SpecPro Digest – Midterm FRANCISCO’S TESTATE ESTATE. TIANGCO VS FRANCISCO 1939 [trustees 1] Facts: • Petrona Francisco – provided in her will that the income derived from the ½ portion of her fishpond – shall be devoted 1] for the celebration of the “Flores de Mayo” and 2] for other religious activities • Casimiro Tiangco – was appointed as trustee, upon the probate of the will • Proceso Francisco – filed an opposition [due to] the fact that the submission of the 1935 annual report to the court was irregular • Jan 30 1937: after the examination of the accounts – it was of no legal force and effect • Mar 22 37: Francisco – requested for the temporary substitution of the trustees • trustees – opposed • Francisco – opposed again to the 1936 report submitted • Apr 26 38: court – order the resignation of the trustees - Father Arcaira – was appointed as a temporary trustee ISSUE W/N THE LOWER COURT HAS THE POWER TO REQUIRE THE RESIGNATION OF THE TRUSTEES – YES HELD • The power to appoint a trustee – is discretionary with the court before whom application is made • court – will decline to interfere except in case of clear abuse • upon proper showing that the interests of justice would be adequately served with the removal of the incumbent trustees – it is likewise within its discretion to do so (section 587, Code of Civil Procedure) - court – will refuse to interfere in the absence of a showing of grave abuse or whimsical and capricious exercise of that discretion • will of the deceased, Petrona Francisco – created a continuing trust, but no particular persons were named as beneficiaries • appellants themselves – did not have anything to do with the trust until their appointment by the lower court - so commissioned not because of any beneficial interest they had in the estate but because their selection was approved by the lower court in the belief that they would faithfully perform their obligations • same court – found later that they "have not faithfully discharged their duties and that their continuance in office would cause further prejudice to the estate under trusteeship," [T] we cannot, on appeal, override the action of the lower court by reversing its finding, and indirectly sanction the violation of an unquestioned and legally existing trust
FRANCISCOS TESTATE ESTATE. TIANGCO VS FRANCISCO 1939 [trustees
1]
Facts: Petrona Francisco provided in her will that the income
derived from the portion of her fishpond shall be devoted1] for the
celebration of the Flores de Mayo and2] for other religious
activities Casimiro Tiangco was appointed as trustee, upon the
probate of the will Proceso Francisco filed an opposition [due to]
the fact that the submission of the 1935 annual report to the court
was irregular Jan 30 1937: after the examination of the accounts it
was of no legal force and effect Mar 22 37: Francisco requested for
the temporary substitution of the trustees trustees opposed
Francisco opposed again to the 1936 report submitted Apr 26 38:
court order the resignation of the trustees- Father Arcaira was
appointed as a temporary trustee
ISSUEW/N THE LOWER COURT HAS THE POWER TO REQUIRE THE
RESIGNATION OF THE TRUSTEES YES
HELD The power to appoint a trustee is discretionary with the
court before whom application is made court will decline to
interfere except in case of clear abuse upon proper showing that
the interests of justice would be adequately served with the
removal of the incumbent trustees it is likewise within its
discretion to do so (section 587, Code of Civil Procedure)- court
will refuse to interfere in the absence of a showing of grave abuse
or whimsical and capricious exercise of that discretion
will of the deceased, Petrona Francisco created a continuing
trust, but no particular persons were named as beneficiaries
appellants themselves did not have anything to do with the trust
until their appointment by the lower court- so commissioned not
because of any beneficial interest they had in the estate but
because their selection was approved by the lower court in the
belief that they would faithfully perform their obligations same
court found later that they "have not faithfully discharged their
duties and that their continuance in office would cause further
prejudice to the estate under trusteeship," [T] we cannot, on
appeal, override the action of the lower court by reversing its
finding, and indirectly sanction the violation of an unquestioned
and legally existing trust
