Union Bank - NHA (Cases)

8/9/2019 Union Bank - NHA (Cases)

1/107

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-8437. November 28, 1956.]

ESTATE ! ". #. #E$A%&, 'e(e)*e', v*. L+N S+RET& C., NC.,()/m)0-Appellant.

% E C S N

RE&ES, . B. L.,J.:

Appeal by Luzon Surety Co., Inc., from an order of the Court of First Instance ofRizal, presided by Judge ermogenes Caluag, dismissing its claim against the !stateof ". . emady #Special $roceeding %o. &'()*+ for failure to state a cause ofaction.

he Luzon Surety Co. had -led a claim against the !state based on tenty di/erentindemnity agreements, or counter bonds, each subscribed by a distinct principaland by the deceased ". . emady, a surety solidary guarantor+ in all of them, in

consideration of the Luzon Surety Co.0s of ha1ing guaranteed, the 1arious principalsin fa1or of di/erent creditors. he tenty counterbonds, or indemnity agreements,all contained the folloing stipulations2 chanrobles1irtuallalibrary

3$remiums. 4 As consideration for this suretyship, the undersigned 5ointly andse1erally, agree to pay the C67$A%8 the sum of 9999999999999999 #$999999+ pesos,$hilippines Currency, in ad1ance as premium there of for e1ery 9999999999 months orfractions thereof, this 99999999 or any reneal or substitution thereof is in e/ect.

Indemnity. 4 he undersigned, 5ointly and se1erally, agree at all times to indemnifythe C67$A%8 and :eep it indemni-ed and hold and sa1e it harmless from andagainst any and all damages, losses, costs, stamps, ta;es, penalties, charges, ande;penses of hatsoe1er :ind and nature hich the C67$A%8 shall or may, at any

time sustain or incur in conse?@ ofthe amount in1ol1ed in the litigation or other matters groing out of or connectedthereith for counsel or attorney0s fees, but in no case less than $(?. It is herebyfurther agreed that in case of e;tension or reneal of this 99999999 e e


2/107

therefore, hether it shall ha1e paid out such sums of money or any part thereof ornot.

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

ai1er. 4 It is hereby agreed upon by and beteen the undersigned that any


3/107

Company, no real property as mentioned in the list of properties mortgaged hichappears at the bac: of the indemnity agreement.B #Rec. App., pp. GDK'GD+.

e -nd this reasoning untenable. nder the present Ci1il Code #Article >*>>+, asell as under the Ci1il Code of >) #Article >(?K+, the rule is that 4

3Contracts ta:e e/ect only as beteen the parties, their assigns and heirs, e;cept in

the case here the rights and obligations arising from the contract are nottransmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by pro1ision of la.B

hile in our successional system the responsibility of the heirs for the debts of theirdecedent cannot e;ceed the 1alue of the inheritance they recei1e from him, theprinciple remains intact that these heirs succeed not only to the rights of thedeceased but also to his obligations. Articles KKG and KKH of the %e Ci1il Code#and Articles H?) and HH> of the preceding one+ e;pressly so pro1ide, therebycon-rming Article >*>> already 6/. Maz. #%o. H+ p. (KG and de Muzman 1s.Sala:, )> $hil., (H?+.

he binding e/ect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased party is not alteredby the pro1ision in our Rules of Court that money debts of a deceased must beli


4/107

a relation from patrimony to patrimony, ith the persons occupying only arepresentati1e position, barring those rare cases here the obligation is strictlypersonal, i.e., is contracted intuitu personae, in consideration of its performance bya speci-c person and by no other. he transition is mar:ed by the disappearance ofthe imprisonment for debt.

6f the three e;ceptions -;ed by Article >*>>, the nature of the obligation of thesurety or guarantor does not arrant the conclusion that his peculiar indi1idual


5/107

>K(H+, partnership #Article >*D and agency #Article >)>)+. y contract, the articlesof the Ci1il Code that regulate guaranty or suretyship #Articles (DGK to (DG+contain no pro1ision that the guaranty is e;tinguished upon the death of theguarantor or the surety.

he loer court sought to infer such a limitation from Art. (D?H, to the e/ect that

3one ho is obliged to furnish a guarantor must present a person ho possessesintegrity, capacity to bind himself, and suEcient property to anser for theobligation hich he guaranteesB. It ill be noted, hoe1er, that the la re


6/107

For Defendantadministratri; it is a1erred that the abo1e doctrine refers to a casehere the surety -les claims against the estate of the principal debtor= chan robles1irtualalibraryand it isurged that the rule does not apply to the case before us, here the late emadyas a surety, not a principal debtor. he argument e1inces a super-cial 1ie of therelations beteen parties. If under the Mas:ell ruling, the Luzon Surety Co., asguarantor, could -le a contingent claim against the estate of the principal debtors if

the latter should die, there is absolutely no reason hy it could not -le such a claimagainst the estate of emady, since emady is a solidary co'debtor of hisprincipals. hat the Luzon Surety Co. may claim from the estate of a principaldebtor it may e and (DHK of the%e Ci1il Code.

6ur conclusion is that the solidary guarantor0s liability is not e;tinguished by hisdeath, and that in such e1ent, the Luzon Surety Co., had the right to -le against the

estate a contingent claim for reimbursement. It becomes unnecessary no todiscuss the estate0s liability for premiums and stamp ta;es, because irrespecti1e ofthe solution to this


7/107

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 149926. February 23, 2005]

UNION BANK OF T! "I#I""IN!$,petitioner, vs. !%&UN%$ANTIBA'!( a)* F#OR!N+! $ANTIBA'!(ARIO#A, respondents.

% ! + I $ I O N

+A##!O, $R., J.-

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules ofCourt which seeks the reversal of the Decision!"of the Court of #ppeals dated $a% &'()''! in C#*+,R, CV No, 4--&! affir.in/ the dis.issal )"of the petitioner0s co.plaint inCivil Case No, !-1'1 2% the Re/ional 3rial Court R3C of $akati Cit%( Branch 6&,

3he antecedent facts are as follows7

On $a% &!( !1-'( the 8irst Countr%side Credit Corporation 8CCC and Efrai. $,Santi2a9e: entered into a loan a/ree.ent &"in the a.ount of ;!)-(''','', 3he a.ountwas intended for the pa%.ent of the purchase price of one ! unit 8ord 66''

#/ricultural #ll*;urpose Diesel 3ractor, In view thereof( Efrai. and his son( Ed.und(e45,16 due on $a% &!( !1-! and ever% $a%&!stthereafter up to $a% &!( !1-5,

On Dece.2er !&( !1-'( the 8CCC and Efrai. entered into another loana/ree.ent(4"this ti.e in the a.ount of ;!)&(!56,'', It was intended to pa% the 2alanceof the purchase price of another unit of 8ord 66'' #/ricultural #ll*;urpose Diesel3ractor( with accessories( and one ! unit ?oward Rota.otor $odel #R 6'@, #/ain(Efrai. and his son( Ed.und( e(docketed as Special ;roceedin/s No, )>'6, On #pril 1( !1-!( Ed.und( as one of theheirs( was appointed as the special ad.inistrator of the estate of the decedent, >"Durin/the pendenc% of the testate proceedin/s( the survivin/ heirs( Ed.und and his sister8lorence Santi2a9e: #riola( e


8/107

to assu.e the inde2tedness of their late father to 8CCC( correspondin/ to the tractorrespectivel% taken 2% the.,

On #u/ust )'( !1-!( a Deed of #ssi/n.ent with #ssu.ption of ia2ilities 1"wase


9/107

3he petitioner appealed fro. the R3C decision and elevated its case to the Court of#ppeals C#( assi/nin/ the followin/ as errors of the trial court7

!, 3?E COR3A QUOERRED IN 8INDIN+ 3?#3 3?E AOIN3 #+REE$EN3EF?IBI3 # S?OD BE #;;ROVED BG 3?E ;ROB#3E COR3,

), 3?E COR3A QUOERRED IN 8INDIN+ 3?#3 3?ERE C#N BE NO V#ID;#R3I3ION #$ON+ 3?E ?EIRS N3I #83ER 3?E HI ?#S BEEN;ROB#3ED,

&, 3?E COR3A QUOERRED IN NO3 8INDIN+ 3?#3 3?E DE8END#N3 ?#DH#IVED ?ER RI+?3 3O ?#VE 3?E C#I$ RE*I3I+#3ED IN 3?E ES3#3E;ROCEEDIN+,!6"

3he petitioner asserted 2efore the C# that the o2li/ation of the deceased hadpassed to his le/iti.ate children and heirs( in this case( Ed.und and 8lorence theunconditional si/nin/ of the oint a/ree.ent .arked as E"

3he appellate court found that the appeal was not .eritorious and held that thepetitioner should have filed its clai. with the pro2ate court as provided under Sections !and 5( Rule -6 of the Rules of Court, It further held that the partition .ade in the

a/ree.ent was null and void( since no valid partition .a% 2e had until after the will has2een pro2ated, #ccordin/ to the C#( pa/e )( para/raph e of the holo/raphic willcovered the su2ect properties tractors in /eneric ter.s when the deceased referred tothe. as all other properties,J $oreover( the active participation of respondent 8lorenceS, #riola in the case did not a.ount to a waiver, 3hus( the C# affir.ed the R3Cdecision( viz.7

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the !ppe!ed Decision o" the Region! %ri!&ourt o" M!#!ti &ity, 'r!nch (), is hereby *FFIRMED in toto$

SO ORDERED$!-"

In the present recourse( the petitioner ascri2es the followin/ errors to the C#7

I.

%HE HONOR*'+E &OR% OF *--E*+S ERRED IN FINDING %H*% %HE.OIN% *GREEMEN% SHO+D 'E *--RO/ED '0 %HE -RO'*%E &OR%$
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn18


10/107

II.

%HE &OR% OF *--E*+S ERRED IN FINDING %H*% %HERE &*N 'E NO/*+ID -*R%I%ION *MONG %HE HEIRS OF %HE +*%E EFR*IM S*N%I'*1E2N%I+ *F%ER %HE WI++ H*S 'EEN -RO'*%ED$

III.

%HE &OR% OF *--E*+S ERRED IN NO% FINDING %H*% %HERES-ONDEN% H*D W*I/ED HER RIGH% %O H*/E %HE &+*IM RE3+I%IG*%ED IN %HE ES%*%E -RO&EEDING$

I.

RES-ONDEN%S &*N, IN F*&%, 'E HE+D .OIN%+0 *ND SE/ER*++0+I*'+E WI%H %HE -RIN&I-*+ DE'%OR %HE +*%E EFR*IM S*N%I'*1E2ON %HE S%RENG%H OF %HE &ON%INING G*R*N%0 *GREEMEN%E4E&%ED IN F*/OR OF -E%I%IONER3*--E++*N% NION '*N5$

.

