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-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17812 May 20, 1964 - CIPRIANO DEFENSOR v. HON. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17212 May 23, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LT. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18763-64 May 23, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MARTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19562 May 23, 1964 - JOSE SERRANO v. LUIS SERRANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16217 May 25, 1964 - ALFONSO DE LOS REYES, ET AL. v. LUIS DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-18783 May 25, 1964 - GENEROSO BAJE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18978 May 25, 1964 - MANUEL MORATA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19273-74 May 25, 1964 - STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19273-74 May 25, 1964 - STA.CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19566 May 25, 1964 - REMELA ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE F. MARIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-19756 May 25, 1964 - ALEJANDRA ESQUIVEL-CABATIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19849 May 25, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. OLIMPIO LIMLINGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20614 and L-21517 May 25, 1964 - PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15998 May 26, 1964 - GUILLERMO ANTONIO IVANOVICH v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18079 May 26, 1964 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. BERNARDO S. DUNGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18264 May 26, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15308 May 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BOYLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16086 May 29, 1964 - M. RUIZ HIGHWAY TRANSIT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16857 May 29, 1964 - MARCELO CASTILLO, JR., ET AL. v. MACARIA PASCO

  • G.R. No. L-17639 May 29, 1964 - CESAR PABLO OBESO BEDUYA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18203 May 29, 1964 - MANUEL DE LARA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18282 May 29, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PRISCILA ESTATE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18450 May 29, 1964 - LU DO, ET AL. v. PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18777 May 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CONDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18808 May 29, 1964 - ACE PUBLICATION, INC. v. COMM. OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19060 May 20, 1964 - IGNACIO GERONA, ET AL. v. CARMEN DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19252 May 29, 1964 - TUMIPUS MANGAYAO, ET AL. v. QUINTANA LASUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19265 May 29, 1964 - MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR. v. ADELO NOMBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19555 May 29, 1964 - MATEO DE RAMAS v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22193 May 29, 1964 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. JULIETA CORNISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22696 May 29, 1964 - COMM. OF IMMIGRATION v. HON. F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10774 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-6025 & L-6026 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15056 May 30, 1964 - M. S. GALUTERA v. MAERSK LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16315 May 30, 1964 - COMM. OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16547 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO ANTONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16569 May 30, 1964 - PHIL. ENGINEERING CORP. v. AMADO FLORENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16975 May 30, 1964 - IN RE: ROMULO QUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17774 May 30, 1964 - IN RE: CEFERINO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18476 May 30, 1964 - PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. SY INDONG CO. RICE & CORN MILL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18758 May 30, 1964 - DY PEK LONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 18767 and L-18789-90 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MADRIGAL TORINO

  • G.R. No. L-19569 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZANA YUMANG

  • G.R. No. L-19749 May 30, 1964 - MONICO CRUZ v. CAMILO PANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19773 May 30, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-19265   May 29, 1964 - MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR. v. ADELO NOMBRE, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-19265. May 29, 1964.]

    MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR., Petitioner, v. ADELO NOMBRE and PEDRO ESCANLAR, Respondents.

    A. R. Castañeda and M. S. Roxas for Petitioner.

    Amado B. Parreño Law Office for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR MAY LEASE PROPERTY WITHOUT PRIOR JUDICIAL APPROVAL. — A judicial administrator can validly lease property of the estate without prior judicial authority and approval.

    2. ID.; NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF NEW CIVIL CODE ON AGENCY TO JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATORS. — The provisions on agency (Art. 1878, C. C.), should not apply to a judicial administrator. A judicial administrator is appointed by the Court. He is not only the representative of said Court, but also the heirs and creditors of the estate (Chua Tan v. Del Rosario, 57 Phil. 411). A judicial administrator before entering into his duties, is required to file a bond. These circumstances are not true in case of agency. The agent is only answerable to his principal. The protection which the law gives the principal, in limiting the powers and rights of an agent, stems from the fact that control by the principal can only be thru agreements, whereas the acts of a judicial administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and other orders of the appointing court.


