Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1939 > October 1939 Decisions > G.R. No. 46249 October 18, 1939 - CONCEPCION DE HILADO v. JESUS R. NAVA

069 Phil 1:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 46249. October 18, 1939.]

Intestate Estate of Rafael Jocson, deceased. CONCEPCION JOCSON DE HILADO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JESUS R. NAVA, Defendant-Appellant.

Jose M. Estacion for Appellant.

Luis G. Hilado for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; POWER OF ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT OF LEASE WITHOUT JUDICIAL INTERVENTION; POWER OF COURT TO ANNUL SUCH CONTRACT OF LEASE. — The contract here in question, being a mere act of administration, could validly be entered into by the administratrix within her powers of administration, even without the court’s previous authority. And the court had no power to annul or invalidate the contract in the intestate proceedings wherein it had no jurisdiction over the person of the lessee. A separate ordinary action is necessary to that effect.


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, J.:


On February 8, 1935, the administratrix Estefania Fenix of the intestate estate of the deceased Rafael Jocson, executed in favor of appellant Jesus R. Nava a contract of lease for a period of five crop years, over certain properties of the estate, at a stipulated rental of P1,000 a year. The contract was entered into without the intervention of the court acting in the intestate proceedings. On July 23, 1936, appellee herein, Concepcion Jocson de Hilado, filed a motion in said proceedings, praying that the administratrix be required to explain certain details in the matter of said lease; and, in reply to the answer filed by said administratrix, she prayed that the contract be declared null and void. The court, in its order of December 6, 1936, declared the contract null and void and ordered the administratrix to lease the lands comprised in the contract to the highest bidder at public auction. Jesus R. Nava, the lessee, filed a motion asking that the order be set aside, it having been issued without jurisdiction. The motion was denied, and he appealed.

The controlling issue here raised is whether or not the lower court has the power to annul, in the intestate proceedings, a contract of lease executed by the administratrix without its intervention. Appellant maintains that it has no such power, and that the contract can only be annulled in a separate, independent proceeding.

The contract here in question being a mere act of administration, could validly be entered into by the administratrix within her powers of administration, even without the court’s previous authority. And the court had no power to annul or invalidate the contract in the intestate proceedings wherein it had no jurisdiction over the person of the lessee. A separate ordinary action is necessary to that effect. In Gamboa v. Gamboa (G. R. No. 45121), we held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Creemos que el Juzgado inferior erro manifiestamenteal declarar en estas mismas actuaciones de Tutela sin haberse promovido una causa separada, que el contrato de arrendamiento en cuestion es nulo por falta de aprobacion judicial. Los contratos se presumen validos mientras no se declare que no lo son; y esto solo puede hacerse mediante el ejercicio de una accion ordinaria en causa aparte, que esd ebe determinarse la cuestion, porque el capitulo XXVII de la Ley No. 190 que habla de Tutelas no confiere autoridadal Juzgado para ocuparse o mejor dicho resolver la misma. Lo resuelto en las causas de Guzman contra Anog y otro,: 35 Jur. Fil., 66; Alafriz contra Mina, 28 Jur. Fil., 142; Llacer contra Muñoz, 12 Jur. Fil., 336; Y Hagans contra wislizenus, 42 Jur. Fil., 928, son por su estrecha analogia al caso de autos, de mucha y oportuna aplicacion al mismo."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Ferraris v. Rodas, G. R. No. 46021, we observed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No se discute que el arrendamiento de la participacion de esta testamentaria en la hacienda Talaban a favor de Mamerto Ferraris hecha por la administradora es legal, y loes, en efecto, pues, siendo el arrendamiento un acto de mera administracion, la administradora podia legalmente, por Si sola, celebrar aquel contrato con Mamerto Ferraris. Si esto es asi, aun sin considerar si el Juzgado tenia a no jurisdiccion para dictar el discutido auto, es claro que, si la tenia, abuso de ella el obrar contra los efectos legales del arrendamiento valida y legitimamente celebrado por la administradora con Mamerto Ferraris, sin que dicho arrendamiento haya sido antes declarado nulo por los procedimientos correspondientes."cralaw virtua1aw library

Order is accordingly reversed, with costs against appellee.

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




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46714 October 2, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS ACHA Y RIVERA

    068 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 46264 October 3, 1939 - DOMINGO FERRER v. JOSE S. LOPEZ

    068 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 46320 October 5, 1939 - NICOLASA DE GUZMAN v. ANGELA LIMCOLIOC

    068 Phil 673

  • G.R. No. 46413 October 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO BALAGTAS Y MANLAPAS

    068 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 46501 October 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS K. ARELLANO

    068 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 46573 October 5, 1939 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. JUAN G. LESACA

    068 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 46589 October 6, 1939 - NATIONAL NAVIGATION CO. v. JOSE T. TINSAY

    068 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 46625 October 6, 1939 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. VICENTE DE VERA

    068 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 46702 October 6, 1939 - ALEIDA SAAVEDRA v. W. S. PRICE

    068 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 45793 October 9, 1939 - ARISTONA LASERNA v. JOSE ALTA VAS

    068 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 46207 October 10, 1939 - VICTORIANO GATCHALIAN v. MAMERTO MANALO

    068 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. 45963 October 12, 1939 - CARLOS PARDO DE TAVERA v. EL HOGAR FILIPINO

    068 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. 46285 October 12, 1939 - MANUEL DIAZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 46457 October 12, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONINO DE ASIS

    068 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. 46459 October 13, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO DEL ROSARIO

    068 Phil 720

  • G.R. No. 46628 October 13, 1939 - RADIO THEATER v. VICENTE DE VERA Y MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

    068 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 46246 October 14, 1939 - TEODORO MARIANO Y LINGAT v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. 46521 October 14, 1939 - TEOPISTA DOLAR v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    068 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 46540 October 14, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARION CAMACLANG

    068 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. 46598 October 14, 1939 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 46612 October 14, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODULO YECLA

    068 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 46534 October 16, 1939 - J. V. HOUSE v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA

    068 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 46591 October 16, 1939 - TAN TIONG GONG v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. 46097 October 18, 1939 - TEOFILA ADEVA VIUDA DE LEYNEZ v. IGNACIO LEYNEZ

    068 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. 46249 October 18, 1939 - CONCEPCION DE HILADO v. JESUS R. NAVA

    069 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 46454 October 18, 1939 - DIONISIA JAMORA v. DOMINGA DURAN

    069 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 46825 October 18, 1939 - ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL. v. PEDRO VILLAROMAN, ET AL.

    069 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46242 October 20, 1939 - JOSE MA. DE LA VIÑA, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    069 Phil 30

  • G.R. No. 46278 October 26, 1939 - MENZI & CO. v. QUING CHUAN

    069 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 46386 October 26, 1939 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. BENJAMIN A. LEDESMA

    069 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 46306 October 27, 1939 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. LAZARO BLAS GERVACIO

    069 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-46533 October 28, 1939 - THE MANILA RACING CLUB, INC. v. THE MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, ET AL.

    069 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. L-46666 October 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    069 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 46700 October 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO GEMORA

    069 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-46261 October 31, 1939 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. ROSARIO GEAGA

    069 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-46310 October 31, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO GONZALES

    069 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 46455 October 31, 1939 - EUSEBIO PELIÑO v. JOSE ICHON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 81

  • G.R. Nos. 46526 & 46527 October 31, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERANG

    069 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 46635 October 31, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. ISABELO Z. ECHAVEZ, ET AL.

    069 Phil 86