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
 

   
December-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2502 December 1, 1949 - PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS NORTE v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL

    085 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-2836 December 6, 1949 - ENGRACIA G. DE PONCE v. ALICIA VASQUEZ SAGARIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-2466 December 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TUAZON

    085 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-2580 December 7, 1949 - PABLO RICOHERMOSO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

    085 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-2593 December 7, 1949 - FELIX AZOTES v. MANUEL BLANCO, ET AL

    085 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. L-2652 December 7, 1949 - JULIA LORENZO, ET AL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NAIC, ET AL

    085 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-2758 December 7, 1949 - CLARO J. GIL, ET AL v. F. IMPERIAL REYES, ET AL

    085 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-3452 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. FELIX ANGELO BAUTISTA

    085 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. L-3474 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. VICENTE DE VERA

    085 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2354 December 13, 1949 - ALFONSO ARANETA v. MARTA CUI VDA. DE SANSON

    085 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-2672 December 13, 1949 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL

    085 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-3521 December 13, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY ET AL. v. COMELEC

    085 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2722 December 15, 1949 - NICOLAS LIZARES & CO. v. BIENVENIDO TAN

    085 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2802 December 23, 1949 - ROSA PASCUAL, ET AL v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET AL

    085 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2936 December 23, 1949 - TIDE WATER ASSOCIATED OIL CO. v. VICTORY EMPLOYEES, ET AL

    085 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. L-867 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO ET AL. v. CARLOS SANDICO ET AL.

    085 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-1349 December 29, 1949 - H. D. KNEEDLER v. SIMON PATERNO

    085 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-1773 December 29, 1949 - ALEJANDRO ANDRES, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    085 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. L-1811 December 29, 1949 - GREGORIO BALVERAN, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS

    085 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-1877 December 29, 1949 - H. P. HOSKYNS v. NAT’L. CITY BANK OF NEW YORK

    085 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-1965 December 29, 1949 - EDUARDO OSORIO v. MARINA OSORIO

    085 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2020 December 29, 1949 - LA ORDEN DE PADRES BENEDICTINOS DE FILIPINAS v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    085 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-2360 December 29, 1949 - GAVINO ALDAMIZ v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MINDORO, ET AL

    085 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-2404 December 29, 1949 - FABIAN B. S. ABELLERA v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    085 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-2634 December 29, 1949 - PACIFIC IMPORTING & EXPORTING CO. v. CATALINO TINIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-2570 December 29, 1949 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES’ ASSO.

    085 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-2678 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO C. ARAGON v. MARCOS JORGE

    085 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-2717 December 29, 1949 - IRINEO FACUNDO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN ET AL.

    085 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-2752 December 29, 1949 - URBANO OLAVARIO ET AL. v. JUAN T. VILLANUEVA

    085 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-2842 December 29, 1949 - JOSE T. VALMONTE, ET AL v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL

    085 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-2850 December 29, 1949 - ONG KIM PAN, ET AL v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL

    085 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-2942 December 29, 1949 - SILVESTRA COQUIA, ET AL v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, ET AL

    085 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-3039 December 29, 1949 - VICTORIO REYNOSO, ET AL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL

    085 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. L-3261 December 29, 1949 - HECTOR G. PALILEO v. FRED RUIZ CASTRO, ET AL

    085 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-2529 December 31, 1949 - J. A. SISON v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, EZT AL

    085 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-2720 December 31, 1949 - HEMANDAS UDHARAM v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    085 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-2893 December 31, 1949 - AGRIPINO JIMINEZ, ET AL v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    085 Phil 286

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-3039   December 29, 1949 - VICTORIO REYNOSO, ET AL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 268

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-3039. December 29, 1949.]

    VICTORIO REYNOSO and JUAN REYNOSO, Petitioners, v. VICENTE SANTIAGO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, PIA REYNOSO, AGUSTINA REYNOSO, MELITON PALABRICA, LEONCIO CADIZ ET AL., Respondents.

    Laurel, Sabido, Almario, & Laurel, for Petitioners.

    Ed. Espinosa Antona for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; INTESTATE PROCEEDING MAY BE CONVERTED INTO TESTATE PROCEEDING ONLY AS A MATTER OF FORM. — Whether the intestate proceeding already commenced should be discontinued a new proceeding under a separate number and title should be constituted is entirely a matter of form and lies within the sound discretion of the court. In no manner does it prejudice the substantial rights of any of the heirs or creditors. Amor propio is perhaps the only thing that is at stake on this phase of the controversy.

    2. ID.; APPOINTMENT OF REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR IN LIEU OF SPECIAL ONE IS IN ORDER AFTER COURT HAS DECREED PROBATE OF WILL. — The appointment of a special administrator is justified only when there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration occasioned by an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will or some other cause. The Court of Appeals having decreed the probate of the will and the appointment of an albacea, there is no valid reason for the further retention of the special administrator. The appointment of a regular administrator is necessary for the prompt settlement and distribution of the estate. There are important duties devolving on a regular administrator which a special administrator can not performs, and there are many actions to be taken by the court which could not be accomplished before a regular administrator is appointed.

    3. ID.; APPOINTMENT OF REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR; SURVIVING SPOUSE; MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE. — While the surviving spouse is entitled to preference in the appointment (section 6, rule 79), circumstances might warrant his rejection and the appointment of someone else. Mandamus lies where the duty is specific and ministerial. It does not lie where judgment or discretion is exercised in the performance of the act. Applying the rule to this case, it is proper to command the court below to appoint a regular administrator, but it is not proper to tell it whom to appoint.


