "oes not preu"ice or impair any veste" oracBuire" riht, of the same oriin.@ &s alrea"y state" in the early part of this "ecision,the riht of onership of Maria Cson over the lan"s in Buestion !ecame veste" in194* upon the "eath of her late hus!an" an" this is so !ecause of the imperativeprovision of the la hich comman"s that the rihts to succession are transmitte"from the moment of "eath >&rticle $*+, ol" 5ivil 5o"e?. he ne riht reconie" !ythe ne 5ivil 5o"e in favor of the illeitimate chil"ren of the "ecease" cannot,therefore, !e asserte" to the impairment of the veste" riht of Maria Cson over the

lan"s in "ispute.

&s rear"s the claim that Maria Cson, hile her "ecease" hus!an" as lyin instate, in a esture of pity or compassion, aree" to assin the lan"s in Buestion tothe minor chil"ren for the reason that they ere acBuire" hile the "ecease" aslivin ith their mother an" Maria Cson ante" to assuae somehat the ron shehas "one to them, this much can !e sai"; apart from the fact that this claim is"ispute", e are of the opinion that sai" assinment, if any, parta'es of the nature ofa "onation of real property, inasmuch as it involves no material consi"eration, an" inor"er that it may !e va li" it shall !e ma"e in a pu!lic "ocument an" must !e accepte"either in the same "ocument or in a separate one >&rticle $%%, ol" 5ivil 5o"e?.3nasmuch as this essential formality has not !een folloe", it results that the allee"assinment or "onation has no vali" effect.

8)/)AO/), the "ecision appeale" from is affirme", ithout costs.

G.R. No. L-4+37* l; *4, 194*

GENEROA TEVE DE A


21/49

payment of professional fees, one-half of the lan" in favor of the "efen"ant-appelleeicolasa /afols, ho, entere" upon the portion thus conveye" an" has !een inpossession thereof up to the present. On July 2%, 1921, #e"ro 5ui !rouht an actionto recover sai" half of the lan" from icolas /afols an" the other half from the other"efen"ants, an" hile that case as pen"in, or a!out &uust 4, 192*, #e"ro 5ui"onate" the hole lan" in Buestion to Generosa eves, the herein plaintiff-appellant.&fter trial, the loer court ren"ere" a "ecision a!solvin icolas /afols as to the one-half of the lan" conveye" to him !y usana Melar, an" "eclarin the plaintiff oner

of the other half !ut e(press ac'nolement of the other "efen"ants. he plaintiffappeale" from that part of the u"ment hich is favora!le to icolas /afols.

he loer court a!solve" icolas /afols upon the theory that usana Melar coul"not have anythin to #e"ro 5ui !ecause the a lan" as then in c!stodia legis, that is,un"er u"icial a"ministration. his is error. hat the lan" coul" not or"inarily !e levie"upon hile in c!stodia legis, "oes not mean that one of the heirs may not sell theriht, interest or participation hich he has or miht have in the lan"s un"era"ministration. he or"inary e(ecution of property in c!stodia legisis prohi!ite" inor"er to avoi" interference ith the possession !y the court. ut the sale ma"e !y anheir of his share in an inheritance, su!ect to the result of the pen"in a"ministration,in no ise stan"s in the ay of such a"ministration.

&rticle 440 of the 5ivil 5o"e provi"es that @the possession of here"itary property is

"eeme" to !e transmitte" to the heir ithout interruption from the instant of the "eathof the "ece"ent, in case the inheritance !e accepte".@ &n" Manresa ith reasonstates upon the "eath of a person, each of his heirs @!ecomes the un"ivi"e" oner ofthe hole estate left ith respect to the part or portion hich miht !e a"u"icate" tohim, a community of onership !ein thus forme" amon the cooners of the estatehile it remains un"ivi"e".@ >% Manresa %*+; &lcala vs.&lcala, %* #hil. $+9.? &n"accor"in to article %99 of the 5ivil 5o"e, every part oner may assin or mortaehis part in the common property, an" the effect of such assinment or mortae shall!e limite" to the portion hich may !e allote" him in the partition upon the "issolutionof the community. ence, in the case of Ramirez vs, Ba!tista,14 #hil. *2, heresome of the heirs, ithout the concurrence of the others, sol" a property left !y their"ecease" father, this 5ourt, spea'in thru its then 5hief Justice 5ayetano &rellano,sai" that the sale as vali", !ut that effect thereof as limite" to the share hich may!e allotte" to the ven"ors upon the partition of the estate.

3t results therefore that the sale ma"e !y usana Melar in favor of #e"ro 5ui asvali", !ut it oul" !e effective only as to the portion to !e a"u"icate" to the ven"orupon the partition of the property left !y her "ecease" father Juan Melar. &n" as on

=ecem!er 12, 1920, upon the partition of sai" property, the lan" in Buestion asa"u"icate" to usana Melar, the sale of the hole lan" hich the latter ma"e infavor of #e"ro 5ui as entirely confirme".

Cpon the confirmation of the sale of =ecem!er 12, 1920 in favor of #e"ro 5ui, theconveyance !y usana Melar in favor of icolasa /afols in 1921 coul" no loner !e"one. &n" even in the case of a "ou!le sale, here neither of the purchasers hasreistere" the sale, the first in possession namely, #e"ro 5ui, shoul" !e referre".