%HE -ROMISSOR0 NO%ES D*%ED M*0 )6, 6789 IN %HE SM OF -6:8,999$99*ND DE&EM'ER 6), 6789 IN %HE *MON% OF -6:),999$99&*%EGORI&*++0 ES%*'+ISHED %HE F*&% %H*% %HE RES-ONDEN%S'OND %HEMSE+/ES .OIN%+0 *ND SE/ER*++0 +I*'+E WI%H %HE +*%EDE'%OR EFR*IM S*N%I'*1E2 IN F*/OR OF -E%I%IONER NION '*N5$ !1"

3he petitioner clai.s that the o2li/ations of the deceased were trans.itted to theheirs as provided in #rticle >>4 of the Civil Code there was thus no need for the pro2atecourt to approve the oint a/ree.ent where the heirs partitioned the tractors owned 2%the deceased and assu.ed the o2li/ations related thereto, Since respondent 8lorenceS, #riola si/ned the oint a/ree.ent without an% condition( she is now estopped fro.assertin/ an% position contrar% thereto, 3he petitioner also points out that theholo/raphic will of the deceased did not include nor .ention an% of the tractors su2ectof the co.plaint( and( as such was 2e%ond the a.2it of the said will, 3he activeparticipation and resistance of respondent 8lorence S, #riola in the ordinar% civil actiona/ainst the petitioner0s clai. a.ounts to a waiver of the ri/ht to have the clai.

presented in the pro2ate proceedin/s( and to allow an% one of the heirs who e


11/107

2etween the late Efrai. Santi2a9e: and his heirs to 2e in the nature of a solidar%o2li/ation, 8urther.ore( the ;ro.issor% Notes dated $a% &!( !1-' and Dece.2er !&(!1-' e


12/107

it, bec!use uness !


13/107

to assume the indebtedness corresponding to the chattel taken as herein after statedwhich is in favor of irst !ountr"side !redit !orp.J)1"3he assu.ption of lia2ilit% wasconditioned upon the happenin/ of an event( that is( that each heir shall takepossession and use of their respective share under the a/ree.ent, It was .adedependent on the validit% of the partition( and that the% were to assu.e the

inde2tedness correspondin/ to the chattel that the% were each to receive, 3he partition2ein/ invalid as earlier discussed( the heirs in effect did not receive an% such tractor, Itfollows then that the assu.ption of lia2ilit% cannot 2e /iven an% force and effect,

3he Court notes that the loan was contracted 2% the decedent, 3he petitioner(purportedl% a creditor of the late Efrai. Santi2a9e:( should have thus filed its .one%clai. with the pro2ate court in accordance with Section 5( Rule -6 of the Revised Rulesof Court( which provides7

Section @$ Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed barred;exceptions$ A * c!ims "or money !g!inst the decedent, !rising "rom contr!ct,eBpress or impied,


14/107

docu.entar% evidence presented( particularl% the pro.issor% notes and the continuin//uarant% a/ree.ent( were e


15/107

4"5d.at !&*!-,

5"5d.at !1*)',

6"E,

>"#nne< # of the #nswer( Records( p, 4-,

-"E"5d.at >6,

!-"6ollo)p, &',

!1"5d.at >*-,

)'"See Orte/a v, Court of #ppeals( !5& SCR# 16 !1-> See also $orales v, C8I of Cavite( Br, V( !46SCR# &>& !1-6,

)!"See De la Cru: v, Ca.on( !6 SCR# --6 !166,

))"Vda, de @ila%ko v, 3en/co( )'> SCR# 6'' !11),

)&"Ralla v, ntalan( !>) SCR# -5- !1-1,

)4"E,

)5"E' SCR# !&' !1>6,

&)"5bid,

&&"See E


16/107

Repu2lic of the ;hilippines

$U"R!&! +OURT$anila

EN B#NC

G.R. No. #/15499 February 2, 1962

ANG!#A &. BUTT!,plaintiff*appellant(vs,

&ANU!# U a)* $ON$, IN+.,defendant*appellee,

&elgado) lores and 1acapagal for plaintiff-appellant.

#elaez and 4alandoni for defendant-appellee.

R!!$, .B.#., J.:

#ppeal fro. a decision of the Court of 8irst instance of $anila dis.issin/ the action for le/al

rede.ption filed 2% plaintiff*appellant,

It appears that Aose V, Ra.ire:( durin/ his lifeti.e( was a co*owner of a house and lot located at

Sta, Cru:( $anila( as shown 2% 3ransfer Certificate of 3itle No, 5)>-1( issued in the na.e of the

followin/ co*owners7 $arie +arnier Vda, de Ra.ire:( !L6 Aose V, Ra.ire:( !L6 Aose E, Ra.ire:(

!L6 Rita de Ra.ire:( !L6 and Aose $a, Ra.ire:( !L6,

On Octo2er )'( !15!( Aose V, Ra.ire: died, Su2se=uentl%( Special ;roceedin/ No, !5')6 was

instituted to settle his estate( that included the one*si


17/107

who in turn personall% handed the letters to his .other( $rs, Butte( on Dece.2er !! and !)( !15-,

#side fro. this letter of defendant*appellant( the vendor( thru her attorne%*in*fact $rs, Cha.2ers(

wrote said 2ank on Dece.2er !!( !15- confir.in/ vendees letter re/ardin/ the sale of her !L6

share in the Sta, Cru: propert% for the su. of ;5''(''','', Said letter was received 2% the 2ank on

Dece.2er !5( !15- and havin/ endorsed it to $rs, Buttes counsel( the latter received the sa.e on

Dece.2er !6( !15-, #ppellant received the letter on Dece.2er !1( !15-,

On Aanuar% !5( !151( $rs, #n/ela $, Butte( thru #tt%, Resplandor So2retodo( sent a letter and a

;hilippine National Bank cashiers check in the a.ount of ;5''(''','' to $anuel % M Sons( Inc,

offerin/ to redee. the !L6 share sold 2% $rs, $arie +arnier Vda, de Ra.ire:, 3his tender havin/

2een refused( plaintiff on the sa.e da% consi/ned the a.ount in court and filed the correspondin/

action for le/al rede.ption, Hithout preudice to the deter.ination 2% the court of the reasona2le

and fair .arket value of the propert% sold which she alle/ed to 2e /rossl% e


18/107

3he ri/ht of rede.ption of co*owners e>, 3he ri/hts to the succession are trans.itted fro. the .o.ent of the death of the

decedent, 65>a

#R3, 14>, 3he le/atee or devisee ac=uires a ri/ht to the pure and si.ple le/acies or

devisees fro. the death of the testator( and trans.its it to his heirs, --!a

3he principle of trans.ission as of the ti.e of the predecessors death is 2asic in our Civil Code( and

is supported 2% other related articles, 3hus( the capacit% of the heir is deter.ined as of the ti.e the

decedent died #rt, !'&4 the le/iti.e is to 2e co.puted as of the sa.e .o.ent#rt, 1'-( and so

is the in officiousness of the donation inter vivos #rt, >>!, Si.ilarl%( the le/acies of credit and

re.ission are valid onl% in the a.ount due and outstandin/ at the death of the testator #rt, 1&5(and

the fruits accruin/ after that instant are dee.ed to pertain to the le/atee #rt, 14-,

#s a conse=uence of this funda.ental rule of succession( the heirs of Aose V, Ra.ire: ac=uired his

undivided share in the Sta, Cru: propert% fro. the .o.ent of his death( and fro. that instant( the%

2eca.e co*owners in the aforesaid propert%( to/ether with the ori/inal survivin/ co*owners of theirdecedent causante, # co*owner of an undivided share is necessaril% a co*owner of the whole,

Hherefore( an% one of the Ra.ire: heirs( as such co*owner( 2eca.e entitled to e


19/107

undivided share to a stran/er, ?ence( there was nothin/ to redee. and no ri/ht of rede.ption and if

the late Ra.ire: had no such ri/ht at his death( he could not trans.it it to his own heirs, $uch less

could Ra.ire: ac=uire such ri/ht of rede.ption ei/ht %ears after his death( when the sale to % M

Sons( Inc, was .ade 2ecause death e5


20/107

Hh% these provisions were inserted in the statute we are not infor.ed( 2ut we .a% assu.e

until the contrar% is shown( that a state of facts in respect thereto e


21/107

c Orderin/ appellant $anuel % M Sons( Inc, to accept the consi/ned price and to conve%

to #n/ela $, Butte the undivided portion a2ove referred to( within &' da%s fro. the ti.e our

decision 2eco.es final( and su2se=uentl% to account for the rentals and fruits of the

redee.ed share fro. and after Aanuar% !5( !15-( until its conve%ance and,

d Orderin/ the return of the records to the court of ori/in for further proceedin/sconfor.a2le to this opinion,

Hithout findin/ as to costs,

engzon) !.4.) #adilla) autista Angelo) 7abrador) !oncepcion) arrera and &izon) 44.) concur.

#aredes and &e 7eon) 44.) took no part.


