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
 

   
June-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47032 June 6, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE MIRANDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 222

  • G.R. Nos. 47038, 47039 & 47040 June 6 1941

    LUIS R. PIMENTEL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 47260 June 6, 1941 - BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES v. EUGENIA M. SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 47454 June 6, 1941 - ADRIANO TRINIDAD v. ANDRES S. SIOCHI, ET AL.

    072 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 47317 June 10, 1941 - SISENANDO ABARRO v. TOMASA DE GUIA

    072 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 47519 June 10, 1941 - EMILIANO E. GARCIA v. PAZ E. VELASCO

    072 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 47549 June 10, 1941 - J. BENTON CLAUSEN v. ISABEL CABRERA

    072 Phil 252

  • G.R. Nos. 47646 & 47657 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO BALTAZAR v. ANDRES LAYUG, ET AL.

    072 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 47684 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO A. MANEJA

    072 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. 47686 June 10, 1941 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO SANDIKO

    072 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 47689 June 10, 1941 - WILFRIDO MACEDA, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 47694 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO CALDITO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 47756 June 10, 1941 - LUIS OCAMPO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. 47762 June 10, 1941 - SILVERIO MORCO v. SALVADOR MUÑOZ

    072 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 47764 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO V. VILLARICA v. CONCEPCION MANIKIS

    072 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 47770 June 10, 1941 - SILVESTRE GALLANO v. PABLO S. RIVERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 47780 June 10, 1941 - CIRILO ALAFRIZ v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 47789 June 10, 1941 - FE CASTRO DE AGBAYANI v. JUSTICE OF PEACE OF THE CAPITAL OF ILOCOS NORTE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 47816 June 10, 1941 - SABINO AGUILOS v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 47862 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCA SIMON v. SINFOROSO TAGOC

    072 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 47863 June 10, 1941 - JOSE H. JUNQUERA v. JOSE VAÑO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 47892 June 10, 1941 - PABLO VALENZUELA v. VALERIO FLORES, ET AL.

    072 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 48027 June 10, 1941 - EL INTESTADO DE BENITO VALDEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE ALBERT, ET AL.

    072 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 47421 June 13, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE NUEVA ECIJA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 47734 June 13, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. CORNELIO PINEDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 47738 June 13, 1941 - ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 47799 June 13, 1941 - ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL. v. IGNACIA AKUTIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 47965 June 13, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. MARIANO ABACAHIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 47072 June 17, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 47358 June 17, 1941 - MANILA MOTOR CO., INC. v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 47432 June 17, 1941 - EUSTAQUIO FULE v. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 47542 June 17, 1941 - LA FABRICA DE CERVEZA DE SAN MIGUEL v. ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU

    072 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 47570 June 17, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE PAMPANGA v. ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO

    072 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 47580 June 17, 1941 - SIMEON MANDAC v. COURT OF APPEALS

    072 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 47587 June 17, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. A. L. YATCO

    072 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 47660 June 17, 1941 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. VICENTE VERSOZA

    072 Phil 362

  • G.R. Nos. 47678 & 47679 June 17, 1941 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO, ET AL. v. ISIDORO DE SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 47724 June 17, 1941 - HERMENEGILDO DEVEZA v. MANUEL RUIZ RUILOBA

    072 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 47745 June 17, 1941 - JOSE OLIVER SUCCESSORS v. MARIAÑO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 47771 June 17, 1941 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. GRACIANO DE LA RAMA

    072 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 47837 June 17, 1941 - SEGUNDO GARCIA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 47848 June 17, 1941 - BONIFACIO DANGALAN v. DOMINGO MARTICIO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 47889 June 17, 1941 - ANDRES JARDIN, ET AL. v. SEVERINA VILLAMAYOR

    072 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 47972 June 17, 1941 - A. K. SPIELBERGER v. L. R. NIELSON

    072 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 47538 June 20, 1941 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. ARCO AMUSEMENT CO.

    072 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 47588 June 20, 1941 - JOSE L. LIWANAG v. TOLARAM MENGHRAJ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 47601 June 20, 1941 - EDUARDO C. GUICO v. NICASIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 47683 June 20, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. CONSOLACION M. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 47726 June 20, 1941 - MONTE DE PIEDAD, ET AL. v. VICTORINO DANGOY

    072 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 47797 June 20, 1941 - JOSEFA LABOT v. EDUVIGES LIBRADA

    072 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 47819 June 20, 1941 - LEONARDO GUISON v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 48100 June 20, 1941 - FLORENCIO PELOBELLO v. GREGORIO PALATINO

    072 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 46966 June 24, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE FILIPINAS v. CHUNG LIU & COMPANY

    072 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 47058 June 27, 1941 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL

    072 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 47189 June 27, 1941 - A. L. AMMEN TRANS. CO. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS

    072 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 47226 June 27, 1941 - PEDRO DE JESUS v. GUAN BEE CO.

