PLJ Volume 16 Number 6 -03- Digest of Recent Decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court

8/14/2019 PLJ Volume 16 Number 6 -03- Digest of Recent Decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court

1/18

PHILIPPINE LAW JOUR NALP u I > H monthly. J ulV \ 0 r ~ h l n d u ~ L v d ~ r l n t th .,. aca d e mic v n r , by t I

Coll ., , , of I. a w . UniverS it y 01 . he Phil ippi"" ,Sln, l. numb . . 60 uI I ' a .

.'>',,",otln 1.o{\ by the paltic,,, wln,rehr ,hi'tlt'fend al'll mOl'tgaged certain IcalIIIol,..,r ty to thl plaintiff us a fUJthel' security for Ihe paymellt


2/18

RECENT DFJCISiONSCIVIL P I OCEDUREl-RELIEF rnaMJ UDGM&l';T BY DU.-.ULT, - St"\IeI'O

1 ~ U 6 , lJ/aintiif-tllJpe/lr.; 1. 11. t l lstorHoz , (Vlfeu4.ant-ItPlJt /lrml, C. R. No,1.1897, O(ltober 30, 1-9-f6.---J. n o.n action brought by the plaintiff forlhe recovery of ur ia in parcels ofland, the defendllnt failed to appear person a lly on thl" day of tria\.However , his counsel move for thepostponement of lhe hearing , wh ichmotion WIl S denied. Upon the evi

d c n ~ e presented by the plaintiff, thecourt declared him the owne r of theland in question. Twenty-eight d a y ~after the rendition of the judgment.Ihe defendant moved the court toset aside lhe judgment. W ith hismotion was atUiehoo a medica l ce rtificate showing that the de1endantwas under h'eatment fnr ac ute gastritis on Ihe day of the tria l, andan arfidavit Showing II meritoriousdefense, The motion wa ll denied.Held : Tn construing Section 113 ofthe Code of Civ il P rocedure. thi >court ha ll held t hat wher" it appeal'"that the judgmcllt was renderedIlgain ll t a person th l'ough mistake,bladvertellce, lI urprise or exc usableneglect and it further allpears onIhe record that be hUll a meritorlou"dlden .l e. the judgment &hould be- setlI ::iid e with leave to R n ~ w e r and defend on the merit . The reco ,',ishOll'S that t he defendan t fliited toaPI)ellr a t the trial dutl. to circum

U l n c c ~ b['yond his control and tha the has a mer itorious defensc.Judgment set aside. ( Per AbadSantos , J ,; Avanceiia, C. J., VillaRea l. Imperial, DiM:, Lau re l, JJ .,concurring,) Ol'iefed / 11 IISAGANIG, J ,\YME,

C IVILC OURT'S

LAW - GUARD IA.l'I S HIPD I S R ~ I O N TO ~ ASID ':

No. ~ J t : I , Oclobtr lS, 19.'I1, Ce r -t l01'IIr i to rev iew the o rdel' of th e[ower cour t alleg< d to have abuseditll c1i.l cretion in appointing F ,'lu1'ciscn Ba lean guardian of the incapacitated Nazario Fel'llandez, P Hitioner is the brothel' of the incapacitated on the mother side and theappointed guardian is the stepmother of the ;mid incapacitated,Petitioner allege to hal'c bettel'l'ight being ha lf-bz'Othez. H etd : Petition not well foundoo. The lawellumel'a tes an o,'d e,' of preferenceby reallon of relationship, for thepos ition of guardian, The COUI't,hllwe\'er, may not follow this or.del' and appoint any other i,erslln,The lack or instruction of FranciscaBal ean, the a llpoi nted gua rdian,dO1i not incapaci lil.te hel' to di s_charge the position of itu a ,dian.having in mind that the estate ofthe ward cons ins so lely in a pen_",io n (If "31.1.00 (runl the UnitedStatel Gov(>mment. as a retired" lcout" solJiei', ( Per Avanceiia,C. 1.: VillaRcui, Santos, m p e i ~ l ,Diaz, Lnul'el, J,I . o: ncutl'ing. R{.'