8hen the sale ma"e in the latter6s favor as confirme" on =ecem!er 12, 1920,usana Melar as in possession of the lan" as lessee, an" this possession shoul"!e consi"ere" as that of #e"ro 5ui. he possession of icolas /afols commence" in1921 only, herefore, it is su!seBuent to that of #e"ro 5ui.

icolasa /afols may not allee prescription of action, for #e"ro 5ui file" the firstcomplaint in 1921, or the year folloin the confirmation of the sale in his favor. &n"as icolas /afols "eprive" #e"ro 5ui of the possession an" the enoyment of one-half of the lan" since 1921 to the present, it is only ust that he shoul" pay anin"emnity therefor. i( per cent of #1,*00, hich is the price of one-half of the lan",may !e consi"ere" as the reasona!le amount of this in"emnity.

8herefore, the appeale" "ecision is reverse", an" icolas /afols is sentence" to"eliver to the plaintiff Generosa eves "e Ja'osalem, one-half of the lan" conveye"

to him !y usana Melar, an" to pay !y ay of "amaes the sum of #90 a year fromthe filin of the complaint that is, from July 2%, 1921, until the "elivery of the lan",ith the cost of !oth instances aainst him. o or"ere".

G.R. No. L-16544 M#r 30, 19*1


22/49

LEONARDO OORIO, plaintiff-appellee,vs.TOMAA OORIO, #%2i$i)(r#(ri= o (' ')(#(' o !'(ro$# R';'), #$% THE

NCHA/TI TEAMHI! CO.,"efen"ants-appellants.

he plaintiff see's to recover $10 shares of stoc' of @Qnchausti teamship 5o.@ an"the "ivi"en"s correspon"in to them, hich ere inclu"e" in the inventory of theproperties of the "ecease" =a. Maria #etrona /eyes, hose estate is a"ministere"

!y the "efen"ant. he facts of this case are:

=. &ntonio Osorio ha" forme" ith Qnchausti H 5o., a oint account association forthe e(ploitation of the shippin !usiness, he !ein the oner of the one-thir" of thecompany6s capital. his capital amounte" to #*00,000, of hich #1$$,$$$.$$, that is,one-thir" !elone" to =. &ntonio Osorio. Cpon his "eath, his heirs aree" toauthorie the "efen"ant =a. omasa Osorio, then a"ministratri( of the estate of the"ecease", to present a proect of partition, an" sai" a"ministrati( inserte" in theproect ith the consent of all the heirs, amon the properties hich !elone" to thei"o =a. #etrona /eyes, the sum of #94,000 as her part in the @share of the estatein the shippin !usiness of Qnchausti H 5o.,@ that is, a little over #1$$,$$$.$$, hichas the share in sai" !usiness of the "ecease" Osorio "urin his lifetime. heproect of partition as approve" on May 10, 191*, ith the consent of the heirs, !ythe 5ourt of Airst 3nstance of 5avite, hich ha" coniance of the testamentary an"

a"ministration procee"ins of the state of the "ecease" Osorio.

On Ae!ruary 2, 1914, the i"o of =. &ntonio Osorio, =a. #etrona /eyes, no also"ecease", e(ecute" !efore the notary =. Alorencio Gonales =ie a "ocument of iftin favor of her son =.


23/49

1no( all me b$ these presents2

hat 3, #etrona /eyes, of ae, i"o of =. &ntonio Osorio an" resi"ent of the#rovince of 5avite, #hilippine 3slan"s, !ein in possession of all my senses, freelyan" voluntarily state:

1. hat my hus!an", the "ecease" =. &ntonio Osorio, as a sharehol"er to thee(tent of one-thir" in the oint account association @Qnchausti H 5o.@ of this place,

hich is enae" in the !usiness of !uyin vessels an" in the e(ploitation of si(steam vessels acBuire" from the 5ompaDia Maritima, the article of association ofsai" oint account association havin !een e(ecute" in the city of Manila on July %,190$, !efore the notary pu!lic =. Alorencio Gonales =ie.

2. hat upon the "eath of my hus!an" =. &ntonio Osorio an" upon the partition of hisestate, there as a"u"icate" to me as conual property, one-half of sai" one-thir"part in the !usiness referre" to, the other half thereof oin to our four survivinchil"ren, such !ein the present con"ition of our interest in sai" company.

%. hat in consi"eration of the continuous services an" attention receive" !y me frommy son =. ".? )C)3O &


24/49

#)/O& /)Q).

ine" in the presence of:

>".? 5&/arts. 1++, 2+, %1, an"

1%%1? in hich areements may !e ma"e as to them, !esi"e that in"icate" in article12+1, an" it may !e "e"uce" that an inheritance alrea"y e(istin, hich is no lonerfuture from the moment of "eath of the pre"ecessor, may leally !e the o!ect ofcontract. & "onation !ein of a contractual nature, inasmuch as for its efficacy theconcurrence of to ills is reBuire", that of the "onor an" the "onee, e !elieve thathich may !e the o!ect of contract may also !e the o!ect of a "onation. C!i ea"emest ratio, i!i est ea"em leis "ispositio. 8e conclu"e that the "onor =a. #etrona/eyes, on Ae!ruary 2, 1912, an" coul" leally "ispose of her riht throuh an act ofli!erality, as she ha" "one.

