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
 

   
April-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 43850 April 3, 1939 - JOSE C. BUCOY v. JOHN R. MCFIE, ET AL.

    067 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45080 April 3, 1939 - FLORENCIA DUQUILLO v. PAZ BAYOT

    067 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 45112 April 3, 1939 - APOLONIA GOMEZ v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC.

    067 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45144 April 3, 1939 - M. E. GREY v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY

    067 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 45696 April 3, 1939 - PLACIDA PASCASIO, ET AL. v. BENITO GUIDO

    067 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 45159 April 4, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO MA. DE MORETA

    067 Phil 146

  • G.R. Nos. 46231-46235 April 4, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULO B. GONZALEZ

    067 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46239 April 4, 1939 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. ROSENDO MARCOS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 46247 April 4, 1939 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL, ET AL.

    067 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 45177 April 5, 1939 - JOSE MARTINEZ v. SANTOS B. PAMPOLINA

    067 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. 45193 April 6, 1939 - EMILIE ELMIRA RENEE BOUDARD, ET AL. v. STEWART EDDIE TAIT

    067 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 46510 April 5, 1939 - ORIENT PROTECTIVE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION v. ANTONIO RAMOS

    067 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 45517 April 5, 1939 - TARCILA L. TRINIDAD v. ORIENT PROTECTIVE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION

    067 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 45738 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO CELORICO

    067 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 45748 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCO VERA REYES

    067 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 45955 April 5, 1939 - TEODORICA R. VIUDA DE JOSE v. JULIO VELOSO BARRUECO

    067 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 46144 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CINCO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 46409 April 5, 1939 - INSULAR MOTORS INCORPORATED v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 46478 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GO UG, ET AL.

    067 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 43822 April 10, 1939 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. HONGKONG & SHANCHAI BANKING CORPORATION

    067 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 45152 April 10, 1939 - HILARIA SIKAT v. JOHN CANSON

    067 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 45170 April 10, 1939 - ARSENIO DE VERA, ET AL. v. CLEOTILDE GALAURAN

    067 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45171 April 10, 1939 - EUGENIO VERAGUTH, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MONTILLA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 45192 April 10, 1939 - IN RE: VICENTE J. FRANCISCO

    067 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 45200 April 10, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIA S. ZAPANTA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 45246 April 10, 1939 - CARLOS N. FRANCISCO v. PARSONS HARDWARE CO.

    067 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45273 April 10, 1939 - LUNETA MOTOR CO. v. FEDERICO ABAD

    067 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 45295 April 10, 1939 - RUFO ARCENAS v. INOCENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45302 April 10, 1939 - GERVASIA ENCARNACION, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    067 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 45337 April 10, 1939 - MANILA MOTOR CO. v. ANICETO MARAÑA

    067 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. 45381 April 10, 1939 - FELIX BENEDICTO v. PERFECTO ESPINO

    067 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 45898 April 10, 1939 - JOVITA JOVEN v. MARCELO T. BONCAN, ET AL.

    067 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 46530 April 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO RABAO

    067 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 45123 April 12, 1939 - AGRIPINO INFANTE v. MARCOS DULAY

    067 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 45165 April 12, 1939 - GREGORIA JIMENEZ v. GEROMIMO JIMENEZ

    067 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 45277 April 12, 1939 - TORIBIO TEODORO v. JUAN POSADAS

    067 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. 45306 April 12, 1939 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. LA URBANA

    067 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 45365 April 12, 1939 - FULTON IRON WORKS CO. v. SIDNEY C. SCHWARZKOPF

    067 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 45375 April 12, 1939 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. GLORIA BALDELLO

    067 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 45454 April 12, 1939 - EULALIO GARCIA v. SINFOROSA C. DAVID, ET AL.

    067 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 45515 April 12, 1939 - TOLARAM MENGHRA v. BULCHAND ARACHAND, ET AL.