    072 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 47338 June 27, 1941 - FRANCISCO EGMIDIO v. LEON REGALADO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 47354 June 27, 1941 - EL OPISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE NUEVA SEGOVIA v. EL MUNICIPIO DE SANTA CATALINA

    072 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 47380 June 27, 1941 - ZACARIAS DE SADUESTE v. MUNICIPALITY OF SURIGAO

    072 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 47409 June 27, 1941 - ANGEL P. MIGUEL v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    072 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 47411 June 27, 1941 - J. A. WOLFSON v. MANILA STOCK EXCHANGE

    072 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 47465 June 27, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. POPULAR LABOR UNION OF CAIBIRAN

    072 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 47501 June 27, 1941 - FELIX B. BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. GABRIEL LASAM, ET AL.

    072 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 47517 June 27, 1941 - IDONAH SLADE PERKINS v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 47641 June 27, 1941 - JOSEFA BUNDALIAN, ET AL. v. JUAN DE VERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 47701 June 27, 1941 - MENTHOLATUM CO. v. ANACLETO MANGALIMAN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 47731 June 27, 1940

    QUINTINA R. SABADO v. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ

    072 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 47888 June 27, 1941 - MANUEL VILLARAMA vs.JUANITO MANLUSOC

    072 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 47931 June 27, 1941 - ADRIANO MENDOZA v. CALIXTO PILAPIL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 546

  • G.R. Nos. 47955 y 47993 June 27, 1941 - MARIANO B. ARROY, ET AL. v. ARSENIO DIZON

    072 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 47971 June 27, 1941 - IN RE: MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL. v. MANUEL A. AKOL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 48004 June 27, 1941 - CARLOS DORONILA v. DOLORES VASQUEZ DE ARROYO

    072 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 47179 June 28, 1941 - PHIL. ASS’N OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS v. M. JESUS CUENCO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 47269 June 28, 1941 - KUAN LOW & CO. v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE ADUANAS

    072 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 47424 June 28, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

    072 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 47586 June 28, 1941 - LIM BONFING, ET AL. v. TEODORICO RODRIGUEZ

    072 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 47966 June 28, 1941 - LOPE ATIENZA v. MAXIMINO CASTILLO

    072 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 47342 June 30, 1941 - HILARIO C. RODRIGUEZ v. RAMON ECHEVARRIA

    073 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47446 June 30, 1941 - JOSE P. BANTUG v. MAMERTO ROXAS

    073 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 47637 June 30, 1941 - JOSE VISTAN v. EL ARZOBISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE MANILA

    073 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 47663 June 30, 1941 - JULIN GO v. EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    073 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 47768 June 30, 1941 - NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 47790 June 30, 1941 - IN RE: EMILIANO GUZMAN

    073 Phil 51

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47799   June 13, 1941 - ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL. v. IGNACIA AKUTIN, ET AL. <br /><br />072 Phil 322

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 47799. June 13, 1941.]

    Administration of the estate of Agripino Neri y Chavez. ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL., Petitioners, v. IGNACIA AKUTIN AND HER CHILDREN, Respondents.

    Ozamiz & Capistrano, for Petitioners.

    Gullas, Leuterio, Tanner & Laput for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; PRETERITION; EFFECT. — Preterition consists in the omission in the testator’s will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. (Cf. 6 Manresa, 346.) In the instant case, while the children of the first marriage were mentioned in the will, they were not accorded any share in the hereditary property, without expressly being disinherited. It is hereditary property, without expressly being disinherited. It is, therefore, a clear case of preterition as contended by appellants. The omission of the forced heirs or anyone of them, whether voluntary, is a preterition if the purpose to disinherit is not expressly made or is not at least manifest.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID. — Except as to "legacies and betterments" which "shall be valid in so far as they are not inofficious" (art. 814 of the Civil Code), preterition avoids the institution of heirs and gives rise to intestate succession. (Art. 814, Civil Code; Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of June 17, 1908 and February 27, 1909.) In the instant case, no such legacies or betterments must be expressly provided, according to articles 825 and 828 of the Civil Code, and where no express provision therefor is made in the will, the law would presume that the testator had no intention to that effect. (Cf. 6 Manresa, 479.) In the will here in question, no express betterment is made in favor of the children by the second marriage upon the mistaken belief that the heirs by the first marriage have already received their shares. Were it not for this mistake, the testator’s intention, as may be clearly inferred from his will, would have been to divide his property equally among all his children.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    Agripino Neri y Chavez, who died on December 12, 1931, had by his first marriage six children named Eleuterio, Agripino, Agapito, Getulia, Rosario and Celerina; and by his second marriage with Ignacia Akutin, five children named Gracia, Godofredo, Violeta, Estela Maria, and Emma. Getulia, daughter in the first marriage, died on October 2, 1923, that is, a little less than eight years before the death of said Agripino Neri y Chavez, and was survived by seven children named Remedios, Encarnacion, Carmen, Trinidad, Luz, Alberto and Minda. In Agripino Neri’s testament, which was admitted to probate on March 21, 1932, he willed that his children by the first marriage shall have no longer any participation in his estate, as they had already received their corresponding shares during his lifetime. At the hearing for the declaration of heirs, the trial court found, contrary to what the testator had declared in his will, that all his children by the first marriage, except Eleuterio, had not received any advancement of inheritance during his lifetime. And upon this finding it rendered judgment declaring the children by the first and second marriages intestate heirs of the deceased without pre-judice to one-half of the improvements introduced in the properties during the existence of the last conjugal partnership, which should belong to Ignacia Akutin. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision with the modification that the will was "valid with respect to the two thirds part which the testator could freely dispose of." This judgment of the Court of Appeals is now sought to be reviewed in this petition for certiorari.