8ith respect to the point that =a. #etrona /eyes "i" not have in 1914 any riht to allor part of the share of her "ecease" hus!an" in the shippin !usiness of Qnchaustian" 5o., it must !e o!serve" that in the proect of partition of the property of =.&ntonio Osorio the folloin appears:


25/49


26/49

3n our opinion the evi"ence shos conclusively that the vessel Governor Aor!esforms part of the shippin !usiness of Qnchausti H 5o. in hich =. &ntonio Osorioan" his estate ha" an interest. 3t is no arument aainst this conclusion that the heirsof Osorio sine" ith Qnchausti H 5o. the uaranty reBuire" !y the !an' here themoney use" in the purchase of the Aor!es as ta'en: >1? ecause the uaranty is forthe purpose only for securin the payment of the amount in"e!te" an" not fore(clu"in the estate of Osorio from the result of that !an'in operation; >2? !ecause,!esi"es sai" uaranty, the other vessels of the oint account association of Osorio

an" Qnchausti H 5o. ere mortae; >%? !ecause no ne partnership as forme"!eteen Qnchausti H 5o. an" the heirs of Osorio for the purchase of the vesselAor!es; an" >4? !ecause, hen Cnchausti H 5o. aree" ith the heirs of Osorio inthat his share in the steamer Aor!es as #10,%%%.%%, this sum as "istri!ute"amon sai" heirs, inclu"in =a. ole"a" Osorio ho "i" not sin the uaranty, theaccruin to each #11, %%.%% an" to the i"o =a. #etrona /eyes #$1,000, hich isthe o!ect of this suit.

&ll of the a!ove shos that the estate of Osorio ha" a one-thir" part of the steamerAor!es represente" !y the capital hich as "istri!ute" amon the heirs, thereaccruin to the i"o, !y areement of the intereste" parties, the sum of #$1,000.&n" this sum !ein part of the one-half of one-thir" of the shippin !usiness ofQnchausti H 5o., hich one-half part accrue" to the i"o in the "istri!ution of theproperties of Osorio; an" the i"o =a. #etrona /eyes havin "ispose" of this half,

"onatin it to her son =. &rt. %*% of the 5ivil 5o"e.?

3n vie of hat has !een sai", the u"ment appeale" from shoul" !e, as it is here!y,affirme", ith costs aainst the appellant. o or"ere".

G.R. No. L-*31*6 M#r 17, 19*5

I$ (' 2#(('r o i$(')(#(' ')(#(' o (' %''#)'% #$# 'r#$%o.OE !. TINA, a"ministrator-appellee,vs.OVITA /A #$% !ETRA /A,heirs-appellants.

3t appears from the recor" that one Juan Qusay "ie" some time !efore the year 1909,leavin a i"o Juana ervan"o an" five chil"ren, 5an"i"o, umeriana, Jovito,Jovita an" #etra. &s far as the recor" shos his estate consiste" of his interest in atrac' of lan" situate" in the ton of 3loilo, "ivi"e" into to lots !y 5alle &l"euer an"hich as community property of his marriae to Juana ervan"o. 3n 1909 JovitoQusay purchase" the interests of 5an"i"o an" umeriana in the lan", thus acBuirin

a three- fifths interest in the same.

Jovito Qusay appears to have "ie" some time !eteen the years 1909 an" 1911,leavin a i"o, #erpetua ian, an" five minor chil"ren, Juana, )lena, &urea, )litaan" &ntonia Qusay. 3n 1911 #erpetua ian for herself an" in representation of herchil"ren entere" into an areement in ritin >)(hi!it 1? ith Jovita an" #etra Qusayhich purporte" to provi"e for the partition of the lan" mentione" an" here!y#erpetua ian an" her chil"ren ere to occupy the portion to the northeast of 5alle&l"euer an" Jovita an" #etra ere to have the portion or lot to the southest of thisstreet.

he "ocument is very imperfectly "ran an" is in some respects somehatam!iuous in its terms !ut it is, nevertheless, Buite clear that in its final clause Jovitaan" #etra Qusay e(pressly relinBuish in favor of the chil"ren of Jovito Qusay any an"all rihts hich they, Jovita an" #etra, miht have in the lan" assine" to #erpetuaian an" her chil"ren in the partition.


27/49

u!seBuently a ca"astral survey as ma"e of the section of 3loilo in hich the lan" inBuestion is situate". 3n this survey the portion allote" to #erpetua ian an" herchil"ren as "esinate" as lot o. 241, ith a narro strip set asi"e for the i"eninof 5alle &l"euer an" "escri!e" as lot o. +1%. he portion hich un"er the partitionof 1911 fell to the share of Jovita an" #etra Qusay as iven the lot num!er 2%; anarro strip of the same port ion alon 5alle &l"euer is num!ere" +44.