    067 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. 45742 April 12, 1939 - TIBURCIO MAMUYAC v. PEDRO ABENA

    067 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 45752 April 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN PERALTA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 45821 April 12, 1939 - SOCONY-VACUUM CORPORATION v. LEON C. MIRAFLORES

    067 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. 45899 April 12, 1939 - RAYMUNDO VARGAS v. NIEVES TANCIOCO,, ET AL.

    067 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 45405 April 13, 1939 - IN RE: ANTONIO FRANCO

    067 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 45529 April 13, 1939 - VENANCIO QUEBLAR v. LEONARDO GARDUÑO

    067 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 46428 April 13, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO TUMLOS

    067 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. 45253 April 14, 1939 - FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO G. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 45310 April 14, 1939 - MARCOS J. ROTEA v. FRANCISCA DELUPIO

    067 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 45400 April 14, 1939 - MARCIANA LUNASCO v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    067 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 45536 April 14, 1939 - PEDRO AMANTE v. SERAFIN P. HILADO

    067 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 45601 April 14, 1939 - TAVERA-LUNA v. MARIANO NABLE

    067 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 45687 April 14, 1939 - CARIDAD ESTATE OF CAVITE, INC. v. VICENTE AVILA

    067 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 45931 April 14, 1939 - URBANO SERRANO v. VICENTE DE LA CRUZ

    067 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 45340 April 15, 1939 - MARCELA BALLESTEROS v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    067 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 45430 April 15, 1939 - TERESA GARCIA v. LUISA GARCIA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 45643 April 16, 1939 - RAYMUNDO CORDERO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA, Respondents.

    067 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 45576 April 19, 1939 - MAXIMIANO FUENTES v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF PILA, LAGUNA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 45248 April 18, 1939 - VICENTE REYES VILLAVICENCIO v. SANTIAGO QUINIO

    067 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 45418 April 18, 1939 - AMBROSIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. H. A. GIBBON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 45701 April 18, 1939 - TIRSO GARCIA v. TY CAMCO SOBRINO

    067 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 45721 April 18, 1939 - MELCHOR LAMPREA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 45803 April 18, 1939 - VICENTA C. VDA. DE GUIDOTE v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

    067 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 45923 Abril 18, 1939 - CHOA FUN v. EL SECRETARIO DEL TRABAJO

    067 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 46015 April 18, 1939 - LIBERATO JIMENEZ v. INES DE CASTRO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 46043 April 18, 1939 - TERESA LANDRITO, ET AL. v. RICARDO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 46134 April 18, 1939 - NICOLASA DE GUZMAN v. ANGELA LIMCOLIOC

    067 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 46317 April 18, 1939 - JUSTO QUIMING v. MARIANO L. DE LA ROSA

    067 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 45290 April 19, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAULA MERCADO

    067 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 45126 April 19, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ALBINO PANUNCIO

    067 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 45166 April 19, 1939 - LEON C. VIARDO v. GALICANO GUTIERREZ

    067 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 45190 April 19, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO APAREJADO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 45531 April 19, 1939 - FRED OMNAS, ET AL. v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    067 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 46002 April 19, 1939 - SALVACION RIOSA v. STILIANOPULOS, INC.

    067 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 45715 April 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO OLIVERIA

    067 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 45934 April 20, 1939 - FORTUNATO DIAZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 45980 April 20, 1939 - MARIA MARTINEZ v. YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO.

    067 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 45493 April 21, 1939 - GERARDO GARCIA v. ANGEL SUAREZ

    067 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 45595 April 21, 1939 - JUAN POSADAS, ET AL. v. GO HAP, ET AL.

    067 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 46046 April 21, 1939 - PROCOPIO GAQUIT v. DOROTEO CONUI

    067 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 46570 April 21, 1939 - JOSE D. VILLENA v. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

    067 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 45449 April 22, 1939 - TOMAS S. OCEJO v. CONSUL GENERAL OF SPAIN

    067 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46330 April 22, 1939 - IRENEO ABAD SANTOS, ET AL. v. PROVINCE OF TARLAC, ET AL.

