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. 47971   June 27, 1941 - IN RE: MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL. v. MANUEL A. AKOL, ET AL. <br /><br />072 Phil 567

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 47971. June 27, 1941.]

    Intestate estate of the deceased Julio Magbanua. MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MANUEL A. AKOL and ZACARIAS B. DOROMAL, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

    Clemente M. Zulueta for Appellants.

    Elias N. Recto for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; CLAIMS OF CREDITORS OF INTESTATE; PRESCRIPTION. — The herein appellants recover upon their claim, it appearing that more than eighteen years had elapsed after the death of their debtor, J. M., and before the institution of the latter’s intestate proceedings.

    2. ID.; INSTITUTION OF INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS BY CREDITORS. — In Ledesma v. McLachlin, decided November 23, 1938 (38 Off. Gaz., 3127, 3128), this court again intimidated that section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes a creditor to institute an intestate proceeding through the appointment of an administrator for the purpose of collecting his credit.

    3. ID.; SPEEDY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS. — The speedy settlement of the estate of deceased persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to the residue by way of inheritance or legacy after the debts and expenses of administration have been paid, is the ruling spirit of our probate law. (Sikat v. Viuda de Villanueva, 57 Phil., 486.)


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    On August 24, 1917, Julio Magbanua died intestate in the municipality of Pototan, Province of Iloilo. No intestate proceedings had been instituted until April 1, 1935, when a petition was filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo by one Raynalda Magbanua, who alleged to be an acknowledged natural daughter of the deceased Julio Magbanua, together with her husband, Segundo Bernasol, which petition was amended on May 18, 1936, praying that letters of administration be issued and that Zacarias B. Doromal be appointed administrator of the estate left by the deceased Julio Magbanua. To this petition Priscila Magbanua and Paz Magbanua, who alleged to be legitimate sisters of the deceased Julio Magbanua, filed an opposition in which they prayed that the petition be dismissed and that, if the court deemed it proper to appoint an administrator, Attorney Manuel A. Akol be so appointed. On July 20, 1935, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo issued an order appointing Manuel Akol as administrator and Zacarias B. Doromal as co-administrator. Upon motion of Priscila and Paz Magbanua, the court appointed Telesforo Gedang and Pedro Flores as commissioners on claims and appraisal. These commissioners, on August 10, 1935, published a notice that claims against the intestate Julio Magbanua should be filed within 6 months from said date. On November 11, 1935, Mariano Magbanua and his wife, Priscila Magbanua, filed with the committee a claim against the deceased Julio Magbanua in the total amount of P2,251.86. After hearing, the committee disallowed this claim, on the ground that, in accordance with section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it had prescribed. Due exception was made to this adverse resolution by the claimants, Mariano Magbanua and Priscila Magbanua, and, by way of appeal, they filed the corresponding complaint against Manuel Akol and Zacarias B. Doromal, as administrators of the estate of Julio Magbanua, seeking judgment for the sum of P2,251.86. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo issued an order affirming the resolution of the committee on claims disallowing the claim of the spouses Mariano Magbanua and Priscila Magbanua, on the ground of laches. From this order, the claimants, Mariano Magbanua and Priscila Magbanua, appealed and now contend that the trial court erred in declaring that their claim has prescribed and in not sentencing the judicial administrators of the estate of Julio Magbanua to pay the sum of P2,251.86.

    It is here admitted that at the time of death of Julio Magbanua on August 24, 1917, the appellants’ right of action upon the claim in question had not yet prescribed, but that at the time said claim was filed before the committee on claims on November 11, 1935, more than 18 years had already elapsed. The appellants maintain that the death of Julio Magbanua ipso facto suspended the running of the prescriptive period fixed in Chapter III of the Code of Civil Procedure.

    In Sikat v. Viuda de Villanueva (57 Phil., 486), we observed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It may be argued in this case that inasmuch as none of the persons entitled to be appointed administrators or to apply for the appointment of an administrator have taken any step in that direction, and since no administrator or committee on claims and appraisal has been appointed to fix the time for filing claims, the right of the plaintiff, as administrator of Mariano P. Villanueva’s estate, to present the latter’s claim against Pedro Villanueva’s estate could not prescribe.