22/107

Repu2lic of the ;hilippines$U"R!&! +OURT

$anila

8IRS3 DIVISION

G.R. No. 131953 u)e 5, 2002

&A. !$T!#A &AG#A$ANG, NI+O#A$ +ABATINGAN a)* &!R# $. +ABATINGAN, petitioners(vs,T! !IR$ OF +ORA(ON +ABATINGAN, )aey, #U( &. BOUIA, "!R#A &. AB!##A,!$TR!##A &. +A'!T!, #OUR%!$ &. U$ON, a)* U#IA #. &AO#, !IR$ OF G!NOIA +.NATII%A% )aey, O$+AR +. NATII%A%, O#GA NATII%A%, O%!TT! NATII%A%, O"!#IANATII%A%, RI+AR% NATII%A%, RA&UN% NATII%A%, RI+I! NATII%A%, $ONIANATII%A% a)* !N+ARNA+ION +ABATINGAN %A. %! TRINI%A%, A#FR!%O +ABATINGANa)* !$U$A +. NAA%A, respondents,

AU$TRIA/&ARTIN!(, J.:

;osed for resolution 2efore the Court in this petition for review on certiorarifiled under Rule 45 of theRules of Court is the sole issue of whether the donations .ade 2% the late Conchita Ca2atin/an aredonations inter vivos ormortis causa,

3he facts of the case are as follows7

On 8e2ruar% !>( !11)( Conchita Ca2atin/an e


23/107

Ca2atin/ans fra/ile condition( caused the e in favor of respondents( with the followin/ dispositive portion7

PH?ERERE8ORE( and in consideration of all the fore/oin/( ud/.ent is here2% rendered infavor of the plaintiffs and a/ainst the defendant and unwillin/ co*plaintiff with re/ards sic tothe four Deeds of Donation #nne

3he court a quoruled that the donations are donations mortis causaand therefore the four 4 deedsin =uestion e


24/107

! It conve%s no title or ownership to the transferee 2efore the death of the transferor orwhat a.ounts to the sa.e thin/( that the transferor should retain the ownership full ornaked and control of the propert% while alive

) 3hat 2efore his death( the transfer should 2e revoca2le 2% the transferor at will( ad nutum2ut revoca2ilit% .a% 2e provided for indirectl% 2% .eans of a reserved power in the donor to

dispose of the properties conve%ed

and

& 3hat the transfer should 2e void if the transferor should survive the transferee,!&

In the present case( the nature of the donations as mortis causais confir.ed 2% the fact that thedonations do not contain an% clear provision that intends to pass proprietar% ri/hts to petitioners priorto Ca2atin/ans death,!43he phrase Pto 2eco.e effective upon the death of the DONORP ad.its ofno other interpretation 2ut that Ca2atin/an did not intend to transfer the ownership of the propertiesto petitioners durin/ her lifeti.e, ;etitioners the.selves e


25/107

and would produce no effect, #s we have held in #leandro v, +eralde: >- SCR# )45()5&(PIf the donation is .ade in conte.plation of the donors death( .eanin/ that the full or nakedownership of the donated properties will pass to the donee 2ecause of the donors death(then it is at that ti.e that the donation takes effect( and it is a donation .ortis causa whichshould 2e e.2odied in a last will and testa.ent, Citin/ Bonsato v, Court of #ppeals( 15 ;hil,4-!,P!1

He appl% the a2ove rulin/s to the present case, 3he herein su2ect deeds e


26/107

$O OR%!R!%.

=itug) and >apunan) 44.) concur,&avide) 4r.)!.4.) ?nares-@antiago) 4.)on official leave,

Foo)oe

!Ori/inal Records( See #nne< PDP( pp, !'>*!'-,

)Ori/inal Records( See #nne,

-Ori/inal Records( See ;artial Decision dated Dece.2er )( !11>( p, )'',

13he petition was /iven due course per S,C, Resolution dated #pril )4( !11-,

!';etition( p, 5 Rollo( p, !>,

!!;etition( pp, !&*!4 Rollo( pp, )5*)6,

!)Sicad v, Court of #ppeals( )14 SCR# !-& !11-"( p, !1&,

!&Re%es v, $os=ueda( !-> SCR# 66! !11'"( at pp, 6>'*6>!( citin/ Bonsato( et al, v, Courtof #ppeals( et al,( 15 ;hil, 4-! !154",

!4Rollo( See #nne>",

!>!&! SCR# )64 !1-4",

!-5bid.( p, )61,

!15bid.( p, )>',


27/107

)'See Note !&,

)!#rticle >)-( Civil Code,


28/107


$anila

3?IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 146006 February 23, 2004

O$! +. #!! AN% A#&A AGGABAO, 8) ;e8r a:a88e= a= "re=8*e) a)* +or:orae $ereary,re=:e8ey, o7 ";88::8)e= I)er)a8o)a #87e I)=ura)e +o:a)y, a)* FI#I"INO #OANA$$I$TAN+! GROU",petitionersvs,R!GIONA# TRIA# +OURT OF U!(ON +IT BRAN+ 5 :re=8*e* by U%G! "!%RO &.AR!O#A, BRAN+ +#!RK OF +OURT ANI+! . ANT!RO, %!"UT $!RIFF$ A%!NAU!RG. RI!RA a)* "!%RO #. BORA, a o7 ;e Re?8o)a Tr8a +our o7 ue@o) +8y Bra); 5,&A. %IINA !N%!R!$ a88)? o be $:e8a A*8)8=rar8, a)* o;er :er=o)= :ub8o778er= a8)? 7or a)* 8) ;e8r be;a7,respondents,

D E C I S I O N

+ORONA, J.:

3his is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seekin/ to reverse and set aside thedecision!of the Court of #ppeals( 8irst Division( dated Aul% )6( )'''( in C# +,R, 51>&6( whichdis.issed the petition for certiorari filed 2% petitioners Aose C, ee and #l.a #//a2ao in theircapacities as president and secretar%( respectivel%( of ;hilippine International ife InsuranceCo.pan% and 8ilipino oan #ssistance +roup,

3he antecedent facts follow,

Dr, Auvencio ;, Orta9e: incorporated the ;hilippine International ife Insurance Co.pan%( Inc, onAul% 6( !156, #t the ti.e of the co.pan%0s incorporation( Dr, Orta9e: owned ninet% percent 1'T ofthe su2scri2ed capital stock,

On Aul% )!( !1-'( Dr, Orta9e: died, ?e left 2ehind a wife Auliana Sal/ado Orta9e:( three le/iti.atechildren Rafael( Aose and #ntonio Orta9e: and five ille/iti.ate children 2% i/a%a Novicio hereinprivate respondent $a, Divina Orta9e:*Enderes and her si2lin/s Aose( Ro.eo( Enrico $anuel andCesar( all surna.ed Orta9e:,)

On Septe.2er )4( !1-'( Rafael Orta9e: filed 2efore the Court of 8irst Instance of Ri:al( ue:onCit% Branch now Re/ional 3rial Court of ue:on Cit% a petition for letters of ad.inistration of the

intestate estate of Dr, Orta9e:( docketed as S; ;roc, *&'--4 which petition to date re.ainspendin/ at Branch -5 thereof,

;rivate respondent $a, Divina Orta9e:*Enderes and her si2lin/s filed an opposition to the petitionfor letters of ad.inistration and( in a su2se=uent ur/ent .otion( pra%ed that the intestate courtappoint a special ad.inistrator,


29/107

On $arch !'( !1-)( Aud/e Ernani Cru: ;a9o( then presidin/ ud/e of Branch -5( appointed Rafaeland Aose Orta9e: oint special ad.inistrators of their father0s estate, ?earin/s continued for theappoint.ent of a re/ular ad.inistrator up to now no re/ular ad.inistrator has 2een appointed,

#s ordered 2% the intestate court( special ad.inistrators Rafael and Aose Orta9e: su2.itted aninventor% of the estate of their father which included( a.on/ other properties( )(')1&shares of stock

in ;hilippine International ife Insurance Co.pan% hereafter ;hilinterlife( representin/ 5',>)5T ofthe co.pan%0s outstandin/ capital stock,

On #pril !5( !1-1( the decedent0s wife( Auliana S, Orta9e:( clai.in/ that she owned!('!44;hilinterlife shares of stock as her conu/al share in the estate( sold said shares with ri/ht torepurchase in favor of herein petitioner 8ilipino oan #ssistance +roup 8#+( represented 2% itspresident( herein petitioner Aose C, ee, Auliana Orta9e: failed to repurchase the shares of stockwithin the stipulated period( thus ownership thereof was consolidated 2% petitioner 8#+ in its na.e,

On Octo2er &'( !11!( Special #d.inistrator Aose Orta9e:( actin/ in his personal capacit% andclai.in/ that he owned the re.ainin/ !('!!5;hilinterlife shares of stocks as his inheritance share inthe estate( sold said shares with ri/ht to repurchase also in favor of herein petitioner 8#+(

represented 2% its president( herein petitioner Aose C, ee, #fter one %ear( petitioner 8#+consolidated in its na.e the ownership of the ;hilinterlife shares of stock when Aose Orta9e: failedto repurchase the sa.e,

It appears that several %ears 2efore 2ut alread% durin/ the pendenc% of the intestate proceedin/s atthe Re/ional 3rial Court of ue:on Cit%( Branch -5( Auliana Orta9e: and her two children( Special

#d.inistrators Rafael and Aose Orta9e:( entered into a .e.orandu. of a/ree.ent dated $arch 4(!1-) for the e


30/107

On #u/ust !!( !11>( the intestate court denied the o.ni2us .otion of Special #d.inistrator AoseOrta9e: for the approval of the deeds of sale for the reason that7

nder the odo"case( supra( it was held in su2stance that a sale of a propert% of the estate withoutan Order of the pro2ate court is void and passes no title to the purchaser, Since the sales in =uestionwere entered into 2% Auliana S, Orta9e: and Aose S, Orta9e: in their personal capacit% without prior

approval of the Court( the sa.e is not 2indin/ upon the Estate,

H?ERE8ORE( the O$NIBS $O3ION for the approval of the sale of ;hilinterlife shares of stockand release of $a, Divina Orta9e:*Enderes as Special #d.inistratri< is here2% denied, 6

On #u/ust )1( !11>( the intestate court issued another order /rantin/ the .otion of Special#d.inistratri< Enderes for the annul.ent of the $arch 4( !1-) .e.orandu. of a/ree.ent ore DENGIN+ the approval of the saleof ;hilinterlife shares of stocks and release of $a, Divina Orta9e:*Enderes as Special #d.inistratri)5T controllin/ interest of the decedent( Dr, Auvencio Orta9e:( in the insurance co.pan%,13his2eca.e the su2ect of a separate action at the Securities and E( !114, 3hereafter( various cases were filed 2%Aose ee as president of ;hilinterlife and Auliana Orta9e: and her sons a/ainst private respondent*Special #d.inistratri< Enderes in the SEC and civil courts,!'So.ehow( all these cases wereconnected to the core dispute on the le/alit% of the sale of decedent Dr, Orta9e:0s ;hilinterlife shares


31/107

of stock to petitioner 8#+( represented 2% its president( herein petitioner Aose ee who later2eca.e the president of ;hilinterlife after the controversial sale,

On $a% )( )'''( private respondent*Special #d.inistratri< Enderes and her si2lin/s filed a .otionfor e 2ecause theorders of the intestate court nullif%in/ the sale upheld 2% the Court of #ppeals and the Supre.e

Court had lon/ 2eca.e final, Respondent*Special #d.inistratri< Enderes served a cop% of the.otion to petitioners Aose ee and #l.a #//a2ao as president and secretar%( respectivel%( of;hilinterlife(!!2ut petitioners i/nored the sa.e,

On Aul% 6( )'''( the intestate court /ranted the .otion for e


32/107

;etitioners ee and #//a2ao su2se=uentl% filed 2efore the Court of #ppeals a petition for certiorari(docketed as C# +,R, S; No, 51>&6, ;etitioners alle/ed that the intestate court /ravel% a2used itsdiscretion in ! declarin/ that the ownership of 8#+ over the ;hilinterlife shares of stock was nulland void ) orderin/ the e of the respondent Aud/e had lon/ 2eco.e final ande