3/18

264 PHIL I PPINE LAW JOURNALa ttorney. H eld: There not appearing in the records of the case thefact that. the a c c u ~ e d has alJpearedwith the ass istance of an attot'neyor that the COUl t did tH did notinform the accused of his right tothe services of an attol'lley de ojicio,the SUPreme COUl't must presumethat the lower Tribunal gave suchan information to the accused be-cause there is the presumption thatan official duty has been duly com-plied with. Revocation of the judgment of the lowe r COUlt will notbe justified where it does not appeal'affirmatively in the records of thecase that the lowel' COUl t failed toinfurm the accused of such a right.(Per Avancena, C. J.; Villa- Real ,Imperinl , Din7., LA III'el, ,J.I. , ('oneul'-I' ing; Rectu and Abad Santos, JJ. ,dissenting.) Bl ief,d by CECII. A i\1u-i -oz,

C IVI L PUOCElJUIW-INJUN (;T I, -P R O J m T y A S J : : ~ I L N T orw WAY-PRIVATE P RO PERTY CI..oTHEJ) WITHP UBLIC INTERE ST N o r th Ncgl osSugur Co, 'V8. S( Yafill KMalgo, G. U.Na . 1. l33. " Odvue]' 31, 19


4/18

RhlCENT DElCI S IQNS 265The plaintiff has offered tbe use ofthis road to the tlmersl public uponllaymel1t of certa jn "urn as passligefee. t is not clnimoo tha t def.endant had Iefused to p a ~ said toll.The defendant uoes not base hi ;Iight upon I))'escripti:m but thatwhile the road remain ; Open to thrpublic he has a dgh t to use UpOlpaying the pas ;age fee. ( 7) The'"{lad in Question hl\ving been devoted to the use of the [Jublie, themad is chnrged with public i n test and while devoted the plaintiffmay not es tabli sh discretionary exception against an y private r S nAffirmed. (In bane per ReNo , J.;Avancena, C. J ., Diaz, La urel, JJ.concurring.) Dissenting: f theplaintiff as the W f ) ~ r of the privat l' road in question has a rightto regulate i t ~ use by imposing reno,",onable relltrictions and limita t ions,to prohibit its use by the defendantwho has repeatedly disl'egarded th ewarning of its audito,, this being apetsona non grata is certainly notunjust. The majority opinion reocognizes the right of the plaintiffto regulate the use of its pl" tlpe rtybut refuses it the remedy leavingti l the plaintiff no alternative th .llnto take the Jaw into its own handor to close the road to C \ e t ~ ' b o d y .(Pel Villa.-R eal J.j Imperial J ., ~ o n run'inp;.) rir d by VIRGILIO S.P ATflICI(I

CI\'IL PROCEDURE- I SSUANCE UPFINAl. CERTIFICATE SAU: IN ExocUTIO r. SALE--T(l1 Soo H w 1 V ~ Pe-dro O l g l l i ~ Q , G. R. No. 1,37(;. 01;1,' 1. I f /36 ._ In a civil case betweenthe plaintiff and the defendant. thecourt awarded a money j udgmentin fa,'oor of the plaintiff. T he ,sher

the adminishator of Dy Qu illlcotiled a motion in the same civil casepraying the court that. it directs theshe r iff tn issue u fin:11 certificate ofsale of the lands in question ulld toplace Dy QUimco in possession there0 . The defendant claimed that thecourt clln not entertain s"Uch m()tiunliS it ha s lost jUlisdiction of thecase. fi eld: In this jurisuiction tneJ'eis not a s ingle Ilrovision of lawwhicb ,equit'es a purchaser of immovable in a public sale to bring asepa l'ate action to enter into pos;;elIsion of t he propel"ty after thelapse of the p(t riod of redemption.Afi; mM. ( Per Im perial, J . ; Avan_cena, C. J., ViIlaReal, Santos, Dill1: ,Laurel , .IJ., concuning. Recto, J.,did not take part.) B) ie/I d bll VIRr.1l.1{) S. PATRICIO.

e lm PROCEl)URt: ; -ApPf'..AL--T IME1'() BRING UP EVIDENC&-NEW DISCOVER ED EVIDENe&-Antonio del Rosa/ io, J(: iitioncr-appcllcfl VI. Juliodel Rosorlo, flt a/., oppoBitorBapptl./(mfs, G. R. No. 42J.52, October 6,

1.'136._Testamentary proeeedings forthe probate of will. Lower courtrenoered judgment admitting thewill to p,obate. p l o ~ i t o r s appealedto this court and tu complete therecorll the stenOgJ'llphers were cli,'cute by thi s court to transcribethe evidence taken du ring the trialand to forward the transcril>l toth is court. One of the stenographers filed a motion praying thatfOr reasons therein stated he beJ'clieved from transcribing the notestaken by him. Attorney fo, appel.lan ts were o rdered to answer samewithin five days but fIlilect and thisCOUIt relieved said stenographerhOll1 th e ortlel-. At this sLage of