    067 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 45413 April 24, 1939 - LA YEBANA, CO., INC. v. JULIO L. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 45666 April 24, 1939 - ALFREDO VALENZUELA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 45978 April 24, 1939 - MIGUELA ELEAZAR v. EUSEBIO ELEAZAR

    067 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 46029 April 24, 1939 - NATIONAL LOAN AND INVESTMENT BOARD v. LUIS MENESES

    067 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 45369 April 25, 1939 - ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC. v. ALFFREDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 45544 April 25, 1939 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LORENZO ECHARRI

    067 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 45624 April 25, 1939 - GEORGE LITTON v. HILL & CERON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 45739 April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO PEJI BAUTISTA

    067 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 45755 April 25, 1939 - ASUNCION ABAD v. AMANDO AQUINO

    067 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 45964 April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITURO FALLER

    067 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 46035 April 25, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

    067 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 46260 April 26, 1939 - PABLO TAMAYO v. FRANCISCO E. JOSE, ET AL.

    067 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 46356 April 25, 1939 - FRUCTUOSA VELASCO VDA. DE TALAVERA v. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

    067 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 45403 April 26, 1939 - NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK v. NEW YORK TONG LIN & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

    067 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 45519 April 26, 1939 - RUFINA SALAO, ET AL. v. TEOFILO C. SANTOS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 45521 April 26, 1939 - JOSE MORENO, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO SAN MATEO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 45598 April 26, 1939 - TAN PHO v. HASSAMAL DALAMAL

    067 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 45614 April 26, 1939 - NORBERTO FORDAN v. ANTONIO LUZON

    067 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 45662 April 26, 1939 - ENRIQUE CLEMENTE v. DIONISIO GALVAN

    067 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 46366 April 26, 1939 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, ET AI. .

    067 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 46492 April 26, 1939 - RAMON SOTELO v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 45173 April 27, 1939 - RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. BACHRACH MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

    067 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 45359 April 27, 1939 - JACINTO M. DEL SAZ OROZCO, ET AL. v. SALVADOR ARANETA

    067 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 45506 April 27, 1939 - FORTUNATO MANZANERO v. REMEDIOS BONGON

    067 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 45508 April 27, 1939 - SEGUNDA DEVEZA v. ERIBERTO BALMEO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 45534 April 27, 1939 - JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO, ET AL. v. ALFREDO HIDALGO REAL

    067 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45694 April 27, 1939 - FRANCISCO YATCO v. EL HOGAR FILIPINO

    067 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 45724 April 27, 1939 - IGNACIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. TEODORO IBEA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 45741 April 27, 1939 - F. Y A. GARCIA DIEGO v. GLORIA DE ANTONIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 45185 April 28, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. SALUD ALDEGUER VIUDA DE ROMERO SALAS

    067 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 45464 April 28, 1939 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. CARMEN DE LUNA

    067 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 45625 April 28, 1939 - MARGARITA VILLANUEVA v. JUAN SANTOS

    067 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 45761 April 28, 1939 - JULIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 45266 April 29, 1939 - SIMEON RAEL v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF RIZAL

    067 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 45410 April 29, 1939 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. JOSE BERNABE

    067 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. 45412 April 29, 1939 - COSME CARLOS, ET AL. v. COSME CARLOS

    067 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 45425 April 29, 1939 - JOSE GATCHALIAN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    067 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 45479 April 29, 1939 - FELIX ATACADOR v. HILARION SILAYAN

    067 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 45597 April 29, 1939 - MACARIA PASCUAL v. LORENZA RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 45965 April 29, 1939 - AMPARO GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    067 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 46003 April 29, 1939 - SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO CLEOFAS

    067 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 46026 April 29, 1939 - JESUSA PORTILLO-RIVERA v. STRACHAN, MACMURRAY & CO., LTD.

    067 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 46604 April 29, 1939 - FRANCISCO MORFE, ET AL. v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

    067 Phil 696

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45454   April 12, 1939 - EULALIO GARCIA v. SINFOROSA C. DAVID, ET AL. <br /><br />067 Phil 279

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45454. April 12, 1939.]