33/107

$eanwhile( private respondent*Special #d.inistratri< Enderes( on Aul% !1( )'''( filed a .otion todirect the 2ranch clerk of court in lieu of herein petitioners ee and #//a2ao to reinstate the na.e ofDr, Orta9e: in the stock and transfer 2ook of ;hilinterlife and issue the correspondin/ stockcertificate pursuant to Section !'( Rule &1 of the Rules of Court which provides that Pthe court .a%direct the act to 2e done at the cost of the diso2edient part% 2% so.e other person appointed 2% thecourt and the act when so done shall have the effect as if done 2% the part%,P ;etitioners ee and

#//a2ao opposed the .otion on the /round that the intestate court should refrain fro. actin/ on the.otion 2ecause the issues raised therein were directl% related to the issues raised 2% the. in theirpetition for certiorari at the Court of #ppeals docketed as C#*+,R, S; No, 51>&6, On Octo2er &'()'''( the intestate court /ranted the .otion( rulin/ that there was no prohi2ition for the intestatecourt to e


34/107

possession of hereditar% propert% is trans.itted to the heir the .o.ent of death of thedecedent #cede2o vs, #2esa.is( )!> SCR# !14

E, In disre/ardin/ the final decision of the Supre.e Court in +,R, No, !)-5)5 datedDece.2er !>( !111 involvin/ su2stantiall% the sa.e parties( to wit( petitioners Aose C, eeand #l.a #//a2ao were respondents in that case while respondent $a, Divina Enderes was

the petitioner therein, 3hat decision( which can 2e considered law of the case( ruled thatpetitioners cannot 2e enoined 2% respondent Enderes fro. e

3he petition has no .erit,

;etitioners Aose ee and #l.a #//a2ao( representin/ ;hilinterlife and 8#+( assail 2efore us notonl% the validit% of the writ of e( )''' 2ut also thevalidit% of the #u/ust !!( !11> order of the intestate court nullif%in/ the sale of the )(')1 ;hilinterlifeshares of stock .ade 2% Auliana Orta9e: and Aose Orta9e:( in their personal capacities and without

court approval( in favor of petitioner 8#+,

He cannot allow petitioners to reopen the issue of nullit% of the sale of the ;hilinterlife shares ofstock in their favor 2ecause this was alread% settled a lon/ ti.e a/o 2% the Court of #ppeals in itsdecision dated Aune )&( !11- in C#*+,R, S; No, 46&4), 3his decision was effectivel% upheld 2% usin our resolution dated Octo2er 1( !11- in +,R, No, !&5!>> dis.issin/ the petition for review on atechnicalit% and thereafter den%in/ the .otion for reconsideration on Aanuar% !&( !111 on the/round that there was no co.pellin/ reason to reconsider said denial,!-Our decision 2eca.e finalon 8e2ruar% )&( !111 and was accordin/l% entered in the 2ook of entr% of ud/.ents, 8or all intentsand purposes therefore( the nullit% of the sale of the ;hilinterlife shares of stock .ade 2% AulianaOrta9e: and Aose Orta9e: in favor of petitioner 8#+ is alread% a closed case, 3o reopen said issuewould set a 2ad precedent( openin/ the door wide open for dissatisfied parties to reliti/ateunfavora2le decisions no end, 3his is co.pletel% ini.ical to the orderl% and efficient ad.inistration of

ustice,

3he said decision of the Court of #ppeals in C#*+,R, S; No, 46&4) affir.in/ the nullit% of the sale.ade 2% Aose Orta9e: and his .other Auliana Orta9e: of the ;hilinterlife shares of stock read7

;etitioner0s asseverations relative to said .e.orandu." a/ree.ent were scuttled durin/ thehearin/ 2efore this Court thus7

AS3ICE #INO7

Counsel for petitioner( when the $e.orandu. of #/ree.ent was e


35/107

Hhat can 2e %our le/al ustification for e


36/107

#/ree.ent 2efore the% e


37/107

SCR# >6> where He stated that when the estate of the deceased person is alread% the su2ect of atestate or intestate proceedin/( the ad.inistrator cannot enter into an% transaction involvin/ itwithout prior approval of the pro2ate court,

Onl% recentl%( in $anotok Realt%( Inc, vs, Court of #ppeals !41 SCR# !>4( He held that the sale ofan i..ova2le propert% 2elon/in/ to the estate of a decedent( in a special proceedin/s( needs court

approval, , , 3his pronounce.ent finds support in the previous case of Dolores Vda, De +il vs,#/ustin Cancio !4 SCR# >1> wherein He e.phasi:ed that it is within the urisdiction of a pro2atecourt to approve the sale of properties of a deceased person 2% his prospective heirs 2efore finaladudication, < < ( He laid down the rule that a sale 2%an ad.inistrator of propert% of the deceased( which is not authori:ed 2% the pro2ate court is null andvoid and title does not pass to the purchaser,

3here is hardl% an% dou2t that the pro2ate court can declare null and void the disposition of the

propert% under ad.inistration( .ade 2% private respondent( the sa.e havin/ 2een effected withoutauthorit% fro. said court, 5t is the probate court that has the power to authorize andBor approve thesale /@ection C and :) 6ule ,+0) hence) a fortiori) it is said court that can declare it null and void foras long as the proceedings had not been closed or terminated. 3o uphold petitioner0s contention thatthe pro2ate court cannot annul the unauthori:ed sale( would render .eanin/less the powerpertainin/ to the said court, Bon/a vs, Soler( ) SCR# >55, emphasis ours

Our urisprudence is therefore clear that ! an% disposition of estate propert% 2% an ad.inistrator orprospective heir pendin/ final adudication re=uires court approval and ) an% unauthori:eddisposition of estate propert% can 2e annulled 2% the pro2ate court( there 2ein/ no need for aseparate action to annul the unauthori:ed disposition,

3he =uestion now is7 can the intestate or pro2ate court e dated Octo2er 1( !11-, 3he finalit% of thedecision of the Supre.e Court was entered in the 2ook of entr% of ud/.ents on 8e2ruar% )&( !111,Considerin/ the finalit% of the order of the intestate court nullif%in/ the sale( as affir.ed 2% the

appellate courts( it was correct for private respondent*Special #d.inistratri< Enderes to thereafter.ove for a writ of e


38/107

respondent ud/e acted in e


39/107

3he facts show that petitioners( for reasons known onl% to the.( did not appeal the decision of theintestate court nullif%in/ the sale of shares of stock in their favor, Onl% the vendor( Aose Orta9e:(appealed the case, # careful review of the records shows that petitioners had actual knowled/e ofthe estate settle.ent proceedin/s and that the% knew private respondent Enderes was =uestionin/therein the sale to the. of the ;hilinterlife shares of stock,

It .ust 2e noted that private respondent*Special #d.inistratri< Enderes filed 2efore the intestatecourt R3C of ue:on Cit%( Branch -5 a P$otion to Declare VoidAb 5nitioDeeds of Sale of;hilinterlife Shares of StockP on $arch ))( !116, But as earl% as !114( petitioners alread% knew ofthe pendin/ settle.ent proceedin/s and that the shares the% 2ou/ht were under the ad.inistration2% the intestate court 2ecause private respondent $a, Divina Orta9e:*Enderes and her .otheri/a%a Novicio had filed a case a/ainst the. at the Securities and E( !114( docketed as SEC No, !!*14*41'1( for annul.ent of transfer of shares of stock(annul.ent of sale of corporate properties( annul.ent of su2scriptions on increased capital stocks(accountin/( inspection of corporate 2ooks and records and da.a/es with pra%er for a writ ofpreli.inar% inunction andLor te.porar% restrainin/ order,)>In said case( Enderes and her .other=uestioned the sale of the aforesaid shares of stock to petitioners, 3he SEC hearin/ officer in fact( inhis resolution dated $arch )4( !115( deferred to the urisdiction of the intestate court to rule on thevalidit% of the sale of shares of stock sold to petitioners 2% Aose Orta9e: and Auliana Orta9e:7

;etitioners also averred that, , , the ;hilinterlife shares of Dr, Auvencio Orta9e: who died( in !1-'(are part of his estate which is presentl% the su2ect .atter of an intestate proceedin/ of the R3C ofue:on Cit%( Branch -5, #lthou/h( private respondents Aose ee et al." presented the docu.ents ofpartition where2% the fore/oin/ share of stocks were alle/edl% partitioned and conve%ed to Aose S,Orta9e: who alle/edl% assi/ned the sa.e to the other private respondents( approval of the Courtwas not presented, 3hus( the assi/n.ents to the private respondents Aose ee et al," of the su2ectshares of stocks are void,

< < < < < < < < '1,

!'6ollo( pp, 5)4*5)6,

!!6ollo( p, >',

!)6ollo( p, 4>*4-,

!&

6ollo( pp, )66*)6-,

!46ollo( pp, &4*&5,

!56ollo( p, &-,

!66ollo( p, !!5,

!>6ollo( pp, !5*!>,


42/107

!-6ollo( pp, )6'*)6),

!16ollo( pp, )54*)56,

)'Acebedo vs. Abesamis( )!> SCR# !-6 !11&"( citin/ =da. &e il vs. !ancio( !4 SCR# >16!165",

)!Based on the Civil Code provisions on co*ownership #rticle 41&,Acebedo vs. Abesamis()!> SCR# !-6 !11&"( citin/ 6e"es vs. !oncepcion( !1' SCR# !>! !11'"( #3 vs. !ourt of

Appeals( 1- SCR# )'> !1-'"(1ercado vs. 7iwanag( 5 SCR# 4>) !16)",

))4) ;hil, &4> !1)!",

)&!6& SCR# 6&! !1--",

)46ollo( pp, 6'&*6'4,

)5Inventor% and #ccountin/ of ;roperties of the Estate dated $arch !&( !1-4( 6ollo( pp, 5>!*>54,

)6&illena vs. !ourt of Appeals( !6& SCR# 6&' !1--" 1anotok 6ealt" vs. !ourt of Appeals(!41 SCR# !>4 !1->" 7eabres vs. !ourt of Appeals( !46 SCR# !5- !1-6" $state of Olavevs. 6e"es( !)& SCR# >6> !1-&" and =da. &e il vs. !ancio( !4 SCR# >1> !165",

)>Cited in 1a. &ivina OrtaEez-$nderes et al. vs. !ourt of Appeals et al. ( &)! SCR# !>- !111",

)-6ollo( pp, !4>*!41,

)16ollo( p, !&6,

&'6ollo( pp, >)-*>)1,

&!6ollo( pp, 5)4*5)6,

&)@alonga vs. !ourt of Appeals( )61 SCR# 5&4 !11>",
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/dec1999/gr_128525_1999.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_111478_1997.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/dec1999/gr_128525_1999.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_111478_1997.html


43/107


$U"R!&! +OURT$anila

3?IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. #/6053 &ay , 1990

#AURA A#AR!(, F#ORA A#AR!( a)* RA&UN%O A#AR!(, petitioners(vs,

T! ONORAB#! INT!R&!%IAT! A"!##AT! +OURT a)* !$U$ AN!$, !$T!#ITA AN!$,ANTONIO AN!$, RO$ARIO AN!$, a)* I#U&INA%O AN!$, respondents,

rancisco . anzon for petitioner.