&t the trial of the ca"astral case lots os. 241 an" +1% ere claime" !y #erpetua

ian on !ehalf of her chil"ren an" the lots ere a"u"icate" to the latter ithoutopposition.


28/49

8e also aree ith counsel for the appellants that the case involves no Buestion ofthis 'in" of colacionprovi"e" for in articles 10%*-10*0 of the 5ivil 5o"e, nor are ehere "ealin ith a"vancements to lineal heirs un"er section +$0 of the 5o"e of 5ivil#roce"ure in force at the time of the e(ecution of )(hi!it 1. &s far as e can see, theappellee must rest his case upon entirely "ifferent principles.

he "ecision appeale" from !ein !ase" on evi"ence not properly !efore the trialcourt, must !e reverse", !ut inasmuch as the errors committe" !y that court are of

such a character as to have or'e" hat amounts to a mistrial, it ill !e necessary toreman" the case for a ne trial.

Aor the ui"ance of the court as ell as of counsel at this ne trial, e shall !rieflystate our vie of the principles upon hich, in our opinion, the controversy must !e"etermine" in the hope of savin further appeals.

Juana ervan"o not !ein a party to the partition areement )(hi!it 1, the areementstan"in alone as, of course, ineffective as aainst her. he attempt to partition herlan" amon her heirs, constitutin a partition of a future inheritance as invali" un"erthe secon" pararaph of article 12+1 of the 5ivil 5o"e an" for the same reason therenunciation of all interest in the lan" hich no constitutes lots os. 241 an" +1%ma"e !y the appellants in favor of the chil"ren of Jovito Qusay oul" li'eise !e ofno !in"in force as to the un"ivi"e" portion hich !elone" to Juana ervan"o. ut

if the parties entere" into the partition areement in oo" faith an" treate" all of thelan" as a present inheritance, an" if the appellants on the strenth of the areemento!taine" their orrens title to the lan" allote" to them therein, an" if #erpetua ian inreliance on the appellants6 renunciation of all interest claime" !y her on !ehalf of herchil"ren in the ca"astral case refraine" from presentin any opposition to theappellants6 claim to the entire fee in the lan" assine" to them in the partitionareement an" if the appellants after the "eath of Juana ervan"o continue" to enoythe !enefits of the areement refusin to compensate the heirs of Jovito Qusay forthe latter6s loss of their interest in lots os. 2% an" +44 throuh the reistration ofthe lots in the name of the appellants an" the su!seBuent alienation of the same toinnocent thir" parties, sai" appellants are no estoppe" from repu"iatin the partitionareement of 1911 an" from claimin any further interest in lots os. 241 an" +1%.here is, hoever, no reason hy they shoul" not !e alloe" to share in the"istri!ution of the other property left !y Juana ervan"o.

8e may say further that if a case of estoppel shoul" not !e esta!lishe", theappellants miht still, un"er article 1%0% in relation ith article 10+% of the 5ivil 5o"e,

!e compelle" to restore to the estate of Juana ervan"o one- half of the amountreceive" !y them from the sale of lots os. 2% an" +44, unless it is shon thatJuana6s interest in the lot as transferre" to them either !y sale or !y vali" "onation.he reistration of lan" "oes not necessarily e(tinuish o!liations of that character.

Aor the reasons state", the or"er appeale" from is reverse" an" the case reman"e"to the court !elo for a ne trial upon the issues herein sueste". o costs in thisinstance. o or"ere".

G.R. No. L-430+* $' 1+, 1937

!A"LO LOREN>O, #) (r)('' o (' ')(#(' o To2#) H#$l';, %''#)'%,plaintiff-appellant,vs./AN !OADA, R., Coll'(or o I$('r$#l R''$',"efen"ant-appellant.

On Octo!er 4, 19%2, the plaintiff #a!lo )(hi!it *? an" consi"era!le amount of real an" personalproperties. On une 14, 1922, procee"ins for the pro!ate of his ill an" thesettlement an" "istri!ution of his estate ere !eun in the 5ourt of Airst 3nstance ofRam!oana. he ill as a"mitte" to pro!ate. ai" ill provi"es, amon otherthins, as follos:

4. 3 "irect that any money left !y me !e iven to my nephe Matthe anley.

*. 3 "irect that all real estate one" !y me at the time of my "eath !e not sol"or otherise "ispose" of for a perio" of ten >10? years after my "eath, an"


29/49

that the same !e han"le" an" manae" !y the e(ecutors, an" procee"sthereof to !e iven to my nephe, Matthe anley, at 5astlemore,allaha"erine, 5ounty of /osecommon, 3relan", an" that he !e "irecte"that the same !e use" only for the e"ucation of my !rother6s chil"ren an"their "escen"ants.

$. 3 "irect that ten >10? years after my "eath my property !e iven to thea!ove mentione" Matthe anley to !e "ispose" of in the ay he thin's

most a"vantaeous.

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

. 3 state at this time 3 have one !rother livin, name" Malachi anley, an"that my nephe, Matthe anley, is a son of my sai" !rother, Malachianley.

he 5ourt of Airst 3nstance of Ram!oana consi"ere" it proper for the !est interestsof ther estate to appoint a trustee to a"minister the real properties hich, un"er theill, ere to pass to Matthe anley ten years after the to e(ecutors name" in theill, as, on March , 1924, appointe" trustee. Moore too' his oath of office an"ave !on" on March 10, 1924. e acte" as trustee until Ae!ruary 29, 19%2, hen heresine" an" the plaintiff herein as appointe" in his stea".