    D E C I S I O N


    PAREDES, J.:


    The case at bar had its origin in Special Proceedings No. 7279 of the CFI of Negros Occidental, wherein respondent Adelo Nombre was the duly constituted judicial administrator. On May 1, 1960, Nombre, in his capacity as judicial administrator of the intestate estate subject of the Sp. Proc. stated above, leased one of the properties of the estate (a fishpond identified as Lot No. 1617 of the cadastral survey of Kabangkalan, Negros Occidental), to Pedro Escanlar, the other Respondent. The terms of the lease was for three (3) years, with a yearly rental of P3,000.00 to expire on May 1, 1963, the transaction having been done, admittedly, without previous authority of approval of the Court where the proceedings was pending. On January 17, 1961, Nombre was removed as administrator by Order of the court and one Sofronio Campillanos was appointed in his stead. The appeal on the Order of Nombre’s removal is supposedly pending with the Court of Appeals. Respondent Escanlar was cited for contempt, allegedly for his refusal to surrender the fishpond to the newly appointed administrator.

    On March 20, 1961, Campillanos filed a motion asking for authority to execute a lease contract of the same fishpond, in favor of petitioner herein, Moises San Diego, Sr., for 5 years from 1961, at a yearly rental of P5,000.00. Escanlar was not notified of such motion. Nombre, the deposed administrator, presented a written opposition to the motion of Campillanos on April 11, 1961, pointing out that the fishpond had been leased by him to Escanlar for 3 years, the period of which was going to expire on May 1, 1963. In a supplemental opposition, he also invited the attention of the Court that to grant the motion of the new administrator would in effect nullify the contract in favor of Escanlar, a person on whom the Court has no jurisdiction. He also intimated that the validity of the lease contract entered into by a judicial administrator, must be recognized unless so declared void in a separate action. The opposition notwithstanding, the Court on April 8, 1951, in effect, declared that the contract in favor of Escanlar was null and void, for want of judicial authority and that unless he would offer the same as or better conditions than the prospective lessee, San Diego, there was no good reason why the motion for authority to lease the property to San Diego should not be granted. Nombre moved to reconsider the Order of April 8, stating that Escanlar was willing to increase the rental to P5,000.00, but only after the termination of his original contract. The motion for reconsideration was denied on April 24, 1961, the trial judge stating that the contract in favor of Escanlar was executed in bad faith and was fraudulent because of the imminence of Nombre’s removal as administrator, one of the causes of which was his indiscriminate leasing of the property with inadequate rentals.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

    From this Order, a petition for Certiorari asking for the annulment of the Orders of April 8 and 24, 1961 was presented by Nombre and Escanlar with the Court of Appeals. A Writ of preliminary injunction was likewise prayed for to restrain the new administrator Campillanos from possessing the fishpond and from executing a new lease contract covering it; requiring him to return the possession thereof to Escanlar, plus damages and attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000.00 and costs. The Court of Appeals issued the injunctive writ and required respondents therein to Answer. Campillanos insisted on the invalidity of the contract in favor of Escanlar; the lower court alleged that it did not exactly annul or invalidate the lease in his questioned orders but suggested merely that Escanlar "may file a separate ordinary action in the Court of general jurisdiction."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The Court of Appeals, in dismissing the petition for certiorari, among others said —

    "The controlling issue in this case is the legality of the contract of lease entered into by the former administrator, Nombre, and Pedro Escanlar on May 1, 1960.

    Respondents contend that this contract, not having been authorized or approved by the Court, is null and void and cannot be an obstacle to the execution of another contract of lease by the new administrator, Campillanos. This contention is without merit . . . It has been held that even in the absence of such special power, a contract of lease for more than 6 years is not entirely invalid; it is invalid only in so far as it exceeds the six-year limit (Enrique v. Watson Company, Et Al., 6 Phil. 84). 1

    No such limitation on the power of a judicial administrator to grant a lease of property placed under his custody is provided for in the present law. Under Article 1647 of the present Civil Code, it is only when the lease is to be recorded in the Registry of Property that it cannot he instituted without special authority. Thus, regardless of the period of lease, there is no need of special authority unless the contract is to be recorded in the Registry of Property. As to whether the contract in favor of Escanlar is to be so recorded is not material to our inquiry.

    On the contrary, Rule 85, Section 3, of the Rules of Court authorizes a judicial administrator, among other things, to administer the estate of the deceased not disposed of by will. Commenting on this Section in the light of several Supreme Court decisions (Jocson de Hilado v. Nava, 69 Phil., 1; Gamboa v. Gamboa, 68 Phil. 304; Ferraris v. Rodas, 65 Phil. 732; Rodriguez v. Borromeo, 43 Phil., 479), Moran says: ‘Under this provision, the executor or administrator has the power of administering the estate of the deceased for purposes of liquidation and distribution. He may, therefore, exercise all acts of administration without special authority of the Court. For instance, he may lease the property without securing previously any permission from the court. And where the lease has formally been entered into, the court cannot, in the same proceeding, annul the same, to the prejudice of the lessee, over whose person it has no jurisdiction. The proper remedy would be a separate action by the administrator or the heirs to annul the lease . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On September 13, 1961, petitioner herein Moises San Diego, Sr., who was not a party in the case, intervened and moved for a reconsideration of the above judgment. The original parties (the new administrator and respondent judge) also filed motions for reconsideration, but we do not find them in the record. On November 18, 1961, the Court of Appeals denied the motions for reconsideration. With the denial of the said motions, only San Diego, appealed therefrom, raising legal questions, which center on "whether a judicial administrator can validly lease property of the estate without prior judicial authority and approval", and "whether the provisions of the New Civil Code on agency should apply to judicial administrators."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The Rules of Court provide that —

    "An executor or administrator shall have the right to the possession of the real as well as the personal estate of the deceased so long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and the expenses of administration, and shall administer the estate of the deceased not disposed of by his will." (Sec. 3, Rule 85, old Rules.)

    Lease has been considered an act of administration (Jocson v. Nava; Gamboa v. Gamboa, Rodriguez v. Borromeo, Ferraris v. Rodas, supra).

    The Civil Code, on lease provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "If a lease is to be recorded in the Registry of Property, the following person cannot constitute the same without proper authority, the husband with respect to the wife’s paraphernal real estate, the father or guardian as to the property of the minor or ward, and the manager without special power." (Art. 1647)

    The same code, or Agency, states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Special powers of attorneys are necessary in the following cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (8) To lease any real property to another person for more than one year." (Art. 1878)

    Petitioner contends, that No. 8, Art. 1878 is the limitation to the right of a judicial administrator to lease real property without prior court authority and approval, if it exceeds one year. The lease contract in favor of Escanlar being for 3 years and without such court approval and authority is, therefore, null and void. Upon the other hand, respondents maintain that there is no limitation of such right; and that Article 1878 does not apply in the instant case.

    We believe that the Court of Appeals was correct in sustaining the validity of the contract of lease in favor of Escanlar, notwithstanding the lack of prior authority and approval. The law and prevailing jurisprudence on the matter militates in favor of this view. While it may be admitted that the duties of a judicial administrator and an agent (petitioner alleges that both act in representative capacity), are in some respects, identical, the provisions on agency (Art. 1878, C.C.), should not apply to a judicial administrator. A judicial administrator is appointed by the Court. He is not only the representative of said Court, but also the heirs and creditors of the estate (Chua Tan v. del Rosario, 57 Phil., 411). A judicial administrator before entering into his duties, is required to file a bond. These circumstances are not true in case of agency. The agent is only answerable to his principal. The protection which the law gives the principal, in limiting the powers and rights of an agent, stems from the fact that control by the principal can only be thru agreements, whereas the acts of a judicial administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and orders of the appointing court. The observation of former Chief Justice Moran, as quoted in the decision of the Court of Appeals, is indeed sound, and we are not prone to alter the same, at the moment.

    We, likewise, seriously doubt petitioner’s legal standing to pursue this appeal. And, if we consider the fact that after the expiration of the original period of the lease contract executed by respondent Nombre in favor of Escanlar, a new contract in favor of said Escanlar, was executed on May 1, 1963, by the new administrator Campillanos, who, incidentally, did not take any active participation in the present appeal, the right of petitioner to the fishpond becomes a moot and academic issue, which We need not pass upon.

    WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, in all respects, with costs against petitioner Moises San Diego, Sr.

    Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

    Padilla, Labrador and Dizon, JJ., took no part.

    Endnotes:



    1. Referring to Art. 1548 of the old Civil Code.

    G.R. No. L-19265   May 29, 1964 - MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR. v. ADELO NOMBRE, ET AL.


    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