6enecio 6. $spiritu for private respondents.

F!RNAN, ".J.:

3his is a petition for review on certiorari seekin/ the reversal of7 a the decision of the 8ourth Civil

Cases Division of the Inter.ediate #ppellate Court dated #u/ust &!( !1-& in #C*+,R, CV No, 566)6

entitled PAesus Ganes et al, v, Dr, Rodolfo Siason et al,P affirmingthe decision dated Aul% -( !1>4 of

the Court of 8irst Instance of Ne/ros Occidental insofar as it ordered the petitioners to pa% ointl%

and severall% the private respondents the su. of ;)'(''','' representin/ the actual value of otsNos, >>&*# and >>&*B of the cadastral surve% of $urcia( Ne/ros Occidental and reversingthe

su2ect decision insofar as it awarded the su.s of ;)(''',''( ;5(''','' and ;)(''','' as actual

da.a/es( .oral da.a/es and attorne%s fees( respectivel% and 2 the resolution of said appellate

court dated $a% &'( !1-4( den%in/ the .otion for reconsideration of its decision,

3he real properties involved are two parcels of land identified as ot >>&*# and ot >>&*B which

were ori/inall% known as ot >>& of the cadastral surve% of $urcia( Ne/ros Occidental, ot >>&( with

an area of !56(541 s=uare .eters( was re/istered in the na.e of the heirs of #niceto Ganes under

Ori/inal Certificate of 3itle No, RO*4-5- --'4 issued on Octo2er 1( !1!> 2% the Re/ister of Deeds

of Occidental Ne/ros E>& and -)&, 3eodora cultivated onl% three hectares of ot -)& as she

could not attend to the other portions of the two lots which had a total area of around twent%*four


44/107

hectares, 3he record does not show whether the children of 8elipe also cultivated so.e portions of

the lots 2ut it is esta2lished that Rufino and his children left the province to settle in other places as a

result of the out2reak of Horld Har II, #ccordin/ to Estelita( fro. the PAapanese ti.e up to peace

ti.eP( the% did not visit the parcels of land in =uestion 2ut Pafter li2erationP( when her 2rother went

there to /et their share of the su/ar produced therein( he was infor.ed that 8ortunato Santia/o(

8uente2ella ;uentevella and #lvare: were in possession of ot >>&,

2

It is on record that on $a% !1( !1&-( 8ortunato D, Santia/o was issued 3ransfer Certificate of 3itle

No, R8 )614 )1>1> coverin/ ot >>&*# with an area of &>(-!- s=uare .eters, 33C3 No, R8 )614

descri2es ot >>&*# as a portion of ot >>& of the cadastral surve% of $urcia and as ori/inall%

re/istered under OC3 No, --'4,

3he 2i//er portion of ot >>& with an area of !!-(-&! s=uare .eters was also re/istered in the

na.e of 8ortunato D, Santia/o on Septe.2er 6( !1&- nder 3C3 No, R3*)615 )-!1) , 4Said

transfer certificate of title also contains a certification to the effect that ot >>&*B was ori/inall%

re/istered under OC3 No, --'4,

On $a% &'( !155( Santia/o sold ots >>&*# and >>&*B to $onico B, 8uente2ella( Ar, in consideration

of the su. of ;>(''','', 5Conse=uentl%( on 8e2ruar% )'( !156( 3C3 Nos, 3*!1)1! and 3*!1)1)

were issued in 8uente2ellas na.e, 6

#fter 8uente2ellas death and durin/ the settle.ent of his estate( the ad.inistratri< thereof #rsenia

R, Vda, de 8uente2ella( his wife filed in Special ;roceedin/s No, 4&>& in the Court of 8irst Instance

of Ne/ros Occidental( a .otion re=uestin/ authorit% to sell ots >>&*# and >>&*B, B% virtue of a

court order /rantin/ said .otion( on $arch )4( !15-( #rsenia Vda, de 8uente2ella sold said lots for

;6(''','' to Rosendo #lvare:, 9?ence( on #pril !( !15- 3C3 Nos, 3*)&!65 and 3*)&!66 coverin/

ots >>&*# and >>&*B were respectivel% issued to Rosendo #lvare:, 10

3wo %ears later or on $a% )6( !16'( 3eodora Ganes and the children of her 2rother Rufino( na.el%(

Estelita( Ilu.inado and Aesus( filed in the Court of 8irst Instance of Ne/ros Occidental a co.plaint

a/ainst 8ortunato Santia/o( #rsenia Vda, de 8uente2ella( #lvare: and the Re/ister of Deeds of

Ne/ros Occidental for the PreturnP of the ownership and possession of ots >>& and -)&, 3he% also

pra%ed that an accountin/ of the produce of the land fro. !144 up to the filin/ of the co.plaint 2e

.ade 2% the defendants( that after court approval of said accountin/( the share or .one% e=uivalent

due the plaintiffs 2e delivered to the.( and that defendants 2e ordered to pa% plaintiffs ;5'','' as

da.a/es in the for. of attorne%s fees, 11

Durin/ the pendenc% in court of said case or on Nove.2er !&( !16!( #lvare: sold ots >>&*#( >>&*B

and another lot for ;)5(''','' to Dr, Rodolfo Siason,12

#ccordin/l%( 3C3 Nos, &'1!1 and &'1)'were issued to Siason( 13who thereafter( declared the two lots in his na.e for assess.ent

purposes, 14

$eanwhile( on Nove.2er 6( !16)( Aesus Ganes( in his own 2ehalf and in 2ehalf of the other

plaintiffs( and assisted 2% their counsel( filed a .anifestation in Civil Case No, 5')) statin/ that the

therein plaintiffs Prenounce( forfeit and =uitclai.s sic an% clai.( .onetar% or otherwise( a/ainst the

defendant #rsenia Vda, de 8uente2ella in connection with the a2ove*entitled case,P 15


45/107

On Octo2er !!( !16&( a decision was rendered 2% the Court of 8irst Instance of Ne/ros Occidental in

Civil Case No, 5'))( the dispositive portion of which reads7

H?ERE8ORE( ud/.ent is rendered( orderin/ the defendant Rosendo #lvare: to

reconve% to the plaintiffs lots Nos, >>& and -)& of the Cadastral Surve% of $urcia(

Ne/ros Occidental( now covered 2% 3ransfer Certificates of 3itle Nos, 3*)&!65 and 3*)&!66 in the na.e of said defendant( and thereafter to deliver the possession of said

lots to the plaintiffs, No special pronounce.ent as to costs,

SO ORDERED, 16

It will 2e noted that the a2ove*.entioned .anifestation of Aesus Ganes was not .entioned in the

aforesaid decision,

?owever( e>&, In his return of

service dated Octo2er )'( !165( the sheriff stated that he discovered that ot >>& had 2een

su2divided into ots >>&*# and >>&*B that the% were Pin the na.eP of Rodolfo Siason who hadpurchased the. fro. #lvare:( and that ot >>& could not 2e delivered to the plaintiffs as Siason was

Pnot a part% per writ of e


46/107

return of service dated Octo2er )'( !165P Siasons deliver% of possession of ot >>& to the

Ganeses and if( deliver% thereof could not 2e effected( or( if the issuance of a new title could not 2e

.ade( that the #lvare: and Siason ointl% and severall% pa% the Ganeses the su. of ;45(''','',

3he% also pra%ed that Siason render an accountin/ of the fruits of ot >>& fro. Nove.2er !&( !16!

until the filin/ of the co.plaint and that the defendants ointl% and severall% pa% the Ganeses .oral

da.a/es of ;)'(''','' and e&*# and >>&*B of $urcia Cadastre( Ne/ros Occidental the su.

of ;)(''','' as actual da.a/es suffered 2% the plaintiff the su. of ;5(''',''

representin/ .oral da.a/es and the su. of ;),''' as attorne%s fees( all with le/al

rate of interest fro. date of the filin/ of this co.plaint up to final pa%.ent,

C, 3he cross*clai. filed 2% the defendant Dr, Rodolfo Siason a/ainst the defendants(

aura( 8lora and Ra%.undo( all surna.ed #lvare: is here2% dis.issed,

D, Defendants( aura( 8lora and Ra%.undo( all surna.ed #lvare: are here2%ordered to pa% the costs of this suit,

SO ORDERED, 29

3he #lvare: appealed to the then Inter.ediate #ppellate Court which in its decision of #u/ust &!(

!1-& 30affir.ed the lower courts decision Pinsofar as it ordered defendants*appellants to pa% ointl%

and severall% the plaintiffs*appellees the su. of ;)'(''','' representin/ the actual value of ots


47/107

Nos, >>&*# and >>&*B of the cadastral surve% of $urcia( Ne/ros Occidental( and is reversed insofar

as it awarded the su.s of ;)(''',''( ;5(''','' and ;)(''','' as actual da.a/es( .oral da.a/es

and attorne%s fees( respectivel%,P 313he dispositive portion of said decision reads7

H?ERE8ORE( the decision appealed fro. is affir.ed insofar as it ordered

defendants*appellants to pa% ointl% and severall% the plaintiffs* appellees the su. of;)'(''','' representin/ the actual value of ots Nos, >>&*# and >>&*B of the

cadastral surve% of $urcia( Ne/ros Occidental( and is reversed insofar as it awarded

the su.s of ;)(''',''( ;5(''','' and ;)(''','' as actual da.a/es( .oral

da.a/es and attorne%s fees( respectivel%, No costs,

SO ORDERED, 32

8indin/ no co/ent reason to /rant appellants .otion for reconsideration( said appellate court denied

the sa.e,

?ence( the instant petition, ln their .e.orandu. petitioners raised the followin/ issues7

!, Hhethere or not the defense of prescription and estoppel had 2een ti.el% and

properl% invoked and raised 2% the petitioners in the lower court,

), Hhether or not the cause andLor causes of action of the private respondents( if

ever there are an%( as alle/ed in their co.plaint dated 8e2ruar% )!( !16- which has

