ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9366 August 1, 1916 - YAP TICO & CO. v. H. C. ANDERSON

    034 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 10010 August 1, 1916 - CHU JAN v. LUCIO BERNAS

    034 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 11371 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIA MEMORACION

    034 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 11497 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO BLANZA

    034 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 11597 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DARIO PADILLA

    034 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 11634 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BARAMBANGAN

    034 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 8452 August 2, 1916 - DEAN C.WORCESTER v. MARTIN OCAMPO

    034 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 11389 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SELLANO

    034 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 11425 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NGAN PING

    034 Phil 660

  • G.R. Nos. 10114 & 10137 August 3, 1916 - MELECIO MONTINOLA v. JOSE G. MONTALVO ET AL.

    034 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 11050 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SOON

    034 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 11159 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 11420 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAN YANG

    034 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 9957 August 8, 1916 - PERFECTO DE LA VEGA ET AL. v. TOMAS BALLILOS (or BALIELOS)

    034 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 11477 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIIO ANDAYA

    034 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 11507 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERO DE LOS REYES

    034 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 11510 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BAHATAN

    034 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 10712 August 10, 1916 - ANSELMO FERRAZZINI v. CARLOS GSELL

    034 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 11566 August 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 11565 August 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 11162 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. F. LULING

    034 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 11530 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PONS

    034 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. 10100 August 15, 1916 - GALO ABRENICA v. MANUEL GONDA

    034 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 11165 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 11338 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TAN OCO

    034 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. 11480 August 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERTO PANGILION

    034 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 10374 August 18, 1916 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    034 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10891 August 18, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO KILAYKO

    034 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 11711 August 18, 1916 - MANUEL CEMBRANO CHAN GUANCO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 10988 August 19, 1916 - ROQUE SAMSON v. BRAULIO GARCIA

    034 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. 11488 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LICERIO CASTEN

    034 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11653 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA AQUINO

    034 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. 12096 August 22, 1916 - EMILIO DE CASTRO v. FERNANDO SALAS

    034 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 11401 August 23, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO CRISTOBAL ET AL.

    034 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. 11427 August 23, 1916 - VY LIONG LIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. 11505 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATAOA BUNGAOIL

    034 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. 11737 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE ET AL.

    034 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 11739 August 25, 1916 - CESAR MERCADER v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    034 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. 11986 August 25, 1916 - MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALEZ v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. 11071 August 26, 1916 - S. CHASE DE KRAFFT v. APOLINAR VELEZ

    034 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. 10868 August 28, 1916 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. O. MITSUMINE

    034 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 11267 August 31, 1916 - SEE CHIAT SEE HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. 11562 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON LAZARO

    034 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. 11772 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GAN LIAN PO

    034 Phil 880

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 11739  August 25, 1916 - CESAR MERCADER v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS<br /><br />034 Phil 846

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11739. August 25, 1916. ]

    CESAR MERCADER, Petitioner, v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, judge of the Twentieth Judicial District, Respondents.

    Tomas Alonso for Petitioner.

    Williams, Ferrier & SyCip for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    CERTIORARI; REVIEW OF ORDER OF COURT TO SHOW CAUSE. — Where it appears that proceedings were duly commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Twentieth Judicial District to declare Vicenta Escio a lunatic and incompetent to manage her affairs and to appoint a guardian of her property; that, after the hearing and investigation required by the Code if Civil Procedure, the court found the respondent to be a lunatic and incompetent to manage her business and affairs and appointed Pantaleon E. del Rosario guardian of her property; that an appeal from the order of incompetency and appointment of a guardian was duly taken to this court by those opposing the proceedings; that, while the appeal was in progress and Still pending, the guardian named an application to the Court of First Instance under section 573 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which he alleged that Cesar Mercader, the plaintiff in this proceeding, had taken possession of and was engaged in secreting certain property of the incompetent and was collecting and reducing to possession certain moneys belonging to her; and that, although called upon by the guardian to deliver such property and funds to him as such guardian, Mercader had refused to do so and still retains possession thereof, claiming that he is entitled thereto; that, due notice having been given and a hearing had, the court made an order directed to Mercader requiring him to appear before the court at 9 o’clock on the 24th day of March, 1916, and then and there to show cause why he should not deliver the property in question to the guardian of the incompetent, Held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) That the court had jurisdiction to issue the order and a proceeding to obtain a writ of certiorari to review said order cannot be maintained.

    (2) While the power of the Court of First Instance respecting a judgment or order is restricted by an appeal, that fact does not mean that the proceeding in which the appeal was taken, and all the incidents thereof, are withdrawn from the consideration of the court. The proceeding is still within the jurisdiction of the court, although certain parts thereof have been withdrawn from the operation of its powers by the appeal. (Velasco & Co. v. Gochuico & Co., 28 Phil. Rep., 39.)