5/18

266 P HILIPP I NE LAW JOUR.NALIH'\'Cllls when ill tl'uth and in factthese parcl'is of la nd were purchasedby her rather from t he Bureau ofLands, Appellants were also able toprocure the tl 'anscri pt ion of thenotes taken the stenog raphel'\\'ho transmittlld same to this court.A ttorney (01' appellants presentedmot ion praying that this tran sc l' iptbe considcl'ed part of the record.T his COUl't dirt'Cted t ha t the transcl'ipt be litdken out from the re cor d. Held.- It is the duty of theappellant to bdng up to t his courtin due time the evidence relied uponon appeal. and un1 e,s this is donethis cou rt will not r('vise the evi_dence. but rely entirely upon thepleadings, accellt the facts as foundby the trial judge in his decis ion.and examine on ly a ssigned errorsof law. The newly discove red evidence which is the basis of the motion for new t l'inl prl'sente(i in thisinstanc\", even if accepted, will noteffect the c o n c l u i o l l regarrling thevalidity of the will. A miss ta tementof th e true source of the propertydis posed of in will in this ease doesn o ~ impair the validity of th e wi .Aifinned. (Per Laurel, J. ; Avancene, C. J .. Villa-Real , Santos . Imperial , Dia'l., ,JJ. Concu)-ring. Rceto,J.. did not take part .) S riI,d, I ,JIJ STQ E Dros.

LAN O RECISTRATIO N - FAII.U RE TO[DE:->TW\' LA:-> o - -DI1iMI SSAL -- ' icl ll l'iii r;r ncifl Iwd )\IIQde a Toml)il:o, op_flli ; I ,1tlH 118. Ti l e Di" l:c l o,' of Landst a/. , OP1)08i / OfB, O R No . ~ 9 0 9 .

Octobel'30,19J8.-Applica nts sough tthe regigtn t i on of n parcel of landd e s C l ~ i b e d in exhibit A. Diaz a ndt.he Di1'ectot of Lands opposed applicatiun. the Cum er on the gl'Oundthat a certain po rtio" of the land(Parcel C of exhibit 2-M. Diaz)belonged to him, and the latter on

C SOIY information titl


6/18

HECEN T DEC IS IO NS 267Vilis-Real, Santo', Imperial, Diaz,concurring.) Briefed / Ii CASTOR C.JONCKO.

HQ:mCID&-A"CIIAVATINC OR QU L-IFYINC ClltCU)lSTASCES-MITICATINGCIRCUMSTANCES-P. i>. I. tI . E ' l i f ( l ~nio D iokno (urd Roman Diok IIQ, G. U.No. 105100. Od, ~ 6 , 9,M.-At . theinstance of Salome Oiokno, she andYu Kiong. to whom she was en_gaged , eloped go ing from Lucena,Tayabas to San Pablo, Laguna.On being illfol'med of the incident,Epitanio Diokno, father of Salome,proceeded from Manila and together with Iloman Diokno, brothe.rof Salome, followed the lovers toSa n Pablo. Coming nca r the housewhere the Jover ~ t R y c d E p ifardoa nd Roman saw Yu Kiong comillgdown the stai r. Seemg them, YuKiong ran up the stair, and theyra n d te r him. But the door uphad been closed anti Yu Kiong criedin va in that it be opened. Theyca ught up with him, and the)' be-ing a rmed each with I l ';bali80ng".Yu Kiong knelt to them imploringpa rdon. At Lhll.t position, Romanand E pifanio ellch stabbed him, andhe fell down the "lair to the balcony, where they foll owed andagain they ubbcd him. Epifallior ight there a t the lIpot confessedthat he stabbed Yu Kiong. but Ro.man disappcared and was not ap p rehended until three ria>' Inter.Coming to the apot, the municipalprellident allked the half-unconSciOUIi Yu Kiong leveral qut-stions,and hill answer are now prellenteda s Exh. "0". FOUl d a y later inth e h o ~ p i t a l YuKiong, st riouslyill, made I I declaration ag to how hewas attacked, nnd tilill d(.'Chuationis now presented ::.I Exh. "E".Three daYI later Yu Kiong died.An info r mation for murdc, wal

mo,.tem declaration s. The proof ; ,beyond r e a ~ o n a b l e doubt that Epifanio and Roman killed Yu Kiong:but thl're being no proof beyondres onable doubt of the qualifyingcircums tance of abuse of superiorstrength (No. 15, Art. 14 of theRevised Penal Code) or of e\'identpremeditat ion (No. 13, Art. 4 ofthe Revised Penal C"de) under thefacts. the crime was only homicide.Th e mitigating circumstance Ilrescnt are that the accused acted inthe immediate ,jndiealion of a graveoffense (No, 5, Art. 13 of the R&-vised Pcnal Code) and al o thattbey actt d upon an impulse MIpowerful as naturally to have pro duced passion or obfuscation (No.6, Art 13 of t.he Revised PellalCode) and, in favor of Epifanioonly. the fact that he voluntar ilysurrenrlCfed himself (No.7 , Art.13 of the Revised Penal Code).(Per Villa-Real, J.: A\'anceiia. C.J..

