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
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45383   May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL. <br /><br />067 Phil 701

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45383. May 2, 1939.]

    In the matter of the testamentary proceedings of the deceased Angela J. Serapio Perez. MARIA SERAPIO Y VERA, CIRIACA SERAPIO Y VERA, CARMEN G. REYES, and VICENTE GESTUVO, claimants and appellants, v. MARIANO SERAPIO and JUAN SERAPIO Y PEREZ, administrators-appellees.

    Tomas de Guzman for Appellants.

    Jose Serapio for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; AGREEMENT AMONG CO HEIRS REGARDING PAYMENT OF THEIR CREDITS; REAPPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS ON CLAIMS AND APPRAISAL. — When all the co-heirs agree that the credits of some of them be paid by the others, and the other co-heirs in fact assume the obligations arising from said credits, and the motion for the payment of said credits or for the reappointment of the commissioners is filed after the lapse of the six-month period fixed by section 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the reappointment of the commissioners on claim will not lie; but the co-heirs who have assumed the obligations cannot escape the latter and the court should order the administrator or administrators to pay said obligations after paying the other credits which have been admitted and approved by the committee on claims, but before the estate of the deceased is distributed among and delivered to all the co-heirs.


    D E C I S I O N


    IMPERIAL, J.:


    Maria Serapio y Vera, Ciriaca Serapio y Vera, Carmen G. Reyes and Vicente Gestuvo appealed from the order of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, dated August 25, 1936, which denied their motion asking that the administrators pay their credits against the deceased, or if this cannot be done, that the appointment of the commissioners be renewed for the purpose of passing upon and approving their claims. They also appealed from the other order of October 10th of the same year, denying their motion for reconsideration.

    In the testamentary proceedings of the deceased Angela J. Serapio Perez, special proceedings No. 4562 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, the commissioners on claims and appraisal filed their report and inventory on May 22, 1933, which was approved without opposition by the order of June 5th of the same year. On May 12, 1936, the appellants filed a motion alleging that they were creditors of the deceased in the total sum of P4,348.35; that they agreed with all the heirs of the deceased not to file their said claims with the commissioners for approval because the said heirs assumed and bound themselves to pay them; that to this end the heirs signed and executed in their favor the documents copies of which were attached to the motion, wherein they took charge of said claims and undertook to pay them before the properties of the deceased were distributed among and delivered to the heirs; that thereafter they learned that the aforesaid heirs acted fraudulently and availed themselves of that promise as a means to prevent them from filing their claims with the commissioners within the statutory period; that, thereupon, they asked that the administrators be ordered to pay their respective claims, and if this could not be legally done, that the commissioners be reappointed so that they can file their claims for approval. The administrators-appellees objected in writing to this motion, and on August 25, 19316. the court denied it on the ground that the petition was filed after the period allowed by section 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants filed a motion to reconsider the order, but the same was likewise denied on October 10, 1936. Finally, the appellants excepted to both orders and filed the corresponding record on appeal.

    The appellants attribute to the court the following errors: (1) in holding that the petition for renewal of the commission has not been filed within the period fixed by section 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure (2) in not ordering the administrators to pay their credits, either out of the funds of the testamentary proceedings or on account of the hereditary share of each of the co-heirs; and (3) in denying the motion for reconsideration.

    The first assigned error is without merit. It appears that the report of the commissioners was submitted on May 22, 1933, and it was approved by an order dated June 5th of the same year. The motion asking for the reappointment of the commissioners was filed on May 12, 1936, that is, long after the expiration of the six-month period allowed by section 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which began from the date of the termination of the period granted to the commissioners to hear and pass upon the claims against the properties of the deceased.

    The last two assigned errors are, however, well-founded. The appellants alleged in the motion that all the co-heirs, including the co-administrator and appellee Juan Serapio y Perez, agreed to assume and pay their credits before the properties of the deceased were distributed among and delivered to said co-heirs, and that to this end they executed and signed the needed documents copies of which are attached to the motion. The copies of said documents in fact show that the aforesaid co-heirs agreed to pay the credits of the appellants before the estate of the deceased was distributed among and delivered to them. In the opposition to the motion, the appellees have not denied the authenticity of the alleged documents, limiting themselves to the argument that the reappointment of the commissioners was asked too late and beyond the period allowed by section 690. If the co-heirs have in fact assumed the debts of the deceased and have solemnly bound themselves, as seems to be the case, to pay the same before the distribution of the estate, it is a matter of justice that they comply with the obligations thus voluntarily contracted and that the latter be paid to the appellants before the co-heirs get the properties to them adjudicated in the will.

    When all the co-heirs agree that the credits of some of them be paid by the others, and the other co-heirs in fact assume the obligations arising from said credits, and the motion for the payment of said credits or for there appointment of the commissioners is filed after the lapse of the six-month period fixed by section 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the reappointment of the commissioners on claim will not lie; but the co-heirs who have assumed the obligations cannot escape the latter and the court should order the administrator or administrators to pay said obligation after paying the other credits which have been admitted and approved by the committee on claims, but before the estate of the deceased is distributed among and delivered to all the co-heirs.

    In view of the foregoing, the appealed orders are set aside, and the court of origin is ordered to set for trial the motion filed by the appellants on May 12, 1936, so that the latter may establish, with the documents copies of which are attached to said motion, that the co-heirs have assumed the credits which they have against the deceased, allowing the appellees to adduce such evidence as they may have in rebuttal. Should the appellants prove their credits thus recognized and accepted by the co-heirs, the court shall order the appellees, as administrators, to pay the same after paying those approved by the committee on claims, but before the estate is distributed among and delivered to all the co-heirs; without special pronouncement as to the costs in this instance. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 45383   May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL. <br /><br />067 Phil 701


    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