    D E C I S I O N


    MORELAND, J. :


    This is a proceeding in this court to obtain a writ of certiorari directed to the Court of First Instance of the Twentieth Judicial District requiring it to send up the record in a proceeding taken to declare Vicenta Escio a lunatic and incompetent to manage her affairs and for the appointment of a guardian of her person and property, and in case such proceeding or any portion thereof is found by this court to have been taken outside or in excess of the jurisdiction of the court, to vacate and annul the same.

    It is alleged in the complaint that proceedings were duly commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Twentieth Judicial District to declare Vicenta Escio a lunatic and incompetent to manage her affairs and to appoint a guardian of her property. After the hearing and investigation required by the Code of Civil procedure the court found the respondent to be a lunatic and incompetent to manage her business and affairs and appointed Pantaleon E. del Rosario guardian of her property. An appeal from the order of incompetency and appointment of a guardian was duly taken to this court by those opposing the proceedings. While the appeal was in progress and still pending the guardian named made an application to the Court of First Instance under section 573 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which he alleged that Cesar Mercader, the plaintiff in this proceeding, had taken possession of and was engaged in secreting certain property of the incompetent and was collecting and reducing to possession certain moneys belonging to her; and that, although called upon by the guardian to deliver such property and founds to him as such guardian, Mercader had refused to do so and still retains possession thereof claiming that he is entitled thereto. Due notice having been given and a hearing had, the court made an order directed to Mercader requiring him to appear before the court at 9 o’clock on the 24th day of March, 1916, and then and there to show cause why he should no deliver the property in question to the guardian of the incompetent.

    The contention of the plaintiff here is that the order in question, requiring the plaintiff in this proceeding to show cause as aforesaid, was made without and in excess of the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance for the reason that, the order declaring Vicenta Escio and incompetent and appointing Del Rosario guardian of her property having been appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court of First Instance was deprived of all jurisdiction over that proceeding and was accordingly wholly unauthorized to take any further steps therein and particularly the one which resulted in the order to show cause referred to.

    The case having been duly submitted to this court on the merits we proceed to the determination thereof. We do not agree with counsel for the plaintiff. The order declaring the incompetency and appointing a guardian was good, until reversed or set aside, and authorized the guardian, in spite of the appeal, to do whatever was necessary, under the direction of the court, to protect the property of the incompetent. It was not only a right which the court may exercise but it was one which it ought to exercise, it having been shown that Vicenta Escio was incompetent, to see to it that her property was protected during the pendency of the appeal and to prevent its being wasted or converted by designing persons. Proceedings to declare persons incompetent to manage their affairs and to appoint guardians for them and their property are within the jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance by express provision of law and they are consequently authorized and required to decide all questions which may arise therein during their progress through the courts. So far as the jurisdiction of the court is concerned it is of no consequence which way a particular question may be decided. The fact remains that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and that it had authority to decide any question connected herewith. We have held in many cases that certiorari will lie only in cases where the court has acted outside or in excess of its jurisdiction and its action for that reason is void (Government of the Philippine Islands v. Judge of First Instance of Iloilo and Bantillo, ante, p. 157; Arzadon v. Chanco, 14 Phil. Rep., 710; In re Prautch, 1 Phil. Rep., 132; Springer v. Odlin, 3 Phil. Rep., 344; Napa v. Weissenhagen, 29 Phil. Rep., 180; De Fiesta v. Llorente and Manila Railroad Co., 25 Phil., Rep., 554; Herrera v. Barretto and Joaquin, 25 Phil. Rep., 245; Gala v. Cui and Rodriguez, 25 Phil. Rep., 522; Province of Tarlac v. Gale, 26 Phil. Rep., 338.)

    While the power of the Court of First Instance with regard to a judgment or an order is very much restricted by reason of the fact that an appeal had been perfected, this fact does not mean that the proceeding in which the appeal was taken, and all of the incidents thereof, are withdrawn from the consideration of the court. The proceeding as such is still within the jurisdiction of the court, although certain parts thereof have been withdrawn from the operation of its powers by the appeal. (Velasco & Co. v. Gochuico & Co., 28 Phil., 39.) In the case before us the court had jurisdiction to require the plaintiff herein to show cause in the manner ordered and in doing so he did not subject himself to review by certiorari.

    The complaint is dismissed on the merits, with costs. So ordered.

    Torres and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Johnson and Trent, JJ., concur in the result.

    G.R. No. 11739  August 25, 1916 - CESAR MERCADER v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS<br /><br />034 Phil 846


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED