Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > December 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4190 December 17, 1908 - IN RE: JOSE MA. CEBALLOS

012 Phil 271:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4190. December 17, 1908. ]

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSE MA. CEBALLOS, deceased. — ANGEL ORTIZ, Appellant.

Chicote & Miranda, and Rafael de la Sierra, for Appellant.

Manly & McMahon, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ESTATES; SALE; REDEMPTION; PARTIES TO ESTATE PROCEEDINGS. — Upon the dissolution of a partnership, two haciendas were awarded to one of the partners, now deceased. His widow had an interest in the property, which was sold by the sheriff under an execution issued upon a judgment against her in favor of the purchaser, the present Appellant. The certificate purported to convey the land and all rights and interests whatsoever of the widow. Appellant claims that he is consequently entitled to appear as owner in the accounting and in all other proceedings relative to the estate and to exclude the widow from all participation therein: Held, That, as to the real estate, at least, the widow retained the right of redemption which gave a standing in the estate proceedings; that, for the statutory period, she was entitled to remain in any possession she may have had of the realty sold, and might defeat the sale by redemption at any time during such period, and that the existence of the right of redemption was sufficient to prevent an entire subrogation.

2. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; MOOT CASES; JURISDICTION. — It is a rule of almost universal application that courts of justice, constituted to pass upon substantial rights, will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases.


D E C I S I O N


TRACEY, J. :


This is an appeal from two orders of the Court of First Instance of Albay, both dated April 8, 1907, in the matter of the testamentary estate of Don Jose Maria Ceballos, deceased.

After the dissolution of the partnership of Sanchez-Ceballos, the heirs of Sanchez were awarded the haciendas of Bonga and Basag in Ligao, in the Province of Albay, and the heirs of Ceballos the haciendas of La Trinidad and Pilar in Sorsogon. Doña Matilde Aramburu, as widow of the deceased partner, Don Jose Maria Ceballos y Muñoz de Bustillo, had an interest in the property assigned to his estate, which was sold by the deputy sheriff of Albay under an execution issued on a judgment against her in favor of Don Angel Ortiz and bought in by him. The sheriff’s certificate purported to convey not only the real estate but all the shares, action, or interest of any kind which Doña Matilde might have in any of the goods or actions forming part of the estate of her deceased husband, including; usufructuary and conjugal rights. The purchaser claims that by virtue of this sale he is entitled not only to appear as the owner of this property in the accounting and in other proceedings relating to the estate, but also to exclude the widow from further participation therein. She had appealed from the order confirming the partition and the first order of April 8, 1907, made by Judge Gilbert, denied a motion of Don Angel Ortiz that her appeal be disallowed; that she be declared to have no interest in the pending proceedings, and that Don Angel Ortiz be adjudged subrogated to all her rights in the estate.

The second order of the same date permitted the appeal of Doña Matilde.

The appellant assigned three errors corresponding with the prayer of his motion:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That the judge erred in allowing the appeal of the widow from the order of partition, but it appears in the case that that appeal has since been abandoned and in concluding their presentation of this point the appellant’s counsel say:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Now, however, the question referring to this appeal allowed Doña Matilde has lost its importance. Inasmuch as she has not perfected it, has abandoned it, and the court dismissed it in the February term, there remains the question of law involved requiring a determination by the Supreme Court in order that it may serve as a guide in similar cases."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is a rule of almost universal application that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases.

Second. That the judge erred in not declaring that Doña Matilde Aramburu had no further interest in the estate.

Passing over the obvious doubts as to the regularity of the sheriff ’s sale and the procedure thereat, it is plain that in the real estate at least the widow retained a right of redemption from the execution sale which gave her a standing in the estate proceedings. She was entitled to remain in any possession which she may have had of the real estate sold, for the statutory term of twelve months, and she might at any time defeat the sale by a proper redemption within that period. (Secs. 463 and 464, Code of Civil Procedure; De la Rosa v. Santos, 10 Phil. Rep., 148.) Moreover, even before the Code of Civil Procedure the creditor was not clothed with such rights of his debtor as were inherent in the person (art. 1111, Civil Code), and in this case her strictly personal rights would have alone entitled her to a representation in the estate proceedings.