    "If, as we have stated, the object of the law in fixing short special periods for the presentation of claims against the estate of a deceased person is to settle the affairs of the estate as soon as possible in order to pay off the debts and distribute the residue; and if a creditor having knowledge of the death of his debtor is interested in collecting his credit as soon as possible; and if according to law the person entitled to the administration or to propose another person for administrator have thirty days from the death within which to claim that right, after which time the court may appoint any creditor of the intestate debtor: then the plaintiff herein as administrator of Mariano P. Villanueva’s estate, was guilty of laches in not instituting the intestate proceedings of Pedro Villanueva in the Court of First Instance of Manila until after the lapse of three years after this court had set aside the intestate proceedings begun in the Court of First Instance of Albay for lack of jurisdiction over the place where the decedent had died, that is, from October 21, 1921, to June 18, 1925."cralaw virtua1aw library

    If the claimant in Sikat v. Viuda de Villanueva was held guilty of laches for failing to institute the proper intestate proceedings within the period of three years, there is more justification for ruling that the herein appellants cannot recover upon their claim, it appearing that more than eighteen years had elapsed after the death of their debtor, Julio Magbanua, and before the institution of the latter’s intestate proceedings. The flaw in the appellants’ argument lies in their belief that "los acreedores de u difunto no pueden entablar demanda contra los representantes de este ante los tribunales de justicia, sino que aquellos tienen que esperar la formacion de un tribunal especial formado pro los comisionados de avaluo y reclamaciones, ante el cual deben acudir y reclamar su credito dentro del plazo fijado por el Juzgado de Testamentaria," As is conspicuous in Sikat v. Viuda de Villanueva, "according to law the persons entitled to the administrator have thirty days from the death within which to claim that right, after which time the court may appoint any creditor of the intestate debtor," and to "hold otherwise would be to permit a creditor having knowledge of his debtor’s death to keep the latter’s estate in suspense indefinitely, by not instituting either testate or intestate proceedings in order to present his claim, to the prejudice of the heirs and legatees." In Ledesma Et. Al. v. McLachlin Et. Al., decided November 23, 1938, 38 Off. Gaz., 3127, 3128, this court again intimated that section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes a creditor to institute an intestate proceeding through the appointment of an administrator for the purpose of collecting his credit.

    "According to the promissory note Exhibit C, executed by the deceased Lorenzo M. Quitco, on January 21, 1922, the last installment of P1,500 should be paid two years from the date of the execution of said promissory note, that is, on January 21, 1924. The complaint in the present case was filed on June 26, 1934, that is, more than ten years after the expiration of the said period. The fact that the plaintiff Socorro Ledesma filed her claim, on August 26, 1933, with the committee on claims and appraisal appointed in the intestate of Eusebio Quitco, does not suspend the running of the prescriptive period of the judicial action for the recovery of said debt, because the claim for the unpaid balance of the amount of the promissory note should not have been presented in the intestate of Eusebio Quitco, the said deceased not being the one who executed the same, but in the intestate of Lorenzo M. Quitco, which should have been instituted by the said Socorro Ledesma as provided in section 642 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, authorizing a creditor to institute said case through the appointment of an administrator for the purpose of collecting hi credit. More than ten years having thus elapsed from the expiration of the period for the payment of said debt of P1,500, the action for its recovery has prescribed under section 43, No. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure." (Italics ours.)

    In the instant case there can be no dispute that the appellants were aware of the death of Julie Magbanua, because the latter was a brother of the appellant Priscila Magbanua who alleges to have taken care of him during his last days and to have paid his funeral expenses, the latter being one item of her claim. We cannot too often repeat that the speedy settlement of the estate of deceased persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to the residue by way of inheritance or legacy after the debts and expenses of administration have been paid, is the ruling spirit of our probate law. (Sikat v. Viuda de Villanueva, supra.)

    The order appealed from will be, as the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 47971   June 27, 1941 - IN RE: MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL. v. MANUEL A. AKOL, ET AL. <br /><br />072 Phil 567


    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