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
 

   
January-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9518 January 3, 1916 - FRANCISCO ROSCO v. MARIANO REBUENO

    033 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 10318 January 3, 1916 - ANTONIO M.A BARRETTO v. TOMAS CABREZA

    033 Phil 112

  • G.R. Nos. 11379 & 11380 January 3, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. YU TEN

    033 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10992 January 6, 1916 - QUE QUAY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 10089 January 7, 1916 - VICTORIA AYLLON v. MIGUEL SIOJO

    033 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 10212 January 7, 1916 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. v. GAUDENCIO ELEIZEGUI

    033 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 9252 January 11, 1916 - SINFOROSO PASCUAL v. WM. T. NOLTING

    033 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 9759 January 11, 1916 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. IGNACIO DURAN

    033 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. 10422 January 11, 1916 - A. LEMOINE v. C. ALKAN

    033 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 10863 January 11, 1916 - HERMOGENES DE JESUS v. G. URRUTIA & CO.

    033 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 11078 January 11, 1916 - CLIFFORD H. LOGAN v. PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO.

    033 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 11088 January 11, 1916 - LIM CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 7798 January 14, 1916 - ANGELA C. GARCIA v. JOAQUIN DEL ROSARIO

    033 Phil 189

  • G.R. Nos. 10381 & 10714 January 14, 1916 - TRITON INSURANCE CO. v. ANGEL JOSE

    033 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 10738 January 14, 1916 - RUEDA HERMANOS & CO. v. FELIX PAGLINAWAN & CO.

    033 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 10849 January 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS IGNACIO

    033 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 11015 January 14, 1916 - PERPETUO FLORES TAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 11002 January 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO P. PALACIO

    033 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 7988 January 19, 1916 - YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF MANILA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    033 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 9806 January 19, 1916 - LEONIDES LOPEZ LISO v. MANUEL TAMBUNTING

    033 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. 10141 January 20, 1916 - MARGARITA SANTOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA

    033 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. 10711 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. KONG FONG

    033 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 10731 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO LOPEZ QUIM QUINCO

    033 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. 10783 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AGRIPINO AGONCILLO

    033 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 10854 January 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NG TUY

    033 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 10436 January 24, 1916 - FRANCISCA EGUARAS v. GREAT EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.

    033 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 10989 January 24, 1916 - GO PAW v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 10759 January 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO VERZOLA

    033 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 10259 January 26, 1916 - CITY OF MANILA v. ALICE J. NEAL

    033 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9087 January 27, 1916 - MARIANO G. VELOSO v. JOSE HEREDIA

    033 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 10057 January 27, 1916 - DIAO CONTINO v. NOVO & COMPANY

    033 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 10099 January 27, 1916 - TEOFILA DEL ROSARIO DE COSTA v. LA BADENIA

    033 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 10528 January 27, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MONTEROSO

    033 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 10537 January 27, 1916 - M. EARNSHAW & COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 10972 January 28, 1916 - LEE CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 10557 January 29, 1916 - MARIA BALTAZAR v. APOLONIA ALBERTO

    033 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10907 January 29, 1916 - ONG JANG CHUAN v. WISE & CO. (LTD.)

    033 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 10040 January 31, 1916 - EUGENIA LICHAUCO v. FAUSTINO LICHAUCO

    033 Phil 350

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 9087   January 27, 1916 - MARIANO G. VELOSO v. JOSE HEREDIA<br /><br />033 Phil 306

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 9087. January 27, 1916. ]

    MARIANO G. VELOSO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSE HEREDIA, as administrator of the estate of Genaro Heredia, deceased, Defendant-Appellee.

    Escaler & Salas for Appellant.

    Ferrer & Generoso for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; CLAIMS; MORTGAGE — Held: Under the facts stated in the opinion, following the decision in the case of Osorio v. San Agustin (25 Phil. Rep., 404), that a person holding a mortgage against the estate of a deceased person may abandon such security and prosecute his claim before the committee and share in the distribution of the general assets of the estate; but, if he thus abandons his claim on the mortgage, he cannot later maintain an action upon the mortgage to foreclose it.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    The purpose of the present action was to foreclose a certain mortgage, executed and delivered by the said Genaro Heredia to the plaintiff on the 20th of July, 1908, for the sum of P4,200 together with 8 per cent interest annually.

    Some time before the commencement of the present action Genaro Heredia died and the defendant herein was duly appointed as the administrator of the estate.