    EULALIO GARCIA, Judge of First Instance of Camarines Sur, and MERCEDES CALDERA DE SABINO, Petitioners, v. SINFOROSA C. DAVID, MARCIANA C. VILLAMORA, ENCARNACION C. ENOJADO, CRISANTO CASTRO and ALFREDO CASTRO, Respondents.

    Manly & Reyes, for Petitioners.

    Jose M. Penas for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. INTERVENTION; NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS. — Intervention is a proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the court to make himself a party, either joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint, or uniting with defendant in resisting the claims of plaintiff, or demanding something adversely to both of them; the act or proceeding by which a third person becomes a party in a suit pending between others; the admission, by leave of court, of a person not an original party to pending legal proceedings, by which such person becomes a party thereto for the protection of some right or interest alleged by him to be affected by such proceedings.

    2. ID.; ID.; NOT AN INDEPENDENT ACTION. — Intervention is never an independent action, but is ancillary and supplemental to the existing litigation. Its purpose is not to obstruct nor unnecessarily delay the placid operation of the machinery of trial, but merely to afford one not an original party, yet having a certain right or interest in the pending case, the opportunity to appear and be joined so he could assert or protect such right or interest. The law on intervention in this jurisdiction is found in section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is a verbatim copy of section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California.

    3. ID.; ID.; SECTION 121 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EXAMINED. — A cursory examination of section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure will show three important elements: (1) That only a person having a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation or in the success of either of the parties or an interest against both, may intervene; (2) that therefore a mere intruder or stranger who has no legal interest and whose presence would only make the proceeding complicated, expensive and interminable may not be allowed to intervene; (3) that the permissive tenor of the legal provision evinces the intention of the lawmaker to give to the judge, considering a motion for intervention, the full measure of discretion in permitting or disallowing said motion.

    4. ID.; ID. — It is apparent that the heirs have no legal interest against both parties, plaintiff and defendant. Neither, in the success of either of them for as a matter of fact, they desire to frustrate the present claim on the promissory note, without necessarily implying their approbation of the defendant’s stand. Consequently, if they could be allowed to intervene, it must be on the ground that they have a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

    5. ID.; ID. — The interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit between other parties must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. Otherwise, if parties not having a direct interest in the subject matter of the action could be allowed to intervene, proceedings would become unnecessarily complicated, expensive and interminable. This is not the policy of the law.

    6. ID.; ID.; ARTICLE 657, CIVIL CODE. — It cannot be denied that the right of the respondents proceeds from the fact of heirship, and that therefore, their interest in the property of the deceased is, if not conjectural, contingent and expectant. They can point to no particular mass of property, nor segregate any as their own before the liquidation of the estate is completed. This is due to the legal principle that "the rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of death." (Art. 657, Civil Code.)

    7. ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO IMPUGN THE VALIDITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF WIFE BY HUSBAND OR HEIRS. — The husband or heirs have the right to impugn the validity of the transactions of the wife only when they are sought to be made answerable or when their right or property would be affected thereby. In civil case No. 6277, the original action commenced in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, was brought against C. E. Vda. de C., and not against the property or rights of the deceased and his heirs. As such personal action, it is only the defendant widow, and her estate which is sought to be made liable. The rights of the respondents, if any, will not be affected by any adjudication of the court against the defendant.


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    On April 1, 1936, Mercedes Caldera de Sabino commenced in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur a personal action (civil case No. 6277) against Candida Espinosa for the recovery of the value of a certain promissory note which was signed and delivered by one Isaac Villamora in behalf of the defendant. The defendant entered a general denial on April 18, 1936, alleging as special defenses that she did not authorize Isaac Villamora to sign for her and that the instrument sued upon was fraudulent.

    Subsequently, on July 22, 1936, the respondents, Sinforosa David, Marciana C. Villamora, Encarnacion Enojado, Crisanto Castro and Afredo Castro filed a motion praying that they be allowed to intervene because "they are the children and only heirs of the deceased Mariano Castro, husband of the defendant, and that on the date of the execution of the note, defendant was already legally married to said Mariano Castro." The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion for intervention on the ground that the respondents are neither proper nor necessary parties, for do they have any legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. on August 6, 1936, after hearing, the court denied the motion to intervene. A motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied.