Third. That the court erred in not declaring the purchaser subrogated to the rights of Doña Matilde Aramburu in the estate.

Even if it were proper in proceedings for the settlement of an estate to make such a declaration in favor of a third person, the existence of the right of redemption heretofore noticed would suffice to prevent an entire subrogation.

In none of the respects alleged did the Court of First Instance commit error and its order of April 8, denying the motion of Don Angel Ortiz is hereby affirmed, and his appeal therefrom is dismissed, with the costs of this instance. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Carson, 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






December-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 3391 December 1, 1908 - JUAN N. PASAPORTE v. DOMINGO MARIN

    012 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 3639 December 1, 1908 - RAMON M. DE VIADEMONTE v. M. G. GAVIERES

    012 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 4797 December 1, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GELASIO CASTELLON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 4448 December 3, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. JUAN ARANETA

    012 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. 4292 December 4, 1908 - ARCADIO MAXILOM v. FELIX ESTRELLA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 4490 December 4, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO DIVINO

    012 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 4069 December 5, 1908 - ESTATE OF LUIS GAMBOA CARPIZO v. ROBERTO FLORANZA

    012 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 4603 December 5, 1908 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ALFREDO JEANJAQUET

    012 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 4682 December 9, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. J. BRAGA

    012 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 4696 December 9, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PIO VY GUICO

    012 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 4690 December 10, 1908 - TEODORO M. BEECH v. JUANA JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    012 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. 4240 December 11, 1908 - C. E. HELVIE v. F. M. FARMER, ET AL.

    012 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 4695 December 12, 1908 - NICOMEDES IBAÑES v. ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL.

    012 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 4504 December 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO CUNA

    012 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 4416 December 16, 1908 - MODESTO ACUÑA CO CHONGCO v. EL CHINO DIEVAS

    012 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. 4497 December 16, 1908 - SPRUNGLI & CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    012 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 4888 December 16, 1908 - J. C. CHOY v. GENARO HEREDIA

    012 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 3851 December 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN TOCO

    012 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 4190 December 17, 1908 - IN RE: JOSE MA. CEBALLOS

    012 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 4926 December 17, 1908 - GREGORIO DE LEON v. PADRE SATURNINO TRINIDAD

    012 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 4625 December 18, 1908 - VICENTE BRIONES v. PETRA PLATON

    012 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. 4510 December 19, 1908 - THE CITY OF MANILA v. ATLANTIC, GULP AND PACIFIC COMPANY

    012 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 4630 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. TORCUATA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    012 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 4655 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO DIONISIO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. 4782 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIANO ARONCE

    012 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 4803 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BALBINO ADOLFO

    012 Phil 296

  • G.R. No. 4434 December 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. LEODEGARIO HOCBO

    012 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. 4814 December 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUPO CORTES, ET AL.

    012 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 4679 December 22, 1908 - GUEVARA v. CARMEN DE PASCUAL, ET AL.

    012 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 5041 December 22, 1908 - ALFONSO DEBRUNNER v. JOAQUIN JARAMILLO

    012 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 3394 December 23, 1908 - ACISCLO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. TRINIDAD BAUTISTA

    012 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 3677 December 23, 1908 - LUIS LLACER v. FRANCISCO MUÑOZ DE BUSTILLO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 4361 December 24, 1908 - PEDRO ENDEISA v. JOSE M. TALEON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 4429 December 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIXTO GALURAN, ET AL.

    012 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 3942 December 26, 1908 - DAMIANA MANINANG v. AGUSTINA CONSOLACION

    012 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 4214 December 26, 1908 - JOHN W. HAUSSERMANN, ET AL. v. B. F. RAHMEYER, ET AL.

    012 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 4482 December 26, 1908 - GREGORIO N. LEGASPI v. ESTEBAN AGUILAR, ET AL.

    012 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 4451 December 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMPLICIO PEÑA

    012 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 4650 December 29, 1908 - ANDRES GARCHITORENA v. AMBROSIA POSTIGO

    012 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 4827 December 29, 1908 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    012 Phil 380