    D E C I S I O N


    TUASON, J.:


    Victorio Reynoso and Juan Reynoso apply for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Vicente Santiago of the Court of First Instance of Quezon to order the opening of a testate estate of the deceased Salvadora Obispo in the place of special intestate proceeding No. 2914, and to appoint Victorio Reynoso as executor of the decedent’s last will and testament.

    Briefly, the facts are as follows: On April 29, 1947, Leoncio Cadiz and other heirs of Salvadora Obispo presented an application in the Court of First Instance of Quezon for the administration of the property of the deceased, application which was docketed as intestate proceeding No. 2914. Victorio Reynoso and Juan Reynoso, Salvadora Obispo’s surviving spouse and eldest son, respectively, opposed the application and filed a document, which purported to be the last will and testament of Salvadora Obispo, with a counterpetition for its probate. Upon trial the court rejected that instrument as a forgery, but on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the finding of the court below, found the will authentic and drawn with all the formalities of law. The dispository part of the decision of the Appellate Court, promulgated November 27, 1948, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Se revoca la sentencia de que se apela, y reuniendo el exhibito A los requisitos exigidos por la ley, se ordena, (a) la legalizacion de dicho documento como testamento y ultima voluntad de la finada Salvadora Obispo, para que surta todos sus efectos legales; (b) la apertura de la testamentaria de dicha finada; y (c) el nombramiento de un albacea de la misma testamentaria de conformidad con el precepto del articulo 6, de la Regla 70 de los Reglamentos de los Tribunales."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Thereafter Victorio Reynoso and Juan Reynoso filed two petitions, one in special proceeding No. 2914 and another under a separate and new docket number (3107) and with a different title (Testate Estate of the deceased Salvadora Obispo). The first prayed that the special administrator, Meliton Palabrica, who had theretofore been appointed in special proceeding No. 2914, be ordered to turn over the properties of the deceased and the proceeds of coprax, nuts and other agricultural products to Victorio Reynoso, and to render an accounting within a reasonable time. It also asked for the closing of the intestate proceeding. The other petition prayed that the estate be administered and settled in special proceeding No. 3107 and that Victorio Reynoso be appointed executor of Salvadora Obispo’s last will and testament. It also contained a prayer for an accounting by Palabrica and delivery by him to the new executor of the properties that came to his possession including the proceeds from the sales of coprax, nuts, etc.

    The two petitions were decided separately by Judge Santiago on April 20, 1949. With respect to the opening of another expediente, His Honor believed that the proposed change or substitution was "not only unnecessary but inconvenient and expensive." An intestate proceeding like special proceeding No. 2914, he said, could and should be converted into a testate proceeding in the same original expediente without the necessity of changing its number, name or title.

    This petition has no merit. Whether the intestate proceeding already commenced should be discontinued and a new proceeding under a separate number and title should be constituted is entirely a matter of form and lies within the sound discretion of the court. In no manner does it prejudice the substantial rights of any of the heirs or creditors. Amor propio is perhaps the only thing that is at stake on this phase of the controversy.

    As to the appointment of the deceased’s husband as executor or administrator, the court said that action on the petition should be withheld for the time being, because of the pendency on appeal of a case in which the special administrator in special proceeding No. 2914 is plaintiff and appellee and Victorio Reynoso defendant and appellant. It involves the question whether an extensive parcel of coconut land is conjugal property or the exclusive property of the husband.

    On this feature of the second petition we disagree with the respondent judge. If one other than the surviving spouse is appointed, which is possible, the feared conflict will not materialize. If Victorio Reynoso is chosen, a special administrator may be named to represent the estate in the suit against him. Section 8 of Rule 87 provides that "If the executor or administrator has a claim against the estate he represents, he shall give notice thereof, in writing, to the court, and the court shall appoint a special administrator who shall, in the adjustment of such claim, have the same power and be subject to the same liability as the general administrator or executor in the settlement of other claims." The situation in which Victorio Reynoso is found with reference to the land in litigation between him and the estate, comes within the spirit if not exactly within the letter of this provision.

    Subject to this observation, an administrator should be appointed without delay in accordance with the final decision of the Court of Appeals. The appointment of a special administrator is justified only when there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration occasioned by an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will or some other cause. The Court of Appeals having decreed the probate of the will and the appointment of an albacea, there is no valid reason for the further retention of the special administrator. The appointment of a regular administrator is necessary for the prompt settlement and distribution of the estate. There are important duties devolving on a regular administrator which a special administrator can not perform, and there are many actions to be taken by the court which could not be accomplished before a regular administrator is appointed.

    But whether or not Victorio Reynoso should be appointed as administrator we do not and can not of course decide in a petition for mandamus. While the surviving spouse is entitled to preference in the appointment (section 6, Rule 79), circumstances might warrant his rejection and the appointment of someone else. Mandamus lies where the duty is specific and ministerial. It does not lie where judgment or discretion is exercised in the performance of the act. Applying the rule to this case, it is proper to command the court below to appoint a regular administrator, but it is not proper to tell it whom to appoint.

    The petition for the constitution of a separate proceeding for the administration of the estate under the will is denied. The petition for the appointment of a regular administrator is granted subject to the provision of section 6 of Rule 79 in the selection of the person to be appointed. Without costs.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-3039   December 29, 1949 - VICTORIO REYNOSO, ET AL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 268


    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