    On September 8, 1936, the herein respondents filed a petition in the Court of Appeals praying that a peremptory order be granted, commanding the petitioner judge to allow the intervention. The petitioners filed their answers, and on January 20, 1937, the Court of Appeals granted the writ of mandamus. This is now a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the said Court of Appeals granting the writ.

    The petitioners submit the following assignments of errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) That the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the surviving heirs of the deceased husband of Candida Espinosa have an interest in the promissory note which is the subject matter of the suit filed against the said Candida Espinosa by Mercedes Caldera de Sabino;

    (2) That the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the petitioner judge abused his discretion in not allowing intervention;

    (3) That the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the herein respondents are entitled to intervene in civil case No. 6277 and in commanding the petitioner judge to permit said intervention.

    The main subject of the present inquiry is the determination of whether the respondents as heirs of the deceased husband of the defendant have a legal interest in the suit brought against Candida Espinosa on the promissory note. If they have, then the order of the petitioner judge is erroneous, and intervention should be allowed. Otherwise, they do not have the right to intervene, and the order of the court below disallowing their motion should be sustained.

    Intervention is a proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the court to make himself a party, either joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint, or uniting with defendant in resisting the claims of plaintiff, or demanding something adversely to both of them; the act or proceeding by which a third person becomes a party in a suit pending between others; the admission, by leave of court, of a person not an original party to pending legal proceedings, by which such person becomes a party thereto for the protection of some right or interest alleged by him to be affected by such proceedings. (33 C. J., 477.) Fundamentally, therefore, intervention is never an independent action, but is ancillary and supplemental to the existing litigation. Its purpose is not to obstruct nor unnecessarily delay the placid operation of the machinery of trial, but merely to afford one not an original party, yet having a certain right or interest in the pending case, the opportunity to appear and be joined so he could assert or protect such right or interest. The law on intervention in this jurisdiction is found section 121 of the code of Civil Procedure, which is a verbatim copy of section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. It provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "A person may, at any period of a trial, upon motion, be permitted by the court to intervene in an action or proceeding, if he has legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both. Such intervening party may be permitted to join plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the claimant, or to unite with the defendant in resisting the claims of the plaintiff, or to demand anything adverse to both the plaintiff and defendant. Such intervention, if permitted by the court, shall be made by complaint in regular form, filed in court, and may be answered or demurred to as if it were an original complaint. Notice of motion for such intervention shall be given to all parties to the action and notice may be given by publication, in accordance with the provisions of this Code relating to publication, in cases where other notice is impracticable."cralaw virtua1aw library

    A cursory examination of the above provision will show three important elements: (1) That only a person having a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation or in the success of either of the parties or an interest against both, may intervene; (2) that therefore a mere intrude or stranger who has no legal interest and whose presence would only make the proceeding complicated, expensive and interminable may not be allowed to intervene: (3) that the permissive tenor of the legal provision evinces the intention of the lawmaker to give to the judge considering a motion for intervention, the full measure of discretion in permitting or disallowing said motion.

    Could it be that the heirs of the deceased husband have such a right as would entitled them under the law to intervene? Do they have a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation? Do they have a legal interest in the success of either of the parties? Or do they have and interest against both parties?

    It is apparent that the heirs have no legal interest against both parties, plaintiff and defendant. Neither, in the success of either of them for as a matter of fact, they desire to frustrate the present claim on the promissory note, without necessarily implying their approbation of the defendant’s stand. Consequently, if they could be allowed to intervene, it must be on the ground that they have a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

    It is claimed that the respondents have an interest in the property of the spouses in so far as they are the heirs of the deceased husband, from which they take the inference that "said heirs have likewise an interest in the subject matter of the litigation." (Page 15 of Printed Record.) But this is not sufficient legal interest under section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure. What is contemplated is an interest which is actual and material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent or expectant. So it has been held "that the interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit between other parties must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment." (Smith v. Gale, 144 U. S., 509; 12 S. Ct., 674; 36 U. S. [Law. ed. ], 521; Horn v. Volcano Water Co., 13 Cal., 62; 73 Am. Dec., 569; Wood v. Denver City Water Works Co., 20 Colo., 253; 38 Pac., 239; 46 A. S. R., 288; Brown v. Saul, 4 Mart. U. S. [La. ], 434; 16 Am. Dec., 175; Dennis v. Spencer, 51 Minn., 259; 53 N. W., 631; 38 A. S. R., 499.) Otherwise, if parties not having a direct interest in the subject matter of the action could be allowed to intervene, proceedings would become unnecessarily complicated, expensive and interminable. (Gregory v. Pike, 67 Fed., 837, 845; 15 C. C. A., 33; See also Clarke v. Eureka County Bank, 116 Fed., 534.) This is not the policy of the law.

    It cannot be denied that the right of the respondents proceeds from the fact of heirship, and that therefore, their interest in the property of the deceased is, if not conjectural, contingent and expectant. They can point to no particular mass of property, nor segregate any as their own before the liquidation of the estate is completed. This is due to the legal principle that "the rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of death." (Art. 657, Civil Code.)

    "The interest of the wife in the community property, and in case of her death, of her heirs, is an interest inchoate, a mere expectancy, which constitutes neither a legal nor an equitable estate, and does not ripen into title until it appears that there are assets in the community as a result of the liquidation and settlement; the interest of the heirs, like that of the wife herself, is limited to "the net remainder (remanente liquido) resulting from the liquidation of the affairs of the partnership after the dissolution." ’(Nable Jose v. Nable Jose, 41 Phil., 713.)

    "The existence of the right to inherit on the part of heirs is subject to the contingency of their own demise, the vicissitudes of fortune, and the free and variable will of the testators." (Mijares v. Nery, 3 Phil., 195.)

    Reference is made to article 55 of the Civil Marriage Law of June 18, 1870, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ART. 55. Solamente el marido y sus herederos podran reclamar la nulidad de los actos otorgados por la mujer sin licencia 6 autorizacion competente."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Thereunder, the husband or heirs have the right to impugn the validity of the transactions of the wife only when they are sought to be made answerable or when their right or property would be affected thereby. In civil case No. 6277, the original action commenced in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, was brought against Candida Espinosa Viuda de Castro, and not against the property or rights of the deceased and his heirs. As such personal action, it is only the defendant widow, and her estate which i9 sought to be. made liable. The rights of the respondents, if any, will not be affected by any adjudication of the court against the defendant. Articles 61, 62 and 65 of the Civil Code which are invoked by counsel for the respondents on page 12 of his brief have never been in force in this jurisdiction.

    Articles 42 to 107 of the Civil Code have never been enforced in the Philippines inasmuch as their application here was suspended by a decree of the Spanish Governor-General under date of December 29, 1889, issued in pursuance to telegraphic instructions from Madrid. That decree was published in the Official Gazette on the 3lst day of the same month and year, that is, twenty-four days alter the Civil Code had been in operation. Upon the question of the Philippines by the United States, the law on marriage in force in the Islands were articles 44 to 78 of the Law of Civil Marriage of 1870, otherwise known as the Spanish Marriage Law, which was extended to the Philippines by a royal decree of April 13, 1883. (Benedicto v. De la Rama,;3 Phil., 34; Ibañez v. Ortiz, 5 Phil., 325; Ebreo v. Sichon, 4 Phil., 704; Del Prado v. De la Fuente, 28 Phil., 23; Goitia v. Campos Rueda, 35 Phil., 252.)

    The judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur acted properly and within the limits of his authority in denying the intervention by the respondents. It follows that the writ prayed for should be granted, the decision of the Court of Appeals should be, as it is hereby, reversed, and the case remanded to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur with instruction to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law and this decision. without pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45454   April 12, 1939 - EULALIO GARCIA v. SINFOROSA C. DAVID, ET AL. <br /><br />067 Phil 279


    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