    The decisive question here raised is whether, upon the foregoing facts, the omission of the children of the first marriage annual the institution of the children or the second marriage as sole heirs of the testator, or whether the will may be held valid, at least with respect to one-third of the estate which the testator may dispose of as legacy and to the other one-third which he may bequeath as betterment, to said children of the second marriage.

    The Court of Appeals invoked the provision of article 851 of the Civil Code, which read in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Disinheritance made without a statement of the cause, or for a cause the truth of which, if contradicted, is not proven, . . . shall annul the institution of the heir is so far as it prejudices the person disinherited; but the legacies, betterments, and other testamentary dispositions, in so far as they do not encroach upon the legitime, shall be valid."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The appellate court thus seemed to have rested its judgment upon the impression that the testator had intended to disinherit, though ineffectively, the children of the first marriage. There is nothing in the will that supports this conclusion. True, the testator expressly denied them any share in his estate; but the denial was predicated, not upon the desire to disinherit, but upon the belief, mistaken though it was, that their corresponding shares in his lifetime in the form of advancement. Such belief conclusively negatives all inference as to any intention to disinherit, unless his statement to that effect is proved to be deliberately fictitious, a fact not found by the Court of Appeals. The situation contemplated in the above provision is one in which the purpose to disinherit is clear, but upon a cause not stated or not proved, a situation which does not obtain in the instant case.

    The Court of Appeals quotes Manresa thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "En el terreno de los principios, la solucion mas justa del problema que hemos hecho notar al comentar el articulo, seria distinguir el caso en que el heredero omitido viviese al otorgarse el testamento, siendo conocida su existencia por el testador, de aquel en que, o naciese despues, o se ignorase su existencia, aplicando en el primer caso la doctrina del articulo 851, y en el segundo la del 814." (6 Manresa, 354-355.)

    But it must be observed that this opinion is founded on mere principles (en el terreno de los principios) and not on the express provisions of the law. Manresa himself admits that according to law, "no existe hoy cuestion alguna en esta materia: la pretericion produce siempre los mismos efectos, ya se refiera a personas vivas al hacer el testamento o nacidas despues. Este ultimo grupo solo puede hacer relacion a los descendientes legitimos, siempre que ademas tengan derecho a legitima." (6 Manresa, 381.)

    Appellants, on the other hand, maintain that the case is one of the voluntary preterition of four of the children by the first marriage, and of involuntary preterition of the children by the deceased Getulia, also of the first marriage, and is thus governed by the provisions of article 814 of the Civil Code, which read in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The preterition of one or all of the forced heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall void the institution of heir; but the legacies and betterments shall be valid, in so far as they are not inofficious."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Preterition consists in the omission in the testator’s will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not mentioned therein, or though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. (Cf. 6 Manresa, 346.) In the instant case, while the children of the first marriage were mentioned in the will, they were not accorded any share in the hereditary property, without expressly being disinherited. It is, therefore, a clear case of preterition as contended by appellants. The omission of the forced heirs or anyone of them, whether voluntary or involuntary, is a preterition if the purpose to disinherit is not expressly made or is not at least manifest.

    Except as to "legacies and betterments" which "shall be valid in so far as they are not inofficious" (art. 814 of the Civil Code), preterition avoids the institution of heirs and gives rise to intestate succession. (Art. 814, Civil Code; Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of June 17, 1908 and February 27, 1909.) In the instant case, no such legacies or betterments have been made by the testator. "Mejoras" or betterments must be expressly provided, according to articles 825 and 828 of the Civil Code, and where no express provision therefor is made in the will, the law would presume that the testator has no intention to that effect (Cf. 6 Manresa, 479.) In the will here in question, no express betterment is made in favor of the children by the second marriage; neither is there any legacy expressly made in their behalf consisting of the third available for free disposal. The whole inheritance is accorded the heirs by the second marriage upon the mistaken belief that the heirs by the first marriage have already received their shares. Were it not for this mistake, the testator’s intention, as may be clearly inferred from his will, would have been to divide his property equally among all his children.

    Judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and that of the trial court affirmed, without prejudice to the widow’s legal usufruct, with costs against respondents.

    Avanceña, C.J., Diaz, Laurel and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 47799   June 13, 1941 - ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL. v. IGNACIA AKUTIN, ET AL. <br /><br />072 Phil 322


    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