~ u n t o s and Imperial, J J ., concurring, and Recto, J ., not takingparL) Laurel, J .. concur red in theopinion of the majoritv, but dissented from that par t giving theaccused the mitigating circ:umstanceof immediate vindication of a graveoffense, on the P'Qund that the rewas no "gra\'e offense" in Salome. who was of age, and Yu Kiong'eloping to ~ married. Diaz , J .,dissented. holding that t.he crimecommitted was murder, the qualifying circumstsnce of abuse ofsu perior strength ha\'ing beenproved beyond reasonable doubt inhis op inion.-Bril fed /11 LUIS J.Ht:nvAS and LAIVALIO A. i\lALA FlAY.

MANOAMU WH I:)N i MI 1I01rn_Jun'l A1 rerfo , Vie/orian.o Pro cfsroJl((m Diolliaio. JlflHwd M Ofianll flmi/((,]II'gio Lura, petitiGllers VI. Vi-c ,11.W A ldlntele. IIi( CilUec/or IIf C UI-


7/18

PHILIPP I NE LAW JO U RNALed five b l l ~ s of r i e ~ from Hong- kongfur their family \liie in 9.ccorda nc()with Pl odamlition No. 56 or thePre. ;idellt of the Commonwealth ofthe P h i l i l l v i n e ~ al1d Customs Adlllin

i ~ t r ' : l . t i \ ' c Order 31i in rela t ion w iththe rice cl'l 'is. Thq nOW claim thatas d i ~ l r e S e d individuals anll under,mragrnph 354 of the P hilipp ineTa riff Act of 1909, & ~ llmendcd byAct No. 4198 of thld Phil iPI)ine Le

~ i s l a l u r e , their rice h o u l d be imIlorted fl'ce of duty. The resp()J1(Icnl dcnit's their claim a s dist),essedindivi,lual8 'Ind contends that onlythe Nlltional Ri ce and Corn Cur'flQration tan imporl rIce dutyf ree;that. the rice mentioned coming asdoes fflH lI China is subj('Ct to duly:lind that the remedy wut;h t by petiti oners is improper (01' thel'e isiOniC Qtht:'r plain, adequ9.le andspeedy remedy in the (.o\ln;c or law.Hence this petition fm' nlandamulI,Issue: Will the writ lie N 'Id:There bein : a right of UIIIlCIlI f "Omt.he decision of a ubordinuta office)'to a superior one wilhin the executive department the writ will notlie, The decision of the respondentrf'{]u il'ing payment of dutie is appealable to the Se(1'ctal'), of F inance, who may reverse 01' modif)'the ~ a m e , Writ denied. (Per Sanlos , ,I., Avaneeiill, C,J ., Villa-Real ,ImJlcl'ial, Diuz, Laurel , JJ., concurrin}:,,) U,. it- f rd / 11 CIXT() P. f.\'A "-CELISTA.

I M [ ~ A I . LAW_ II AIlI1'UAl.. I ) t : l , I t , U E ~ C Y - S u n C I E ~ C Y u t' A U ,1::CA,TliJN_ h PPLI _r'''TI{\l' OF AnTS. 13 , 14 , & 15 OF THERf:YI s .;n Pt:NAl.. C < ) O E - - } o : V I O E ~ C T rQEltct:n WITS.-:8S-P. p I. ]111 .\111 -ul'IHIcIlJ i\ ue I,flJtt/611, r;. R, ,Vo.LI'/55, Orl, 2IJ, IfI.TIJ._ Thc accusedajl pculefl f,om I t d ( ' c i ~ i o n I'lmd"redbv the Court. o f Firs t. i nstflnce ofLllnao, for the crime of murdercommitted a follow ';; The accused


8/18

RECENT D ECISIONSSept, 29, 1935, the deceased wcntto the house of Laila whel'e ?lrorsBacomo also lived. Upon the invitation of Lll ila, the deceased spentthe night at the house of the former.La te in the evening, while the deceased was sleeping, the accusedwent undel' the house, and with a 10cally made shotgun called 1)1I1ilm-Iud, shot the deceased . woundinghim at the base of tho;' neck, Someof the wounds produced wet'C necessarily mortal and I'esulted to anulmost instantaneous death, Lailaand hi s brothel' Senallt.c, wereawakened and upon lighting alamp, sa w the accused with hisshotgun, The accused upon noticing these persons ran away. Theaggravating circumstances of Ille