2een docketed in the trial court as Civil Case No, -4>4 supra( are forever 2arred 2%

statute of li.itation andLor prescription of action and estoppel,

&, Hhether or not the late Rosendo #lvare:( a defendant in Civil Case No, 5'))(

supra and father of the petitioners 2eco.e a priv% andLor part% to the waiver E4( supra where the private respondents

had un=ualifiedl% and a2solutel% waived( renounced and =uitclai.ed all their alle/ed

ri/hts and interests( if ever there is an%( on ots Nos, >>&*# and >>&*B of $urcia

Cadastre as appearin/ in their written .anifestation dated Nove.2er 6( !16)

E>&*# and >>&*B of $urcia Cadastre to Dr, Rodolfo Siason( if ever there is an%(

could 2e le/all% passed or trans.itted 2% operations sic of law to the petitioners without

violation of law and due process , 33

3he petition is devoid of .erit,

#s correctl% ruled 2% the Court of #ppeals( it is powerless and for that .atter so is the Supre.e

Court( to review the decision in Civil Case No, 5')) orderin/ #lvare: to reconve% the lots in dispute

to herein private respondents, Said decision had lon/ 2eco.e final and e


48/107

5')) is the law of the case 2etween the parties thereto, It ended when #lvare: or his heirs failed to

appeal the decision a/ainst the., 34

3hus( it is a>&*B .ade

2% Rosendo #lvare: to Dr, Rodolfo Siason should 2e the sole lia2ilit% of the late Rosendo #lvare: or

of his estate( after his death,


49/107

Such contention is untena2le for it overlooks the doctrine o2tainin/ in this urisdiction on the /eneral

trans.issi2ilit% of the ri/hts and o2li/ations of the deceased to his le/iti.ate children and heirs,

3hus( the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code state7

#rt, >>4, Succession is a .ode of ac=uisition 2% virtue of which the propert%( ri/hts

and o2li/ations to the e>6, 3he inheritance includes all the propert%( ri/hts and o2li/ations of a person

which are not e


50/107

It .ust( however( 2e .ade clear that petitioners are lia2le onl% to the e( !1>&( pp, 4*5,

) 3SN( Dece.2er !!( !1>&( pp, !! M 55,

& E


51/107

!5 E E


52/107

&- 6ollo( p, )>,

&1 uiniano et al, v, C,#,( &1 SCR# ))! !1>!",

4' 5bid.

4! !'' ;hil, &--,

4) ope: vs, Enri=ue:( !6 ;hil, &&6 !1!',


53/107


$U"R!&! +OURT$anila

EN B#NC

G.R. No. #/443 Noeber 23, 193

$O+ORRO #!%!$&A a)* ANA UIT+O #!%!$&A,plaintiffs*appellees(vs,

+ON+ITA &+#A+#IN, !T A#.,defendants*appellants,

Adriano 2. de la !ruz for appellants.

@imeon itanga for appellees.

I##A/R!A#, J.:

3his case is 2efore us 2% virtue of an appeal taken 2% the defendants Conchita $cachlin(

oren:o uitco( Ar,( Sa2ina uitco( Rafael uitco and $arcela uitco( fro. the decision of the Court

of 8irst Instance of Occidental Ne/ros( the dispositive part of which reads7

8or the fore/oin/ considerations( the court renders ud/.ent in this case declarin/

#na uitco edes.a an acknowled/ed natural dau/hter of the deceased oren:o $, uitco(

for le/al purposes( 2ut a2solvin/ the defendants as to the pra%er in the first cause of action

that the said #na uitco edes.a 2e declared entitled to share in the properties left 2% the

deceased Euse2io uitco,

#s to the second cause of action( the said defendants are ordered to pa% to the plaintiff

Socorro edes.a( ointl% and severall%( onl% the su. of one thousand five hundred

pesos;!(5''( with le/al interest thereon fro. the filin/ of this co.plaint until full% paid, No

pronounce.ent is .ade as to the costs, So ordered,

In support of their appeal( the appellants assi/n the followin/ errors alle/edl% co..itted 2%

the trial court in its aforesaid decision7

!, 3hat the trial court erred in holdin/( that the action for the recover% of the su. of ;!(5''(

representin/ the last install.ent of the note E


54/107

3he onl% facts to 2e considered in the deter.ination of the le/al =uestions raised in this

appeal are those set out in the appealed decision( which have 2een esta2lished at the trial( na.el%7

In the %ear !1!6( the plaintiff Socorro edes.a lived .aritall% with oren:o $, uitco(

while the latter was still sin/le( of which relation( lastin/ until the %ear !1)!( was 2orn a

dau/hter who is the other plaintiff #na uitco edes.a, In !1)!( it see.s hat the relation2etween Socorro edes.a and oren:o $, uitco ca.e to an end( 2ut the latter e


55/107

#ccordin/ to the pro.issor% note E


56/107

AvanceEa) !.4.) 5mperial) &iaz) 7aurel and !oncepcion) 44.) concur.


57/107

FIRST DIVISION

WILLIAM ONG GENATO, G.R. No. 171035

-etitioner,

3 ;ersus 3-resent

-NO, C.J.,&h!irperson,BENJAMIN BAYHON, MELANIE &*R-IO,BAYHON, BENJAMIN BAYHON, &ORON*,JR., BRENDA BAYHON, ALINA +EON*RDO3DE &*S%RO, !nd

BAYHON-CAMPOS, IRENE 'ERS*MIN,JJ.BAYHON-TOLOSA, !" #$% &'!o(

GINO BAYHON, ) (%*(%)%!#%"

$%(%'! + $') !#( &o#$%(

) /("'!-"-'#%&, JESSITA -romug!tedM. BAYHON,

Respondents$ B 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 B

D E C I S I O N

PNO, C.J.

*t b!r is ! -etition "or Re;ie< on &ertior!ri !ss!iing the Decision o" the&ourt o" *ppe!s d!ted September 6(, :99@6!nd Resoution denying the

petitioners motion "or reconsider!tion issued on .!nu!ry (, :99($

%his is ! consoid!ted c!se stemming "rom tR%&? P &i;i &!se No$ Q3793K96: !nd &i;i &!se No$ Q3793K@@6$
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn1


58/107

C'2' C)% No. -40-701

On October 68, 6779, respondents 'enj!min M$ '!yhon, Me!nie '!yhon,'enj!min '!yhon .r$, 'rend! '!yhon, *in! '!yhon3&!mpos, Irene '!yhon3

%oos! !nd the minor Gino '!yhon, !s represented by his mother .esusit! M$'!yhon, "ied !n !ction be"ore the R%&, Queon &ity, 'r!nch K(, doc#eted !s &i;i&!se No$ Q3793K96:$ In their &omp!int, respondents sought the dec!r!tion o"nuity o" ! dacion en pago!egedy eBecuted by respondent 'enj!min '!yhon in"!;or o" petitioner Wii!m Ong Gen!to$:

Respondent 'enj!min '!yhon !eged th!t on .uy ), 6787, he obt!ined"rom the petitioner ! o!n !mounting to -h- 6,999,999$99C )th!t to co;er the o!n,he eBecuted ! Deed o" Re! Est!te Mortg!ge o;er the property co;ered by %r!ns"er

&erti"ic!te o" %ite >%&%? No$ )89@:C th!t, ho


59/107

respondent "!ied to p!y the o!n !nd eBecuted on October :6, 6787 ! dacion enpagoin "!;or o" the petitioner$ %he dacion en pago

-etitioner "urther !;erred th!t despite dem!nds, respondent re"used toeBecute the re=uisite documents to tr!ns"er to him the o
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftn17


60/107


61/107

We !""irm the ruing o" the !ppe!te court th!t the subject dacion en pagois! simu!ted or "ictitious contr!ct, !nd hence ;oid$ %he e;idence shoWe no< go to the ruing o" the !ppe!te court eBtinguishing the obig!tion

o" respondent$ *s ! gener! rue, obig!tions deri;ed "rom ! contr!ct !re

tr!nsmissibe$ *rtice 6)66, p!r$6 o" the &i;i &ode pro;ides

&ontr!cts t!#e e""ect ony bet


62/107

tr!nsition is m!r#ed by the dis!ppe!r!nce o" the imprisonment "or debt$:8>Emph!sis suppied?

%he o!n in this c!se

represented by the heirs o" the dece!sed,

the est!te o" the dece!sed respondent$

We no< go to the interest !

d!te o" eBtr!judici! dem!nd$)6

Foo


63/107

@@,999$99 :9,999$99 87K,6)9$99 -us Interest

>6: per !nnum B :9 ye!rs? :,6@),@@:$99

%O%*+ -hp ),9@9,(8:$99

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision o" the &ourt o" *ppe!s d!ted

September 6(, :99@ is *FFIRMED


64/107

LCAS P. BERSAMIN

*ssoci!te .ustice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

-ursu!nt to Section 6), *rtice /III o" the &onstitution, I certi"y th!t theconcusions in the !bo;e decision h!d been re!ched in consut!tion be"ore the c!se

REYNATO S. PNO

&hie" .ustice


65/107

6&* G$R$3&/ No$ ()(:(,Benjamin M. Bayhon, Melanie Bayhon, Benjamin Bayhon, Jr., Brenda Bayhon, linaBayhon!Campos, Irene Bayhon!"olosa, and the minor #ino Bayhon, represented herein by his natural mother as

guardian!ad!litem, Jesusita M. Bayhon $. %illiam &ng #enatoC penned by *ssoci!te .ustice /icente Q$ RoB!s !ndconcurred in by *ssoci!te .ustices -orti! *iUo3Horm!chueos !nd .u!n Q$ Enri=ue, .r$:Origin! Records, pp$ 637$)Id.,pp$ )3L$LId.,p$ L$@Design!ted !s +R& &!se No$ Q367@K$(Origin! Records, p$ L$KId.,p$ @$
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/171035.htm#_ftnref7


66/107


$anila

8IRS3 DIVISION

G.R. No. #/4115 u)e 1, 196

RO$A#IO BONI##A Ha 8)or $A#A+ION BONI##A Ha 8)or a)* "ON+IANO BONI##A H;e8r7a;er C;o re:re=e)= ;e 8)or=, petitioners(vs,#!ON BAR+!NA, &AJI&A ARIA$ BA##!NA, !$"!RAN(A BAR+!NA, &ANU!# BAR+!NA,AGU$TINA N!RI, C8*oC o7 U#IAN TA&AO a)* ON. #!O"O#%O GIRON!##A o7 ;e +ouro7 F8r= I)=a)e o7 Abra,respondents.

ederico #aredes for petitioners.

&emetrio =. #re for private respondents.