=urin the incum!ency of the plaintiff as trustee, the "efen"ant 5ollector of 3nternal/evenue, allein that the estate left !y the "ecease" at the time of his "eathconsiste" of realty value" at #2+,920 an" personalty value" at #1,4$*, an" alloina "e"uction of #40.1, assesse" aainst the estate an inheritance ta( in the amountof #1,4%4.24 hich, toether ith the penalties for "eliBuency in payment consistinof a 1 per cent monthly interest from July 1, 19%1 to the "ate of payment an" asurchare of 2* per cent on the ta(, amounte" to #2,0*2.+4. On March 1*, 19%2, the"efen"ant file" a motion in the testamentary procee"ins pen"in !efore the 5ourt ofAirst 3nstance of Ram!oana >pecial procee"ins o. %02? prayin that the trustee,plaintiff herein, !e or"ere" to pay to the Government the sai" sum of #2,0*2.+4. hemotion as rante". On eptem!er 1*, 19%2, the plaintiff pai" sai" amount un"erprotest, notifyin the "efen"ant at the same time that unless the amount aspromptly refun"e" suit oul" !e !rouht for its recovery. he "efen"ant overrule" the

plaintiff6s protest an" refuse" to refun" the sai" amount hauste", plaintiff ent tocourt ith the result herein a!ove in"icate".

3n his appeal, plaintiff conten"s that the loer court erre":

3. 3n hol"in that the real property of homas anley, "ecease", passe" tohis institute" heir, Matthe anley, from the moment of the "eath of theformer, an" that from the time, the latter !ecame the oner thereof.

33. 3n hol"in, in effect, that there as "eliBuency in the payment ofinheritance ta( "ue on the estate of sai" "ecease".

333. 3n hol"in that the inheritance ta( in Buestion !e !ase" upon the value ofthe estate upon the "eath of the testator, an" not, as it shoul" have !eenhel", upon the value thereof at the e(piration of the perio" of ten years afterhich, accor"in to the testator6s ill, the property coul" !e an" as to !e"elivere" to the institute" heir.

37. 3n not alloin as laful "e"uctions, in the "etermination of the netamount of the estate su!ect to sai" ta(, the amounts alloe" !y the court ascompensation to the @trustees@ an" pai" to them from the "ece"ent6s estate.

7. 3n not ren"erin u"ment in favor of the plaintiff an" in "enyin his motionfor ne trial.

he "efen"ant-appellant contra"icts the theories of the plaintiff an" assins thefolloin error !esi"es:

he loer court erre" in not or"erin the plaintiff to pay to the "efen"ant thesum of #1,191.2+, representin part of the interest at the rate of 1 per centper month from &pril 10, 1924, to June %0, 19%1, hich the plaintiff ha" faile"to pay on the inheritance ta( assesse" !y the "efen"ant aainst the estate ofhomas anley.

he folloin are the principal Buestions to !e "eci"e" !y this court in this appeal: >a?8hen "oes the inheritance ta( accrue an" hen must it !e satisfie"I >b? houl" theinheritance ta( !e compute" on the !asis of the value of the estate at the time of thetestator6s "eath, or on its value ten years laterI > c? 3n "eterminin the net value of the

estate su!ect to ta(, is it proper to "e"uct the compensation "ue to trusteesI > d?8hat la overns the case at !arI houl" the provisions of &ct o. %$0$ favora!leto the ta(-payer !e iven retroactive effectI >e? as there !een "eliBuency in the


30/49

payment of the inheritance ta(I 3f so, shoul" the a""itional interest claime" !y the"efen"ant in his appeal !e pai" !y the estateI Other points of inci"ental importance,raise" !y the parties in their !riefs, ill !e touche" upon in the course of this opinion.

>a? he accrual of the inheritance ta( is "istinct from the o!liation to pay the same.ection 1*%$ as amen"e", of the &"ministrative 5o"e, imposes the ta( upon @everytransmission !y virtue of inheritance, "evise, !eBuest, ift mortis ca!sa, or a"vancein anticipation of inheritance,"evise, or !eBuest.@ he ta( therefore is upon

transmission or the transfer or "evolution of property of a "ece"ent, ma"e effective!y his "eath. >$1 5. J., p. 1*92.? 3t is in reality an e(cise or privilee ta( impose" onthe riht to succee" to, receive, or ta'e property !y or un"er a ill or the intestacyla, or "ee", rant, or ift to !ecome operative at or after "eath. &cor"in to article$*+ of the 5ivil 5o"e, @the rihts to the succession of a person are transmitte" fromthe moment of his "eath.@ @3n other or"s@, sai" &rellano, 5. J., @. . . the heirssuccee" imme"iately to all of the property of the "ecease" ancestor. he property!elons to the heirs at the moment of the "eath of the ancestor as completely as ifthe ancestor ha" e(ecute" an" "elivere" to them a "ee" for the same !efore his"eath.@ >on"a" vs. on"a", %4 #hil., 2%2. See also, Miares vs. ery, % #hil., 19*;uilon H 5o., vs. 5hio-aysan, 12 #hil., 1%; * Manresa,%0*; see also, art. 440, par. 1, 5ivil 5o"e.? homas anley havin "ie" on May 2+,1922, the inheritance ta( accrue" as of the "ate.