VOI; 1(t and t1octurni t"v wcre takenaccount of scparllteJy by the trialcourt. It was contended for thcaccused thllt only one should beconsidered. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling and the alternative circumstance of \'elationship were suggested by the prosecution. The defense contended thatthe extreme youth of the accusedbe taken as atten uating Clrcuml' tance together with that of pass ion and obfuscatioll, and luck ofeducat ion, H d L Under thefacts. the aggravating cil'cumstanceof nocturnity must be deemed included in that of (J.ie )1I8ia. 2. Theaggrava ting circumstanee of dweU-ing can not be considered becausethe erime was not committed inthe house of the deceased . S. Thec.xtreme youth of the accused cannot also be c{msidered because theaecused was already nineteen yearsold at the time of the crime, and

circumstance of lack of educationmust be appreciated Jlnd also that,of passiou and education, the latterei '('Ulllstancc, nn account (Jf tJw

d v a h ' ~ ' thut then e x i s t ~ d betweenthe ac('used and ,he deceased, 5" inally , th(' fact uf relationshipmust be taken as


9/18


10/18

RECENT DECISION S ~that is 8 ked by appellant i5 thatAct 4122 be ap plied to the calle sothat , after delivery to the plaintiff of the car bought and mortgaged, he 5hould be absolved fromthe complaint. Held The sale andmortgage took place on May 31,1933 while Act 4122 took effect on lyn December, 1933. It i5 clear

therefo('c that Act 4122 is not appl icatory to t.he Cll5e. Wic holduntenable the contention of the appellant that, by subs tituting the noteof Ja nuary 3, 1934 for th 1t whichexpired on May 31, 1934, there wasa novation of the s&le and mortgage, upon which basis only the a pplicability o( Act 4122 is urged.What took place was nothing morethan a substitution of one document for I l n o ~ h e l 011 the same debtand tl'ansaction with easier terms.J udgment affirmcd. ( Per Avanceila, C.J. ; Villa Real, Santos, I mperial, Dial'., Laurel, JJ., concul'ring.) r i c f ~ d iJy CLETO P. EVA 1\'GI>L ISTA,

P aOPf'.RTY AFFECTED W IT Il A P UBLIC I NTREST_SmvITUDE--ACCiONNEGA'NR IA. Nor th Negros S'lgal'Co. inc. VlI, Sertl>jin. Hidalgo G. RNo 42334.-P a intiff constructed aprivate way through its property tothe provincial road for its own convenience and the convenience ofothers who may have dealings withit. Defendant, a tienda owner andtenant of a contiguous hacienda,uses said way to sel tuba wh ich intoxicates laborers of the plaintiff.Pla intiff brings this "accion nega toria" to enjoin the defendant fromusing said way. Defendan t claimsthe existence of a servitude of wayin his favor, and that said way is

neral p r inciples of the Roman Law\'cgal'ding servitudes are p\'ese rvedin the modern civil law, Amongthese are: (1) that servitudes areto be considered subordillate to theright of ()wner lhip, and (2) thatse rvitudes are never pre umt'd, Aservitude of way is either legal or,'oluntary, A mere lessee cannoldemand the legal se rvi tude of way.Nor can it be said that voluntaryse rvitude of way exists. Lacking theclement of continuity in its use , aright of way may not be acquiredb) prescription but so lely by title,n The mere opening of the privateway in question t.o the public didnot necessarily clothe it with a public illterest sueh as to compel theowner thereof to aJlew everybodyto pass thereon, Even on the hypothesis that such pri vate way isaffected with a public inte l'est, still ,it is good law thaL the owner thereof may make reasonable restrictionson t he use thereof by the g('neralpublic, I . Denying the right ofthe owner of the private way toimpose a reasonable limitation uponthe use of itl; property would undermin e the right of ownership andits i ncidents , I V. From what h . a ~been said, it does not, howev l: \ follow that plaintiff is entit led to theequitable remedy of injunction, [nthe first place, the "acdon negatoria" which, unde,' the old Spanishprocedural law and under the Roman Law, eonsisted in the right ofa landowner to defend that freedomi nion of hi s land has been reopealed by the p 'esent Code of Civii P rocedul'e, I n the second place,injunction, being an equitable remedy , the granting tht'leo s dependent upon the sound di sc retion


11/18

272 PHrLIPP I NF; LAW JOU-RNA Ltire exclusion therdrom regal'dlesaof whet.her he carrics tuba 01 not.In the fourth place, the revocation of the judgment of the courtbelow would exclude the defendantalone c.-om the use of the p rivateway while the gentl. al public willbe permitted to do so, The resultbeing clearly unjust, the enjunctionshould not be g ran ted . (Laurel. I.:Ava nccn n, C.J., Anchoto Diaz, JJ .,conculTing and dissenting,) Briefedby EULALI() L . LEGASPI.

