Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > November 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2697 November 27, 1906 - JUSTIANO MENDIOLA v. CLAUDIA MENDIOLA

007 Phil 71:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2697. November 27, 1906. ]

JUSTIANO MENDIOLA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLAUDIA MENDIOLA, Defendant-Appellant.

Ledesma Sumulong & Quintos, for Appellant.

F. E. Green and A. D. Gibbs, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


REALTY; PARTITION. — Where prior to the adoption of the present Code of Civil Procedure a contract of partition has in fact been made by all the persons interested in the estate of a deceased person, such persons interested being of full age and of capacity to contract, no further proceedings can be had for the judicial settlement and administration of that property until the contract of partition has been set aside in an ordinary action brought for that purpose.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


Mariano Lamberto died in Tacloban in the Province of Leyte on the 9th day of April, 1889, leaving surviving him his widow, the defendant and appellant, Claudia Mendiola, and his mother as his only heirs. In his will he stated that all the property of which he died possessed had been acquired during his marriage with the appellant and belonged to the conjugal partnership. He left two-thirds of his estate to his mother and an interest in the other third to Justiniano Mendiola, his stepson, the son of the defendant. Voluntary proceedings were commenced in the Court of First Instance of Leyte for a settlement of the estate in accordance with the provisions of the Law of Civil Procedure then in force. While such proceedings were pending, and on the 6th of November, 1889, the defendant and appellant, the mother, Silveria Melendres, and Justiniano Mendiola, the stepson, made an agreement which appears in a notarial document by which they abandoned the proceeding in the Court of First Instance, settled the estate and divided the property among themselves. By the terms of this agreement, the appellant took possession of all the property, agreeing to pay the debts, and agreed, to, and did, pay in the act of execution of the document to the mother, Silveria Melendres, 2,400 pesos, and to Justiniano Mendiola 1,200 pesos. Ever since that the time the appellant has been in possession of the property and has paid all the debts of the deceased and on the conjugal partnership. It will be noticed that she was in her own right the owner of one- half of the property, subject to the payment of such debts.

On the 25th of April, 1904, nearly fifteen after this settlement, Justiniano Mendiola and Juliana Lamberto, the daughter of Silveria Melendres, presented a petition to the Court of First Instance of Leyte asking that the will of Mariano Lamberto be proved and allowed and that an administrator be appointed to administer the estate of the deceased. Claudia Mendiola appeared and opposed the probate of the will on the ground that the estate had been completely settled and a partition of the property belonging thereto had been made fifteen years before. The court below granted the prayer of the petition and appointed in administrator. From this order Claudia Mendiola has appealed.

Nearly all the evidence in the case and nearly all of the opinion of the court below is devoted to a consideration of the validity of the partition made in 1889. That was practically the only question discussed and determined by the court below, the petitioners and appellees claiming that this partition had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentations on the part of the appellant as to the value of the property left by her husband and as to the debts existing against his estate.

We do not find it necessary to consider the evidence adduced on the question of fraud, nor the findings made by the court below in relation thereto, for we are of the opinion that when it appeared to that court that there had been partition of the property made by heirs, all of whom were of age, that he should have dismissed the proceedings, leaving the parties of litigate the question as to the validity of that contract of partition in an ordinary action brought for that purpose. The proceeding commenced in the Court of First Instance of Leyte in 1889 was a voluntary proceeding. Article 1030 of the Spanish Law of Civil Procedure provided as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The interested parties may at any stage of the voluntary probate proceedings, terminate them and adopt such measures as they may deem proper.

"For this purpose, beside the heirs and legatees, the creditors who may have instituted the action and the surviving member of the marriage community shall be considered as interested parties.

"If they pray for such termination by common consent the judge shall order the proceedings terminated and shall place the property at the disposition of the heirs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The contract made by the parties in this case states expressly that they abandoned the voluntary proceedings.

The contract contains, moreover the following clause:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Seventh. As a consequence of the foregoing clause, Silveria Melendres and Justiniano Lamberto do hereby solemnly declare themselves to be entirely satisfied with their share of the state and waive whatever right they may have to the property of the estate, and by these presents undertake in the most solemn manner not to make any claim in future in respect to the said property, and hereby convey to Claudia Mendiola whatever property, interest, or rights they may have in the estate of the deceased, she, in turn, agreeing to pay all the debts of the estate as well as all the legacies and bequeathments provided for in the will of the deceased."cralaw virtua1aw library

When neither minors nor creditors were interested in the settlement of an estate, no action of the court was necessary, in accordance with the law existing here in prior to American occupation. Everything was in the hands of the heirs and legatees and they could dispose of the property as they saw fit. Article 1058 of the Civil Code is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Should the testator not have made any division, nor intrusted this power to another, if the heirs should be of age should have the free administration of their property, they may distribute the estate in the manner they may see fit."cralaw virtua1aw library

Where the parties in fact signed an agreement of partition was in the fact made in accordance with that agreement, all proceedings in court for the settlement of the estate of the deceased person were ended. The rights of the parties to the property involved could no longer be discussed nor determined in that proceeding. If it were claimed that the partition was brought about by fraud or that it was void for any other reason, such claims necessarily had to be presented in an ordinary action brought for the purpose of setting aside the partition.