&ARTIN, J:

3his is a petition for review 1of the Order of the Court of 8irst Instance of #2ra in Civil Case No, -56(entitled 8ortunata Barcena vs, eon Barcena( et al,( den%in/ the .otions for reconsideration of itsorder dis.issin/ the co.plaint in the afore.entioned case,

On $arch &!( !1>5 8ortunata Barcena( .other of .inors Rosalio Bonilla and Salvacion Bonilla andwife of ;onciano Bonilla( instituted a civil action in the Court of 8irst Instance of #2ra( to =uiet title

over certain parcels of land located in #2ra,

On $a% 1( !1>5( defendants filed a written .otion to dis.iss the co.plaint( 2ut 2efore the hearin/ ofthe .otion to dis.iss( the counsel for the plaintiff .oved to a.end the co.plaint in order to includecertain alle/ations therein, 3he .otion to a.end the co.plaint was /ranted and on Aul% !>( !1>5(plaintiffs filed their a.ended co.plaint,

On #u/ust 4( !1>5( the defendants filed another .otion to dis.iss the co.plaint on the /round that8ortunata Barcena is dead and( therefore( has no le/al capacit% to sue, Said .otion to dis.iss washeard on #u/ust !4( !1>5, In said hearin/( counsel for the plaintiff confir.ed the death of 8ortunataBarcena( and asked for su2stitution 2% her .inor children and her hus2and( the petitioners herein2ut the court after the hearin/ i..ediatel% dis.issed the case on the /round that a dead person

cannot 2e a real part% in interest and has no le/al personalit% to sue,

On #u/ust !1( !1>5( counsel for the plaintiff received a cop% of the order dis.issin/ the co.plaintand on #u/ust )&( !1>5( he .oved to set aside the order of the dis.issal pursuant to Sections !6and !> of Rule & of the Rules of Court, 2

On #u/ust )-( !1>5( the court denied the .otion for reconsideration filed 2% counsel for the plaintifffor lack of .erit, On Septe.2er !( !1>5( counsel for deceased plaintiff filed a written .anifestationpra%in/ that the .inors Rosalio Bonilla and Salvacion Bonilla 2e allowed to su2stitute their deceased


67/107

.other( 2ut the court denied the counsels pra%er for lack of .erit, 8ro. the order( counsel for thedeceased plaintiff filed a second .otion for reconsideration of the order dis.issin/ the co.plaintclai.in/ that the sa.e is in violation of Sections !6 and !> of Rule & of the Rules of Court 2ut thesa.e was denied,

?ence( this petition for review,

3he Court reverses the respondent Court and sets aside its order dis.issin/ the co.plaint in CivilCase No, -56 and its orders den%in/ the .otion for reconsideration of said order of dis.issal, Hhileit is true that a person who is dead cannot sue in court( %et he can 2e su2stituted 2% his heirs inpursuin/ the case up to its co.pletion, 3he records of this case show that the death of 8ortunataBarcena took place on Aul% 1( !1>5 while the co.plaint was filed on $arch &!( !1>5, 3his .eansthat when the co.plaint was filed on $arch &!( !1>5( 8ortunata Barcena was still alive( andtherefore( the court had ac=uired urisdiction over her person, If thereafter she died( the Rules ofCourt prescri2es the procedure where2% a part% who died durin/ the pendenc% of the proceedin/can 2e su2stituted, nder Section !6( Rule & of the Rules of Court Pwhenever a part% to a pendin/case dies ,,, it shall 2e the dut% of his attorne% to infor. the court pro.ptl% of such death ,,, and to/ive the na.e and residence of his e5 and asked for the proper su2stitutionof parties in the case, 3he respondent Court( however( instead of allowin/ the su2stitution(dis.issed the co.plaint on the /round that a dead person has no le/al personalit% to sue, 3his is a/rave error, #rticle >>> of the Civil Code provides Pthat the ri/hts to the succession are trans.ittedfro. the .o.ent of the death of the decedent,P 8ro. the .o.ent of the death of the decedent( theheirs 2eco.e the a2solute owners of his propert%( su2ect to the ri/hts and o2li/ations of thedecedent( and the% cannot 2e deprived of their ri/hts thereto e


68/107

su2stituted for her 2ut also su//ested that their uncle 2e appointed as /uardian ad litemfor the.2ecause their father is 2us% in $anila earnin/ a livin/ for the fa.il%, But the respondent Courtrefused the re=uest for su2stitution on the /round that the children were still .inors and cannot suein court, 3his is another /rave error 2ecause the respondent Court ou/ht to have known that underthe sa.e Section !>( Rule & of the Rules of Court( the court is directed to appoint a /uardian adlitemfor the .inor heirs, ;recisel% in the instant case( the counsel for the deceased plaintiff has

su//ested to the respondent Court that the uncle of the .inors 2e appointed to act as /uardian adlitemfor the., n=uestiona2l%( the respondent Court has /ravel% a2used its discretion in notco.pl%in/ with the clear provision of the Rules of Court in dis.issin/ the co.plaint of the plaintiff inCivil Case No, -56 and refusin/ the su2stitution of parties in the case,

IN VIEH O8 3?E 8ORE+OIN+( the order of the respondent Court dis.issin/ the co.plaint in CivilCase No, -56 of the Court of 8irst Instance of #2ra and the .otions for reconsideration of the orderof dis.issal of said co.plaint are set aside and the respondent Court is here2% directed to allow thesu2stitution of the .inor children( who are the petitioners therein for the deceased plaintiff and toappoint a =ualified person as /uardian ad litemfor the., Hithout pronounce.ent as to costs,

SO ORDERED,

2eehankee /!hairman0) 1akasiar) $sguerra and 1uEoz #alma) 44.) concur.

Foo)oe=

! Hhich this Court treats as special civil action as per its Resolution dated 8e2ruar%!!( !1>6,

) Section !6, &ut" of Attorne" upon which death) incapacit" or incompetenc" ofpart", * Hhenever a part% to a pendin/ case dies( 2eco.es incapacitated orinco.petent( it shall 2e the dut% of his attorne% to infor. the court pro.ptl% of suchdeath( incapacit% or inco.petenc%( and to /ive the na.e and residence of his

e, &eath of part".F#fter a part% dies and the clai. is not there2%e


69/107

6 Iron +ate Bank vs, Brad%( !-4 ,S, 665( )) SC3 5)1( 46 , ed, >&1,

> Hen2er vs, St, ;aul Cit% Co,( 1> 8e2, !4' R, &1 C,C,#, >1,


70/107

EN BANC

[G. R. No. 4275. $)r(: 23, 19;9.]

A+LA CN%E, Plaintif-Appellee, v*. R$AN ABA&A, Deendant-Appellant.

% E C S N

ARELLAN, C.J.:

From the hearing of the appeal interposed by Roman Abaya in the specialproceedings brought in the Court of First Instance of La Laguna for the settlement ofthe intestate estate and the distribution of the property of Casiano Abaya itappears2chanrobles1irtualalibrary

I. As antecedents2 chanrobles 1irtualalibrarythat Casiano Abaya, unmarried, the son of RomualdoAbaya and Sabina Labadia, died on the Hth of April >))= that $aula Conde, as themother of the natural children Jose and eopista Conde, hom she states she hadby Casiano Abaya, on the Hth of %o1ember, >)D?, mo1ed the settlement of the said

intestate succession= that an administrator ha1ing been appointed for the saidestate on the (?th of %o1ember, >)D?, Roman Abaya, a son of the said RomualdoAbaya and Sabina Labadia, the parents of the late Casiano Abaya, came forardand opposed said appointment and claimed it for himself as being the nearestrelati1e of the deceased= that this as granted by the court belo on the )th of

January, >)DH= that on the >Kth of %o1ember, >)DH, Roman Abaya mo1ed that, afterdue process of la, the court declare him to be the sole heir of Casiano Abaya, tothe e;clusion of all other persons, especially of $aula Conde, and to be thereforeentitled to ta:e possession of all the property of said estate, and that it bead5udicated to him= and that on %o1ember ((, >)DH, the court ordered thepublication of notices for the declaration of heirs and distribution of the property ofthe estate.

II. hat on the (th of %o1ember, >)DH, $aula Conde, in reply to theforegoing motion of Roman Abaya, -led a petition herein she stated that sheac:noledged the relationship alleged by Roman Abaya, but that she consideredthat her right as superior to his and mo1ed for a hearing of the matter, and, inconse


71/107

>. he fact that the court belo found that an ordinary action for theac:noledgment of natural children under articles >*? and >*K of the Ci1il Code,might be brought in special probate proceedings.

(. he -nding that after the death of a person claimed to be anunac:noledged natural child, the mother of such presumed natural child, as heir to

the latter, may bring an action to enforce the ac:noledgment of her deceasedchild in accordance ith articles >*? and >*K of the Ci1il Code.

*. he -nding in the 5udgment that the alleged continuous possession of thedeceased children of $aula Conde of the status of natural children of the lateCasiano Abaya, has been fully pro1en in these proceedings= and

G. 6n the hypothesis that it as proper to ad5udicate the property of thisintestate estate to $aula Conde, as improperly found by the court belo, the courterred in not ha1ing declared that said property should be reser1ed in fa1or ofrelati1es of Casiano Abaya to the third degree, and in not ha1ing pre1iouslydemanded securities from $aula Conde to guarantee the transmission of theproperty to those ho might fall ithin the reser1ation.

As to the -rst error assigned, the


72/107

3In resol1ing a similar *? and >*K, Ci1il Code. Nol. I.+ crala0

he abo1e doctrine, ad1anced by one of the most eminent commentators of theCi1il Code, lac:s legal and doctrinal foundation. he poer to transmit the right ofsuch action by the natural child to his descendants cannot be sustained under thela, and still less to his mother.

It is ithout any support in la because the rule laid don in the code is mostpositi1e, limiting in form, hen establishing the e;ception for the e;ercise of suchright of action after the death of the presumed parents, as is shon hereafter. It isnot supported by any doctrine, because up to the present time no argument hasbeen presented, upon hich e1en an appro;imate conclusion could be based.

Although the Ci1il Code considerably impro1ed the condition of recognized naturalchildren, granting them rights and actions that they did not possess under theformer las, they ere not, hoe1er, placed upon the same plane as legitimateones. he di/erence that separates these to classes of children is still great, aspro1en by so many articles dealing ith the rights of the family and ith successionin relation to the members thereof. It may be laid don as a legal ma;im, that

hate1er the code does not grant to the legitimate children, or in connection iththeir rights, must still less be understood as granted to recognized natural childrenor in connection ith their rights. here is not a single e;ception in its pro1isions.

If legitimacy is the attribute that constitutes the basis of the absolute family rightsof the child, the ac:noledgment of the natural child is, among illegitimate ones,that hich unites him to the family of the father or the mother ho recognizes him,and a/ords him a participation in the rights of the family, relati1ely ad1antageousaccording to hether they are alone or hether they concur ith other indi1idualsof the family of his purely natural father or mother.

hus, in order to consider the spirit of the Ci1il Code nothing is more logical than toestablish a comparison beteen an action to claim the legitimacy, and one to

enforce ac:noledgment.3Art. >>. he action to claim its legitimacy may be brought by the child atany time of its lifetime and shall be transmitted to its heirs, should it die duringminority or in a state of insanity. In such cases the heirs shall be alloed a period of-1e years in hich to institute the action.

3he action already instituted by the child is transmitted by its death to the heirs, ifit has not lapsed before then.


73/107

3Art. >*K. he actions for the ac:noledgment of natural children can beinstituted only during the life of the presumed parents, e;cept in the folloingcases2chanrobles 1irtualalibrary

3>. If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in hich casethe latter may institute the action before the e;piration of the -rst four years of its

ma5ority.3(. If, after the death of the father or mother, some instrument, beforeun:non, should be disco1ered in hich the child is e;pressly ac:noledged.

3In this case the action must be instituted ithin the si; months folloing thedisco1ery of such instrument. B

6n this supposition the -rst di/erence that results beteen one action and theother consists in that the right of action for legitimacy lasts during the holelifetime of the child, that is, it can alays be brought against the presumed parentsor their heirs by the child itself, hile the right of action for the ac:noledgment ofa natural child does not last his hole lifetime, and, as a general rule, it cannot beinstituted against the heirs of the presumed parents, inasmuch as it can be

e;ercised only during the life of the presumed parents.

ith regard to the


74/107

legitimacy from his predecessor is not e;pressly, independently, or, as a generalrule, conceded to the heirs of the legitimate child, but only relati1ely and as ane;ception. Conse


75/107

simple reason that for the heirs of the legitimate child, the said article >> e;ists,hile for those of the natural child, as e ha1e said, there is no pro1ision in thecode authorizing the same, although on the other hand there is none that prohibitsit. B #Nol. N.+ crala

iaz Mui5arro and 7artinez Ruiz in their or: on 3he Ci1il Code as construed by the

supreme court of Spain,B commenting upon article >*K, say2chanrobles 1irtualalibrary

3Article >>, ta:ing into account the pri1ileges due to the legitimacy of children,grants them the right to claim said legitimacy during their lifetime, and e1enauthorizes the transmission of said right for the space of -1e years to the heirsthereof, if the child die during his minority or in a state of insanity. ut as article >*Kis based on the consideration that in the case of a natural child, ties are less strongand sacred in the eyes of the la, it does not -; such a long and inde-nite periodfor the e;ercise of the action= it limits it to the life of the parents, e;cepting in theto cases mentioned in said article= and it does not allo, as does article >>, theaction to pass on to the heirs, inasmuch as, although it does not prohibit it, and forthat reason it might be deemed on general principles of la to consent to it, such asupposition is inadmissible for the reason that a comparison of both articles shos

that the silence of the la in the latter case is not, nor can it be, an omission, but adeliberate intent to establish a ide di/erence beteen the ad1antages granted toa legitimate child and to a natural one. B

#Ibid., Nol. II, >K>.+ crala

%a1arro Amandi #Cuestionario del Codigo Ci1il+ raises the *, >GG+ thatthe right of in1estigation forms a part of the estate of the child, and along ith hispatrimony is transmitted to his heirs. he aErmation is altogether too categorical to

be admissible. If it ere correct the same thing ould happen as hen thelegitimacy of a child is claimed, and as already seen, the right of action to demandthe legitimacy is not transmitted to the heirs in e1ery case and as an absolute right,but under certain limitations and circumstances. %o, ere e to admit thedoctrine of the court of Rennes, the result ould be that the claim for natural-liation ould be more fa1ored than one for legitimate -liation. his ould beabsurd, because it cannot be concei1ed that the legislator should ha1e granted aright of action to the heirs of the natural child, hich is only granted under greatlimitations and in 1ery fe cases to those of a legitimate one. Some persons insistthat the same rules that go1ern legitimate -liation apply by analogy to natural-liation, and that in this conception the heirs of the natural child are entitled toclaim it in the cases prescribed by article >>. he ma5ority, hoe1er, are inclined to

consider the right to claim ac:noledgment as a personal right, and conse> concedes to the heirs of the legitimate child.

he e;istence of a pro1ision for the one case and the absence thereof for the otheris a conclusi1e argument that inclusio unius est e;clusio alterius, and it cannot be


76/107

understood that the pro1ision of la should be the same hen the same reasondoes not hold in the one case as in the other.

he theory of the la of transmission is also entirely inapplicable in this case. histheory, hich in the Roman La e;pressed the general rule that an heir ho did notaccept an inheritance during his lifetime as incapacitated from transmitting it to

his on heirs, included at the same time the idea that if the inheritance as nottransmitted because the heir did not possess it, there ere, hoe1er, certain thingshich the heir held and could transmit. Such as the la and the right to accept theinheritance, for the e;isting reason that all rights, both real and personal, shall passto the heir= *K,such right, hich is a portion of his inheritance, is transmitted to his mother asbeing his heir, and it as so understood by the court of Rennes hen it considered

the right in > of the code. So that, in order that it may constitute aportion of the child0s inheritance, it is necessary that the conditions and the terms

contained in article >> shall be present, since ithout them, the right that the childheld during his lifetime, being personal and e;clusi1e in principle, and therefore, asa general rule not susceptible of transmission, ould and should ha1e beene;tinguished by his death. herefore, here no e;press pro1ision li:e that of article>> e;ists, the right of action for the ac:noledgment of a natural child is, inprinciple and ithout e;ception, e;tinguished by his death, and cannot betransmitted as a portion of the inheritance of the deceased child.

6n the other hand, it said right of action formed a part of the child0s inheritance, itould be necessary to establish the doctrine that the right to claim such anac:noledgment from the presumed natural father and from his heirs is an absoluteright of the heirs of the child, not limited by certain circumstances as in the case of

the heirs of a legitimate child= and if it is unreasonable to compare a natural childith a legitimate one to place the heirs of a natural child and his inheritance on abetter footing than those of a legitimate child ould not only be unreasonable, but,as stated in one of the abo1e citations, most absurd and illegal in the present stateof the la and in accordance ith the general principles thereof.

For all of the foregoing reasons e hereby re1erse the 5udgment appealed from inall its parts, ithout any special ruling as to the costs of this instance.

$)), o:0*o0, C)r*o0 )0'


77/107

Se)r)e /0/o0*

TORRES, J., dissenting: chanrobles irt!ala"librar#

he *K of the Ci1il Code, threepoints must be decided2 chanrobles 1irtualalibrary#>+ Against hom shall an action for ac:noledgment bebrought under the cases and terms to hich the to e;ceptions indicated inparagraphs > and ( of article >*K referO #(+ ho is to represent the miner in


78/107

bringing this action hen neither the father nor the mother has ac:noledged himO#*+ Should this right of action be considered as transmitted to the heirs ordescendants of the natural child hether or not it as e;ercised at the time of hisdeathO

3ith respect to the third, there is an entire absence of legal pro1isions, and at

most, it might be deemed admissible as a solution, that the right of action to claimthe ac:noledgment of a natural child is transmitted by analogy to his heirs on thesame conditions and terms that it is transmitted to the descendants of thelegitimate child, to claim his legitimacy, under article >>, but no more= because onthis point nothing arrants placing the heirs of a natural child on a better footingthan those of the legitimate child, and e1en to compare them ould not fail to be astrained and > e;ists, hile for those of the natural child, as e ha1e said, there is no pro1isionin the code authorizing the same, although on the other hand there is none thatprohibits it. B

Certainly there is no article in the Ci1il Code, or any special la that bars the

transmission to the heirs of a natural child, particularly to his natural mother, of theright of action to claim the ac:noledgment of said natural child from the heirs ofhis deceased natural father.

According to the abo1e'cited article )GG of the Ci1il Code, the only personsdesignated to succeed to the intestate estate of a natural child ho died duringminority or ithout issue are its natural father or mother ho ac:noledged it=conse*H, Ci1il Code.+ crala

At the death of the children, eopista in >)D(, and Jose in >)D*, during theirminority, and after the death of their natural father hich too: place in >)), thenatural mother of the said minors, $aula Conde, succeeded them in all of theirproperty and rights, among hich must necessarily appear and be included theright of action to claim the ac:noledgment of said to children from the heirs ofIcasiano Abaya, their deceased natural father. here is no legal pro1ision or precepthate1er e;cluding such right from those hich, by operation of the la, eretransmitted to the mother, $aula Conde, or e;pressly declaring that the said right toclaim such ac:noledgment is e;tinguished by the death of the natural children.

It is true that, as a general rule, an action for ac:noledgment cannot be broughtby a sur1i1ing natural child after the death of his parents, e;cept in the e1ent thathe as a minor at the time of the death of either of his parents, as as the caseith the minors eopista and Jose Conde, ho, if li1ing, ould un


79/107

successor to the rights of said minors, is entitled to e;ercise the correspondingaction for ac:noledgment.

If the natural mother had no right of action against the heirs of the natural father,for the ac:noledgment of her natural child, the unlimited and unconditionalreciprocity established by article GH of the code ould neither be true nor correct.

It should be noticed that the relation of paternity and that of -liation beteen theabo1e'mentioned father and children are both natural in character= therefore, theintestate succession of the said children of $aula Conde is go1erned e;clusi1ely byarticles )GG and )G? of the said code.

It is true that nothing is pro1ided by article >*K ith reference to the transmissionto the natural mother of the right to claim the ac:noledgment of her naturalchildren, but, as Sanchez Roman says, it does not e;pressly prohibit it= and asopposed to the silence of the said article, e -nd the pro1isions of articles GH and)GG of the Ci1il code, hich e;pressly recognized the right of the natural mother tosucceed her natural child, a right hich is transmitted to her by operation of lafrom the moment that the child ceases to e;ist.

he > of the code, nor is it claimed that the rights of naturalchildren and of their mother are e


80/107


$anila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 13292 $e:eber 1, 2010

&!&ORA+ION (. +RU(, re:re=e)e* by !%GAR%O (. +RU(,;etitioner(vs,O$>A#%O (. +RU(,Respondent,

D E C I S I O N

+AR"IO, J.:

T;e +a=e

3his is a petition for review!of the Court of #ppeals0 C# Decision)dated )' Dece.2er )''5 andResolution da

Documents

Union Bank - NHA (Cases)