PU BLIC UT ILI1IY- C ITIZBNS HIP OFOPERATOl-NEW TRIAl r -E /Jlebmt E8-IJjrit- VIII, SCt/ Miguel BrftwuJ/, eroi., G. R, No 5 1 6 I October ~ 6 ,1.98 6 - Petitioner '" application to establish and operate an ice plant forcertain municipalities in Cavite wasdenied by the Public Service Commission on October 5, 1930, Said:l]Jplica l.ion was again denied in anew hearing held on April 17. 1936.The a pplicant contend s that one ofthe oPP ollitors, not being a Filipinoci ti en a l'(:qu ired by the Constitution, could not operate a public utility, H eld A motion for new trial01' hearing should be brought within 30 days from th e rendition ofjudgment,

i\lattman, t he oppositor, th lughnot a Filipino citizen, had acqui l'ed his rights in t he Cavite IcePlant, long before the Constitution.which conta ins a prov isiun (art, 6Li t. XXXX ) pl'ohibiting all personsnot Jo'iIipino citizcns Cl'om operatingany sel'vice 01' convenience. of public utility. was promulgated. It is/I universally accepted principle thata constitution, like any other law ,has no I'etroactive effect unless expressly so provided. I t is certainthat the Cons ti tution has no such

CLVlL PIl:OCtOURJoJ - 1\1ANDA M U S _Rf:TUR.:o.' ) ~ . DOC UMf:,I'T S--Ma.erialloMO/ I, jJt Lirio> f; ", VI . ..t. L Yatcoe( af" 1'' II}xmden/s, G. R No 1.523 :October S, 1936.-Petiton fOl: a 'writ of mandamus dh'ecting respondents to r eturn to the petitionerce ltain documents which have beenseized fl'om him under the follow_illS" circumstances : The petitionerwas cha l g.>d with the viola tion ofthe USUIT Law, By virtue of asearch wanal1t. issued by the Cou l'tof First In $tan1:e oi Riz:a.l, an agentof the Anti Usul'r Boa rd seizedvadous documents belunging to thepetitione.r. F or lack of proof theusury chat'ge w a ~ dismissed . Despite petitioner's demand, the AntiU IIUI'Y BOard I'efused to give up thepapers but instead ref:lTed the casew t.he Bureau of Internal Revenuebecau,, ' it was found out that jlet itiQner has been engaged in thebusiness of money Ie.nding withoutpaying the Internal Hevenue Pri\'i ege tax, T he Collector of Inter_nal RI \'enue r e q u t e d the AntiUsury Board 10 withhold the docmcnts . lI e ld.: From Sec, 96 of G. 0,N t: , 58 , which de.fine the searchwalTant, and Sec. 99, ld" whichprescribes its form, it can be clearly seen that the officer entrustedwilh the execution of the searchwarrant. should report the result tothe court which issues the said wril,delivering to it whatever personal

p r p e r t y may have bl c.n I'eized. Inthi s case the sea rch wa rrant wasi::sued by the Court of First Instan1:e of Rizal. As thesc papersII re in the cUl'tod:-,- of the AntiUsury Board, it is Jll'CSUllIed th

~ h e } have becn turned over to itby virtue of an order of said court,(Sec. 334, No . 31, Act. No. HUH


12/18

RE CEN T DEC I S IO NS 273"harge against the petitioner ha llbeen dism issed, the Anti USU]yr:oard is unclel' obligation to Idurnthe e documents to the Court ofFirst Instance o{ Riul T he Colketo r of Internal Revenue is not( "titled to these documen ts withoutjudieial authorization (o r to holdotherwhe would be io sanction a nil. te r relellce by an adminisb'ati\eofficial in the aICail 'S of the judiciary, Howcve r, a writ of ma ndamus will not lie agai nst e i t l l l ~ r theCollector of Internal Revellue orth e Anti US U]y Board to compelthe", to ]'eturn the documents becl:.use the Cou"t o f Firs t In ,stanceof Riwl is the body which has thelegal custody thereof


13/18

274 PHILIPPINE LAW .JOURN ALfint. inlltanee by motion. (Per AbadSanto , J. BnNed b R ~ F ~ L DS" LCmo.

T E S T ~ T F . ESTATE 0 . A N DRES REYESi DCCEASElJ) J S T I F I ~ B I . F . EXPF. ' ;t;SOJ' O M I N I T R ~ T N P R O P E R T Y Ac

QUIRED D URI NC THE )tARRIA(;E BYEITIU::R SpnUSE REGARDED AS CO:-;JUCAL Pr tOPERTY UNTIL T i lE CONTRARYIS PR.oVEf)-Feli..1I Cam.in de ReI/til,PfJt , ioltcT-Appelln.nt ve. J lHl'lta RI'-yell ((6 IImw . OPl){J/iitor-AI)rx'lIc6. G.R. No. J. 0fI2, Oc ober tB, 19.18 .-Appeal from a deeree of th e Courtof F irst In stane(' disapproving theproject of partition submitted by thepetitioner Felisa Camia de Reyell ,widow of thl" deceased and ap proving th e counter-projeet of parti tionsubmitted by the nppof itllr J uanaReye l de llano, the. only survivingr hi ld a nd heir of the deceascd byhis fi rst m l l r r i a ~ . During his fi rst

m a r r i a ~ the decea lled as we ashil first wife acquired from the Gove rnmen t several parcels of Friarlands duly described in t.he records.Subsequent to the death of firstw ife in 1922. Andres Reyes contracted a second mar ri age with the herein petitioner Felisa Camia de Reyes , by whom he had a son . Boththe SiXlU eS acquired additional paIeels of land dur ing thei r marriage.Andres Reyes died in Ap ril , 1932,lea\-ing a will which was legalit.edin June, 1933. T he report da tedMay 8, 1933, of the Conlmissioneron Cla ims and Appraisal heretoforeappointf'd by the court . was a pproved and declared final after thefa ilure of the c r e d i t o r ~ of the teatate estate to appeal thereflofll. Th epetit ioner. as the duly IIppllinted ad ministra trb:: of the property of thedeccased, presented th e l'irst account.

ture incl uded therein wcre imp ro perand unnecessary. Th e .second accounting submitted on October 13.1933, was likewise opposed by theoppositor on the same grounds. F i_nally. the final accou nting , togetherwi th a project of partition, was present e-d by the adm inil'tra trix on Oetober 16. 1933. to which the o p ~sitor OPIMlsed in writing dated October 20 , 1933, alleging, among ofhet

~ that th e evaluation of t heproperty made by th e Commissioneron Claim ' and App raisal W&I inadequate and unjust: that the projeetof partition did not include ali theproperty which sho1lld be included;that it included c -rta in property belonging to tb conjugal property ofthe first marriage; t.hat the saidproject of partition was based onthe will ot the deeel\sed, some provis ions of which we re illega l. Theoppositor at the same time present_ed a counter-p roject. of pa r titionwhich wa.s the one a.pproved by t h ~tr ia l court. Upon appeal, the petitionetappellant made seve ra l a e

i ~ n m e n t of error which may besummar i::ted as follows: ( I ) Allowing the oppO$itor to impugn theevalua tion of the prope rty made byth e Commissioners on Cla.i ms andApp ra il al whoee report WM al-ready declared final in J une. 1935.withou t op position rorn the oppositor; (2) disallowing some of theitems of expenditure,'; poi nted out bythe oPPolitof', (3) disapproving t h ~project. of pa r tition submitted byher and approving th ..t subm ittedby the oppositor. field: ( I ) The ~pOIt of the Commiss ioners on Claim.lind Al1JII'ai sal which WH S declaredfinal by the co urt in Junt , 1933, isonly so with respect to t he creditorsof th e testate- ' Itatll named in the


14/18

RECfo.:NT DEC IS lON S 275court. to adopt it. No errol' waliconllll ill,cJ by the lower court in aJmit ting t.he tcstimony of BenedicloA, llano it"npugning t he evo. u a t.ionof the pl'operly of the rl cceased madeby the. Commissioner; (2 ) Th e expenses for transportation and subs istence incuJ"fcd by the widow whileattending to the testamentary pl'Oct-criing-" accompanied by hC I' mother and nlinor son, 3


15/18

1 I J 1 P LAW JOURNALpel' fl nnUIll and 1\1$0 nn a(iltitiOllaisu m Cfendantto pay to the pla inti if r nO C/o , Bolhth e pl ain tiff am. t he defendant allpealed , hence this double appeal.The pla intiff assigned a>l el'ror thefact that the lowel' COU It dec id edthat thc dt:bt of thc d e . f n d l l l t wa"dependent upon the obligation of theplRintiff to deJivt. I' the film s. Onthis point, the SUP l'C lllC COUl't, fi rM:The debt of th e defenda nt W IlS notclcllcndent IIllon the delivel'y of thefilms. The o m i s s o not0 did lIotpro"ilie so. Besides, the contrMl t ')llclive l' the film s bt'gun 011 Februa ry24 , 193,1 until :'I IR I'ch 20 of the sa m{'yea ', The debt as ,:videnl'cd by the11I'om i.' lIo t'Y notes was a contn .el onDe c. 29, 1933, These I l r o o f ~ go tosho .... tha t the. p"omiss(Uy notes a