Limiting ourselves to this precise case, we hold that where prior to the adoption of the present Code of Civil Procedure a contract of partition has in fact been made by all the persons interested in the estate of a deceased person, such persons interested being of full age and capacity to contract, no further proceedings can be had for the judicial settlement and administration of that property until the contract of partition has been set aside in an ordinary action brought for the purpose, and that in this case, when it was made to appear to the court below that such a contract of partition had in fact been signed by the petitioners of their grantors, the court should have dismissed the petition.

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss the petition, with costs to the appellant, Claudia Mendiola. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court. After the expiration of twenty days, let judgment be entered accordingly, and ten days thereafter the case be returned to the lower court for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., did not sit in this case.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2127 November 1, 1906 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 2146 November 1, 1906 - MANUEL TESTAGORDA FIGUERAS v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 2970 November 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CRAME

    006 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. 2189 November 3, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BAUTISTA

    006 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. 2791 November 5, 1906 - CATALINO NICOLAS v. MARIA JOSE

    006 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 1794 November 6, 1906 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    006 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 1935 November 6, 1906 - CLARA ALFONSO BUENAVENTURA v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 2731 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHAUNCEY MCGOVERN

    006 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 2783 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO PARCON

    006 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 3294 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SERRANO

    006 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 2686 November 8, 1906 - C. HEINSZEN & CO. v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO.

    006 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 3082 November 8, 1906 - RAMONA TARROSA v. P. A. PEARSON

    006 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 2384 November 9, 1906 - In re DOMINADOR GOMEZ

    006 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. 2903 November 9, 1906 - ESTEFANIA VILLAR v. CITY OF MANILA

    006 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 1326 November 10, 1906 - FELIX FANLO AZNAR v. RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ

    006 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. 2556 November 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SOFIO OPINION

    006 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 2968 November 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANGELO VINCO

    006 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 3309 November 10, 1906 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. A. A. MONTAGNE

    006 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 3270 November 12, 1906 - LUISA RAMOS v. CARLOS VARANDA

    006 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 2095 November 13, 1906 - MARIA ADELA v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE

    006 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 3182 November 13, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE SOLIS

    006 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 2101 November 15, 1906 - ELEANOR ERICA STRONG v. FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE

    006 Phil 680

  • G.R. No. 2892 November 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX ORTEGA

    006 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. L-2834 November 21, 1906 - JUAN AZARRAGA v. ANDREA CORTES

    009 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 2394 November 22, 1906 - KER & CO. v. A. R. CAUDEN

    006 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 3106 November 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE PAUA

    006 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 3387 November 22, 1906 - T. SUGO v. GEORGE GREEN

    006 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. 3388 November 22, 1906 - TATSUSABURO YEGAWA v. GEORGE GREEN

    006 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2563 November 23, 1906 - RICARDO NOLAN v. ANTONIO SALAS

    007 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-2897 November 23, 1906 - PEDRO MAGUYON v. MARCELINO AGRA

    007 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2958 November 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BRAULIO TUPULAR

    007 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-3025 November 23, 1906 - SI-BOCO v. YAP TENG

    007 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-3393 November 23, 1906 - CLEMENTE GOCHUICO v. MANUEL OCAMPO

    007 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-2017 November 24, 1906 - MUNICIPALITY OF OAS v. BARTOLOME ROA

    007 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. L-2408 November 24, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSEPH J. CAPURRO, ET AL.

    007 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-2644 November 24, 1906 - DENNIS J. DOUGHERTY v. JOSE EVANGELISTA

    007 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. L-2832 November 24, 1906 - REV. JORGE BARLIN v. P. VICENTE RAMIREZ

    007 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-2842 November 24, 1906 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL. v. LEONARDO SANTOS

    007 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-2697 November 27, 1906 - JUSTIANO MENDIOLA v. CLAUDIA MENDIOLA

    007 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. L-2835 November 27, 1906 - FELICIANO ALFONSO v. RAMON LAGDAMEO

    007 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-2498 November 28, 1906 - MARCELO TIGLAO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    007 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2914 November 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO GAVIRA

    007 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2638 November 30, 1906 - AGATONA TUASON v. IGNACIA USON

    007 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-3378 November 30, 1906 - JOSE CASTAÑO v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER

    007 Phil 91