    The defendant answered and alleged that the plaintiff had presented a claim for the amount due on said mortgage to the commission appointed to consider claims against the estate of Genaro Heredia, which claim had been allowed by the said commission.

    Upon the issue thus presented the cause was submitted for trial. After hearing the evidence the Honorable A. S. Crossfield, judge, reached the conclusion that "when the plaintiff filed his claim secured by the mortgage, as herein before set forth, with the committee appointed to hear claims for the full amount thereof, he indicated to all persons interested in the estate that he abandoned the mortgage and he cannot now, after the mortgage property has been taken in to the mass of the estate of the deceased, required its subjection to the payment of the mortgage debt when his mortgage debt has already been allowed against the estate and is subject to participate in the distribution thereof, even though the plaintiff may now believe that the estate is insolvent and cannot pay all of its legal debts," and under said facts relieved the defendant from all responsibility under the complaint.

    From that judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court and presented the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The lower court erred in presuming, from the mere fact of appellant’s having previously presented his claim before the commissioners of appraisal, that he suggested to the other persons interested in the property that he would waive the mortgage.

    "2. The lower court likewise erred in concluding that the appellant lost his right to bring an action for foreclosure of the mortgage after his claim had been allowed by said commissioners."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The proof was not brought to this court. We are governed therefore by the finding of facts made by the lower court.

    The lower court, after hearing the evidence, made the following finding of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "From the evidence presented at the trial I find that in July, 1908, the deceased, Genaro Heredia, was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of P4,200 and executed a document admitting the indebtedness, and in the same document mortgaged property described in the complaint to secure the payment of the indebtedness, and the mortgage was inscribed in the registry of property of the city of Manila on the 4th day of August, 1908.

    "The defendant paid the interest upon the mortgage up to and including the month of June, 1911.

    "That the executor under the will of the deceased proceeded to and took possession of the property described in the complaint as mortgaged to the plaintiff, and stated in the inventory that it was subject to the mortgage or subject to a pacto de retro, and later on after commissioners had been appointed to hear claims against the estate, the plaintiff filed his claim against the estate of the deceased and proved it by the document before referred to, as acknowledging the indebtedness by the deceased and his mortgage of the property described to secure the payment thereof, and the claim was allowed by the commissioners appointed to hear claims.

    "There is no question but that the sum of P4,200 is due from the estate of the deceased to the plaintiff, with interest thereon at 8 per cent per annum beginning with the 1st day of July, 1911, and that a mortgage was given upon property described in the complaint to secure the payment o the indebtedness, but whether the mortgage can no be foreclosed is a question raised by the pleadings and upon which counsel for the parties differ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Considering the facts, in relation with the assignments of error above quoted, we have but one question presented and that is a question of law. The question presented is, whether or not the holder of a mortgage against the estate of a deceased person may present his claim to the commissioners appointed to consider claims against the estate and thereafter bring an action to foreclose the same mortgage, in an action of foreclosure.

    Section 708 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "A creditor holding a claim against the deceased, secured by mortgage or other collateral security, may abandon the security and prosecute his claim before the committee, and share in the general distribution of the assets of the estate; or he may foreclose his mortgage or realize upon his security, by ordinary action in court, making the executor or administrator a party defendant; and if there is a judgment for a deficiency, after the sale of the mortgaged premises, or the property pledged, in the foreclosure or other proceeding to realize upon the security, he may prove his deficiency judgment before the committee against the estate of the deceased; or he may rely upon his mortgage or other security alone, and foreclose the same at any time, within the period of the statute of limitations, and in that event he shall not be admitted as a creditor. . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We have heretofore considered the provisions of said section in an action exactly analogous to the present one. In the case of Osorio v. San Agustin (25 Phil. Rep., 404), we said, in discussing the question presented here, that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is clear by the provisions of said quoted section that a person holding a mortgage against the estate of the deceased person may abandon such security and prosecute his claim before the committee and share in the distribution of the general assets of the estate."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Said section provides also that he may also, at his own election, foreclose the mortgage and realize upon the security. But the law does not permit that he may have both remedies. If he elects one he must renounce the other. If he fails in one, he fails utterly. He is not permitted, under said section, to annoy those interested in the estate of deceased persons, by two actions for exactly the same purpose.

    For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion the judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    CARSON, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I concur, but in doing so I refer expressly to my concurring opinion in the case of Osorio v. San Agustin (25 Phil. Rep., 404).

    G.R. No. 9087   January 27, 1916 - MARIANO G. VELOSO v. JOSE HEREDIA<br /><br />033 Phil 306


    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