Arom the fact, hoever, that homas anley "ie" on May 2+, 1922, it "oes not follothat the o!liation to pay the ta( arose as of the "ate. he time for the payment on

inheritance ta( is clearly fi(e" !y section 1*44 of the /evise" &"ministrative 5o"e asamen"e" !y &ct o. %0%1, in relation to section 1*4% of the same 5o"e. he tosections follo:

)5. 1*4%. )6emption o% certain ac/!isitions and transmissions. hefolloin shall not !e ta(e":

>a? he merer of the usufruct in the oner of the na'e" title.

>b? he transmission or "elivery of the inheritance or leacy !y thefi"uciary heir or leatee to the trustees.

>c? he transmission from the first heir, leatee, or "onee in favor ofanother !eneficiary, in accor"ance ith the "esire of the

pre"ecessor.

3n the last to cases, if the scale of ta(ation appropriate to the ne!eneficiary is reater than that pai" !y the first, the former must pay the"ifference.

)5. 1*44. 7hen ta6 to be paid. he ta( fi(e" in this article shall !e pai":

>a? 3n the secon" an" thir" cases of the ne(t prece"in section,!efore entrance into possession of the property.

>b? 3n other cases, ithin the si( months su!seBuent to the "eath ofthe pre"ecessor; !ut if u"icial testamentary or intestate procee"ins

shall !e institute" prior to the e(piration of sai" perio", the paymentshall !e ma"e !y the e(ecutor or a"ministrator !efore "eliverin toeach !eneficiary his share.


31/49

3f the ta( is not pai" ithin the time herein!efore prescri!e", interest at therate of telve per centum per annum shall !e a""e" as part of the ta(; an" tothe ta( an" interest "ue an" unpai" ithin ten "ays after the "ate of noticean" "eman" thereof !y the collector, there shall !e further a""e" asurchare of tenty-five per centum.

& certifie" of all letters testamentary or of a"misitration shall !e furnishe" the5ollector of 3nternal /evenue !y the 5ler' of 5ourt ithin thirty "ays after

their issuance.

3t shoul" !e o!serve" in passin that the or" @trustee@, appearin in su!section > b?of section 1*4%, shoul" rea" @fi"eicommissary@ or @cest!i /!e tr!st@. here as ano!vious mista'e in translation from the panish to the )nlish version.

he instant case "oes fall un"er su!section >a?, !ut un"er su!section >b?, of section1*44 a!ove-Buote", as there is here no fi"uciary heirs, first heirs, leatee or "onee.Cn"er the su!section, the ta( shoul" have !een pai" !efore the "elivery of theproperties in Buestion to #. J. M. Moore as trustee on March 10, 1924.

>b? he plaintiff conten"s that the estate of homas anley, in so far as the realproperties are concerne", "i" not an" coul" not leally pass to the institute" heir,Matthe anley, until after the e(piration of ten years from the "eath of the testator

on May 2+, 1922 an", that the inheritance ta( shoul" !e !ase" on the value of theestate in 19%2, or ten years after the testator6s "eath. he plaintiff intro"uce"evi"ence ten"in to sho that in 19%2 the real properties in Buestion ha" areasona!le value of only #*,++. his amount a""e" to the value of the personalproperty left !y the "ecease", hich the plaintiff a"mits is #1,4$*, oul" enerate aninheritance ta( hich, e(clu"in "e"uctions, interest an" surchare, oul" amountonly to a!out #1$9.*2.

3f "eath is the eneratin source from hich the poer of the estate to imposeinheritance ta(es ta'es its !ein an" if, upon the "eath of the "ece"ent, successionta'es place an" the riht of the estate to ta( vests instantly, the ta( shoul" !emeasure" !y the vlaue of the estate as it stoo" at the time of the "ece"ent6s "eath,rear"less of any su!seBuent continency value of any su!seBuent increase or"ecrease in value. >$1 5. J., pp. 1$92, 1$9%; 2$ /. 5. &n re 7an"er!ilt, 1+2 . Q., $9; $9 . )., +2; &n reu!er, $ . Q. &pp. =iv., 4*; %. Q. upp., +$9; )state of racy, 1+9 . Q., *01; +2 . Q., *19; )state of re, 1+2 .Q., $09; $4 . )., 9*; )state of #ost, * &pp. =iv., $11; 2 . Q. upp., 10+9. Videalso, altoun vs. )(hi!its 5, &&,)), ##, , JJ,


