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
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 8092   March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL. <br /><br />034 Phil 232

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 8092. March 14, 1916. ]

    RUFINA BONDAD ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

    Modesto Reyes for Appellants.

    Pedro Guevara for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; NECESSITY OF ADMINISTRATION. — When there are no debts outstanding against the estate, there is no occasion for the intervention of a judicial administrator. The principles set up by this Supreme Court reaffirmed. (Ilustre v. Alaras Frondosa, 17 Phil. Rep., 321.)


    D E C I S I O N


    ARELLANO, C.J. :


    Rufina Bondad had two brothers and two sisters, respectively named Venancio, Placido, Maria, and Paula. The last named died leaving four children: Eleno, Estanislao, Raymundo, and Pedro, all surnamed Emlano.

    On May 6, 1911, Rufina Bondad brought suit against her said brothers, sisters, and nephews to secure the partition of the property left to these defendants by their father or grandfather, respectively, Crisanto Bondad, upon his death on March 17, 1902. She designates the lands to be divided, which are those specified in the complaint under the letters (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j).

    Documentary and parol evidence was introduced, and the Court of First Instance of Laguna decided the case by dismissing the complaint and absolving defendants therefrom, with the costs against the plaintiff.

    The latter appealed, and upon a hearing of her appeal we find:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) That a person who alleges a hereditary right in any specified real property, must, like any other person who seeks to recover possession, prove the ownership of his predecessor-in-interest; otherwise "the possessor by virtue of ownership has in his favor the legal presumption that he holds possession by reason of a sufficient title and he cannot be forced to show it." (Art. 448, Civ. Code.) The plaintiff did not try to prove her father’s ownership in the property she describes as left by him at his death. She did no more than present two witnesses whose testimony will be duly considered hereinafter.

    (2) That a person who alleges a hereditary right will be relieved from proving his predecessor-in-interest’s ownership only when the defendant in possession admits having received the ownership or possession he enjoys from that predecessor; but in that case plaintiff must prove how he came into the possession and ownership of the thing he claims.

    (3) That, in the case at bar, defendants admit that the real property, specified in the complaint under the letters (a), (d), (e), (h), (i), and (j), was derived from that source, but allege that it was equitably and proportionally partitioned between the plaintiff and the defendants in 1903.

    (4) That they deny that the parcels of land B, C, F, and G belonged to the intestate estate of the predecessor-in-interest, Crisanto Bondad, and were derived from this latter, wherefore it is incumbent upon the plaintiff, and not upon the defendants, to prove such ownership; and that without this proof the defendants cannot be disturbed in their possession.

    (5) That Lorenzo Suarez, one of the two witnesses presented by plaintiff, testified that the said parcels of land, as the others, were inherited some by Crisanto Bondad, others by his wife Gliceria Alcantara, while still others were purchased by both of them, but witness did not specify the origin or the title of ownership of each individual parcel, and it is no proof of the ownership of real property to state the title of origin of the whole, without specifying the title of ownership of each of its parcels, especially in the case of a double marriage as it appears that Crisanto Bondad was married at least twice, once to Gliceria Alcantara and the second time to Emilia del Rosario. The other witness, Aniceto Devanadera, specifies only one piece of realty as having been purchased by Crisanto Bondad, and the rest as having been inherited by the same.

    (6) That, on the other hand, while there was no need of exhibiting titles to possession, they were nevertheless exhibited by: Venancio Bondad who holds by purchase from Juan Martinez, by virtue of a notarial instrument of September 12, 1908, the lands specified in the complaint under letter (c), with the identical area, the identical number of planted coconut trees and the identical boundaries; the same Venancio Bondad who holds by purchase from the surviving widow Emilia del Rosario, by virtue of a notarial instrument of September 30, 1907, the land specified in the complaint under letter (b), with identical area, the identical number of coconut trees and the identical boundaries; Placido Bondad who holds by purchase from Ceferino Alcantara, by virtue of a notarial instrument of May 28, 1911, the land specified in the complaint under letter (f), with nearly the identical number of coconut trees, boundaries and area; and the same Placido Bondad, who holds by purchase from Margarita Bondad, by virtue of a notarial instrument of May 27, 1911, the land specified in the complaint under letter (g), with almost the identical number of coconut trees and boundaries.

    (7) That the plaintiff, in describing under letter (h) in her complaint the coconut land planted with 200 fruit-bearing coconut trees, says in regard to its boundaries: "On the south, by the land of the late Crisanto Bondad, now in the possession of Rufina Bondad . . ." She says that she has been in possession of this property for the past ten years; that such possession was only acquired by adjudication; and that the adjudication was the result of a partition.

    It can be shown, as the lower court found, that the partition has already been made.

    In the decision rendered in the case of Ilustre v. Alaras Frondosa (17 Phil. Rep., 321), this court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Under the provisions of the Civil Code (arts. 657 to 661), the rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of his death; in other words, the heirs succeed immediately to all of the property of the deceased ancestor. The property belongs to the heirs at the moment of the death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had executed and delivered to them a deed for the same before his death. In the absence of debts existing against the estate, the heirs may enter upon the administration of the said property immediately. If they desire to administer it jointly, they may do so. If they desire to partition it among themselves and can do this by mutual agreement, they also have that privilege. The Code of Procedure in Civil Actions provides how an estate may be divided by a petition for partition in case they cannot mutually agree in the division. When there are no debts existing against the estate, there is certainly no occasion for the intervention of an administrator . . . The property belonging absolutely to the heirs, in the absence of existing debts against the estate, the administrator has no right whatever to intervene in any way in the division of the estate among the heirs . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It has been repeatedly shown in the record that there are no debts outstanding against either succession, and the complaint itself so states.

    The plaintiff makes the following citation from the end of the decision above referred to: "If there are any heirs of the estate who have not received their participation, they have their remedy by petition for partition of the estate." But the plaintiff has received her share in the land, which, together with 200 coconut trees, she testifies she has held for the past ten years.

    If, at the present time or in the future, some creditor should come forward with a claim, or if debts of either or both of the two interstate estates should appear, prescription after two years could not be set up against such creditors or against such debts, because the date from which the beginning of the two years should be counted, could not be determined. This is the risk that is incurred in a partition of these intestate estates and hence the need of making the partition in writing, that is, so that it would not prejudice any third person; but among themselves the heirs must abide by the terms upon which they have agreed.

    There is however one fact in the record which has not been wholly explained and which forms the fifth error assigned by appellant, to wit, that relative to the land designated under letter (b) in the complaint. The lower court decided that this land, planted with 300 coconut trees, belonged to Venancio Bondad inasmuch as he proved its purchase by the document Exhibit 2. Venancio Bondad maintains that he purchased it of Emilia del Rosario on September 30, 1907. But it is shown that on August 26, 1911, Emilia del Rosario, the surviving widow, executed the document Exhibit D, in which she sets forth that she delivered the possession and right of enjoyment of apparently the same land to Venancio Bondad, Placido Bondad, Maria Bondad, and Rufina Bondad, and that in exchange for it they paid her the sum of P110.

    This document, if authentic, as it appears to be, having been confirmed by the property assessment declaration thereof filed by Venancio Bondad (Exhibit A), reveals that there exists a coownership in said land between the four above mentioned heirs, including the plaintiff Rufina Bondad. This, however, does not militate against the partition in question, but rather confirms it. An action for the division of coownership, which is different from that for partition of a hereditary succession, always lies in behalf of the interested parties.

    The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

    Torres, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 8092   March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL. <br /><br />034 Phil 232




    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