8' , pel' anllum fron' Feb l'uary 2-1,19301 until l h ~ debt is {u\Jy paid and,ulso tIll: ao.lditiOllnl umount of 10' ,or r t 7;;,OO as I1 ttoru(;y's fces. Thederendant in it l< ll]llleal n ~ ; i g n e d RSd l'Ot' QII th e PUIi. o f ~ ; I C Lower Courtin not fiuding' the 1>lalll li ff guilty ufbreach Qf contract, henl'C liable rIRintirr, it mfThil< aliegHt ion ofthe defendant was Ill""': l' denied bythe plaintiff, tht. l ....rOlC the Suprt'mcCOU It adjudged the pl"intiff to Ilayto the defendant the ~ U I 1 l of 1 -1 00,00v ith illte>'{'st of 6 , pt ' ' annum 81\(lillllag{'s sufi"cl'ed by lhlJ d.'fendantfo l' t he plaintiff' ' Violation of itflC(lntt'sct with the defendant, (Art,1101, Civil COOt) ( Per V i I l 8 R a l .J , ; Avaneeila, C. J Santos, Imllerial, Dia'/ , La urel, JJ" concurring,Rec to, J .. did not take parL ) BI'i(frdIliJ LAWALTO A . ;\IAt.AIIAY a nd LUI SJ . Ih:H\'As,

PUBUC UTlI.1T l t : s- I:-:CRl':.AsE OFFAC II, tTIIC.s--Elp;tlio JUI ' t l l l l lW. IIJ} -}.Jir''' /-(lI'P


16/18

I n ; c ~ N T DE:CISION S 277a \ c i t y of cooling w n t ~ I ' which ["1,,

to come from the Iloilo Rivel-; thatthis water is insufticient L:l :


17/18

278 PHiLiPP I NE LAW .JOURNALIIUOO by the i'anga sinan T l'llnsporta' i.ion Co" by Khll', t.he manager andt.rUaSUI'Cr, It W/l.S drawn upon the,plilintiff in favor of the Intc.mutiollsl Auto Repab' Shop, This wereilldorsed by an unknown perSOn infav.or of Motor Service Company\\ho in turn indursc.J the same 101'deposit at t.he Nat.ional Cit.y Bank.The National City Bank presentodthe checks at the clt'aring hOUse andthe Philippine Nnt.ior.al Bank en ..

CHt(>(1 the National City Balik forthc JW.id sum , Subsequently, thev1aintifi d ~ v e r e d that the s igllature of the dra\\o r in the two checks\\'ore forged, Hence, this action wasbrought to l'eCo\'er the lIlIid sum, I ti" l O ntcnded that the payment ofthe checks by the drawee bank con,"ti tutes all "aeccpt.1.ncc", and cunscquonUy Lhe cue sh.ould be go\'.crned by the pro,'s ion of section 62of the Negotiable In,;trullll.'nt. Law\\hich Jlrovides among others ' thatthe acceptor admits the existence ofthe dra.wer, the genuineness of hisSignature, and his capacity and au

thority to draw the instl'ument.'HeW This contention withoutmerit, A check is a bill of exchangepayable on demand and only therules g ~ l V e r n i n g bills of exchange1,IIYil ble on demand urI applicablet:. it, accol'ding to Bection 185 o[the N, 1. L, In view of Lhe l ctthllt a C ~ J l t a n c e ill a step unnecessa-ry in so far as bUb of exchangeIlayable on demand arc concerned, itfollows that the provisions relativeto accep tance arc without applica-tion to checks, "Acccpl.anco" im.plies, in effect, subsequent negotiation of the instrument, which is nottrue in case of payment of Q check

r. ner its ac('.( pt..llnCc, When Ihv"/'1\\\'00 bank c a s 0 \ I)UYS a chl'\:k,t.he cycle of negotiation s le.I'rn;na.ted, and it is iIIogicul thereafter ttoblIClIk of s u b ~ u e n t ho lden; whl> Cl:inin\'oke the warranty 11I'o\' ided ill k'C.tion G2 against th e dl'awee, :o.[Me.O\CI ' , according La See, 92 "acce\llIlnee" mealls "an accept:lnCe com.,letL-d by delivery 01' llotificauuu "und the eunCelJt is entirel), incom_vutible with paymcnt, b c c a u ~ \\ h O: IIpayment is maae the check i;: rL"Lain


18/18

HECENT DEC IS IONS 279tion he inlpliedly asselu that heprfol'med his duty. ,Moreover, und(or the cil"eriod when there .oe no::ggl'avating circumstances, 110 alsowould it be i f t hel'e were aggt"avsling circumstances and it CanH inits minimum degree. When theLegislature 11'o\' idcd fOI' recidivismwhich is an aggl"lIvating circumstance, it took into considerationthe concep t of habitual delinquency.Habitual delinquency is not I i C 'ime;i t is merely an act which, if concu.rl'ing with the cil'cumst:mces men_tioned in I'ule 5 of Art.. 62 of theRevised Penal Code, gives occasiontc the im position of a n additionalrenalty. The language ot the lawill cxplicit. AIfil'nung thc additioniiI penalty, the pl"incijlll.l p ~ a l t y isincl'ea.sed to two month" w d olleday or

Documents

PLJ Volume 16 Number 6 -03- Digest of Recent Decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court