32/49

& trustee, no "ou!t, is entitle" to receive a fair compensation for his services >arneyvs. aun"ers, 1$ o., *%*; 14 $1 5. J., p. 1+0*?. Aurthermore, thouh a testamentary trust has!een create", it "oes not appear that the testator inten"e" that the "uties of hise(ecutors an" trustees shoul" !e separate". > &bid.; &n re 7annec'6s )state, 1$1 . Q.upp., 9%; 1+* &pp. =iv., %$%; &n re 5ollar"6s )state, 1$1 . Q. upp., 4**.? On thecontrary, in pararaph * of his ill, the testator e(presse" the "esire that his realestate !e han"le" an" manae" !y his e(ecutors until the e(piration of the perio" often years therein provi"e". Ju"icial e(penses are e(penses of a"ministration >$1 5.J., p. 1+0*? !ut, in tate vs. ennepin 5ounty #ro!ate 5ourt >112 . 8., +; 101Minn., 4*?, it as sai": @. . . he compensation of a trustee, earne", not in thea"ministration of the estate, !ut in the manaement thereof for the !enefit of theleatees or "evises, "oes not come properly ithin the class or reason for e(emptina"ministration e(penses. . . . ervice ren"ere" in that !ehalf have no reference toclosin the estate for the purpose of a "istri!ution thereof to those entitle" to it, an"are not reBuire" or essential to the perfection of the rihts of the heirs or leatees. . . .rusts . . . of the character of that here !efore the court, are create" for the the!enefit of those to hom the property ultimately passes, are of voluntary creation,an" inten"e" for the preservation of the estate. o soun" reason is iven to supportthe contention that such e(penses shoul" !e ta'en into consi"eration in fi(in the

value of the estate for the purpose of this ta(.@

>d? he "efen"ant levie" an" assesse" the inheritance ta( "ue from the estate ofhomas anley un"er the provisions of section 1*44 of the /evise" &"ministrative5o"e, as amen"e" !y section % of &ct o. %$0$. ut &ct o. %$0$ ent into effect onJanuary 1, 19%0. 3t, therefore, as not the la in force hen the testator "ie" on May2+, 1922. he la at the time as section 1*44 a!ove-mentione", as amen"e" !y&ct o. %0%1, hich too' effect on March 9, 1922.

3t is ell-settle" that inheritance ta(ation is overne" !y the statute in force at thetime of the "eath of the "ece"ent >2$ /. 5. ca! vs. =oyle, 42 up. 5t. /ep., 491; mietan'a vs.

Airst rust H avins an', 2*+ C. ., $02; toc'"ale vs. 3nsurance 5o., 20 8all.,%2%; $1 5. J., #. 1$02.? houh the last pararaph of section * of/eulations o. $* of the =epartment of Ainance ma'es section % of &ct o. %$0$,amen"in section 1*44 of the /evise" &"ministrative 5o"e, applica!le to all estatesthe inheritance ta(es "ue from hich have not !een pai", &ct o. %$0$ itself containsno provisions in"icatin leislative intent to ive it retroactive effect. o such effectcan !eiven the statute !y this court.

he "efen"ant 5ollector of 3nternal /evenue maintains, hoever, that certainprovisions of &ct o. %$0$ are more favora!le to the ta(payer than those of &ct o.%0%1, that sai" provisions are penal in nature an", therefore, shoul" operateretroactively in conformity ith the provisions of article 22 of the /evise" #enal 5o"e.his is the reason hy he applie" &ct o. %$0$ instea" of &ct o. %0%1. 3n"ee",un"er &ct o. %$0$, >1? the surchare of 2* per cent is !ase" on the ta( only, instea"of on !oth the ta( an" the interest, as provi"e" for in &ct o. %0%1, an" >2? theta(payer is alloe" tenty "ays from notice an" "eman" !y rthe 5ollector of 3nternal/evenue ithin hich to pay the ta(, instea" of ten "ays only as reBuire" !y the ol"la.

#roperly spea'in, a statute is penal hen it imposes punishment for an offensecommitte" aainst the state hich, un"er the 5onstitution, the )(ecutive has thepoer to par"on. 3n common use, hoever, this sense has !een enlare" to inclu"eithin the term @penal statutes@ all s tatus hich comman" or prohi!it certain acts, an"esta!lish penalties for their violation, an" even those hich, ithout e(presslyprohi!itin certain acts, impose a penalty upon their commission >*9 5. J., p. 1110?./evenue las, enerally, hich impose ta(es collecte" !y the means or"inarilyresorte" to for the collection of ta(es are not classe" as penal las, althouh thereare authorities to the contrary. >See utherlan", tatutory 5onstruction, %$1; ine5o. vs. 8orthinton, 141 C. ., 4$; 12 up. 5t., **; /ice vs. C. ., 4 5. 5. &., 104;*% Ae"., 910; 5om. vs. tan"ar" Oil 5o., 101 #a. t., 1*0; tate vs. 8heeler, 44 #.,4%0; 2* ev. 14%.? &rticle 22 of the /evise" #enal 5o"e is not applica!le to the caseat !ar, an" in the a!sence of clear leislative intent, e cannot ive &ct o. %$0$ aretroactive effect.

>e? he plaintiff correctly states that the lia!ility to pay a ta( may arise at a certaintime an" the ta( may !e pai" ithin another iven time. &s state" !y this court, @themere failure to pay one6s ta( "oes not ren"er one "elinBent until an" unless the entire


33/49

perio" has eplase" ithin hich the ta(payer is authorie" !y la to ma'e suchpayment ithout !ein su!ecte" to the payment of penalties for fasilure to pay hista(es ithin the prescri!e" perio".@ >C. . vs. $* 5. J., p. *42?.

he hihest consi"erations of pu!lic policy also ustify the conclusion e havereache". 8ere e to hol" that the payment of the ta( coul" !e postpone" or "elaye"

!y the creation of a trust of the type at han", the result oul" !e plainly "isastrous.estators may provi"e, as homas anley has provi"e", that their estates !e not"elivere" to their !eneficiaries until after the lapse of a certain perio" of time. 3n thecase at !ar, the perio" is ten years. 3n other cases, the trust may last for fifty years, orfor a loner perio" hich "oes not offen" the rule aainst petuities. he collection ofthe ta( oul" then !e left to the ill of a private in"ivi"ual. he mere suestion ofthis result is a sufficient arnin aainst the accpetance of the essential to the verye(eistence of overnment. >=o!!ins vs. )rie 5ountry, 1$ #et., 4%*; 10 romleyvs. Mc5auhn, 20 C. ., 124; +4


34/49

#hil., 2*2?. 3n the case of )(hi!it 29?. he "ate fi(e" for thepayment of the ta( an" interest as ovem!er %0, 19%1. ovem!er %0 !ein anofficial holi"ay, the tenth "ay fell on =ecem!er 1, 19%1. &s the ta( an" interest "ueere not pai" on that "ate, the estate !ecame lia!le for the payment of thesurchare.

3n vie of the foreoin, it !ecomes unnecessary for us to "iscuss the fifth errorassine" !y the plaintiff in his !rief.

8e shall no compute the ta(, toether ith the interest an" surchare "ue from theestate of homas anley inaccor"ance ith the conclusions e have reache".

&t the time of his "eath, the "ecease" left real properties value" at #2+,920 an"personal properties orth #1,4$*, or a total of #29,%*. =e"uctin from this amountthe sum of #40.1, representin alloa!le "e"uctions un"er secftion 1*%9 of the/evise" &"ministrative 5o"e, e have #2,904.19 as the net value of the estatesu!ect to inheritance ta(.

he primary ta(, accor"in to section 1*%$, su!section >c?, of the /evise"&"ministrative 5o"e, shoul" !e impose" at the rate of one per centum upon the firstten thousan" pesos an" to per centum upon the amount !y hich the share e(cee"thirty thousan" pesos, plus an a""itional to hun"re" per centum. One per centum often thousan" pesos is #100. o per centum of #1,904.19 is #%+.0. &""in tothese to sums an a""itional to hun"re" per centum, or #9$*.1$, e have asprimary ta(, correctly compute" !y the "efen"ant, the sum of #1,4%4.24.

o the primary ta( thus compute" shoul" !e a""e" the sums collecti!le un"er section1*44 of the /evise" &"ministrative 5o"e. Airst shoul" !e a""e" #1,4$*.%1 hichstan"s for interest at the rate of telve per centum per annum from March 10, 1924,the "ate of "elinBuency, to eptem!er 1*, 19%2, the "ate of payment un"er protest, aperio" coverin years, $ months an" * "ays. o the ta( an" interest thus compute"

shoul" !e a""e" the sum of #+24., representin a surhcare of 2* per cent on!oth the ta( an" interest, an" also #10, the compromise sum fi(e" !y the "efen"ant>)(h. 29?, ivin a ran" total of #%,$%4.4%.

&s the plaintiff has alrea"y pai" the sum of #2,0*2.+4, only the sums of #1,*1.$9 isleally "ue from the estate. his last sum is #%90.42 more than the amount"eman"e" !y the "efen"ant in his counterclaim. ut, as e cannot ive the"efen"ant more than hat he claims, e must hol" that the plaintiff is lia!le only inthe sum of #1,191.2+ the amount state" in the counterclaim.

he u"ment of the loer court is accor"inly mo"ifie", ith costs aainst theplaintiff in !oth instances. o or"ere".

G.R. No. L-*7531 D''2'r *4, 19*7

I$ r' ')(#(' o (' %''#)'% Vi(ori#$# ##'%r#. MACARIO MACROHON ONGHAM, a"ministrator-appellant,


35/49

vs./AN AAVEDRA, ET AL.,opponents-appellees.

Macario Macrohon On am, i"oer an" e(ecutor of the oint last ill an"testament of 7ictoriana aave"ra an" himself, presente" sai" ill for pro!ate, hichas or"ere" !y the 5ourt of Airst 3nstance of Ram!oana in its "ecree of Ae!ruary21, 1924.

his e(ecutor su!mitte" a scheme of partition an" "istri!ution of the property inaccor"ance ith the terms of the oint ill, to hich Juan aave"ra an" others file"an opposition. he e(ecutor reoine" insistin upon the approval of the scheme an"as'in that the opposition of Juan aave"ra an" others !e overrule".

On March 2*, 192$, the parties su!mitte" a statement of facts, hich rea"s asfollos:

1. hat 7ictoriana aave"ra "ie" in the municipality an" #rovince ofRam!oana,

succession cases prelims

Documents