SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-58579 August 24, 1984

CECILIA ELIZALDE-LANDEGGER, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, MANUEL ELIZALDE, ELIZALDE & CO., INC., METROPOLITAN INSURANCE CO., TANDUAY DISTILLERY INC., ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY INC., ELIZALDE ROPE FACTORY INC., CENTRAL ENGINEERING INC., MANILA BROADCASTING CORP., METROPOLITAN BROADCASTING CO., G.P. PARTNERSHIP, ELIZALDE INTERNATIONAL (PHIL.) INC., MAYORGA MINING CORP., ELIZALDE STEEL CONSOLIDATED INC., ELIZALDE IRON & STEEL CORP., ELISCO ELIZALDE STEEL ROLLING MILLS INC. (ELIROL), ELISCO TOOL, MANUFACTURING CORP., MINERAL ENTERPRISES INC. and MINERAL EXPLORATION & DEVELOPMENT CO., Respondents.

Norberto J. Quisumbing for petitioner.chanrobles virtual law library

Poblador, Azada, Tomacruz, Parades, Cacanindin & Orbos for private respondents Manuel Elizalde, et al. except G.P. Partnership.

-->

R E S O L U T I O N

AQUINO, J.:

This case is about the examination of the books of account of Elizalde & Co., Inc. and its subsidiaries in connection with the testate estate of Joaquin M. Elizalde. The petitioner, a resident of New York, is a daughter of Joaquin.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The examination was allowed in the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated February 13, 1979 for the limited purpose of Identifying the assets and excluding inquiry into evidence of possible frauds. The Court of Appeals sustained that order in its decision of July 16, 1981. The petitioner appealed to this Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

After submission of the briefs or on July 3, 1984, the private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice because the parties had reached an amicable settlement executed on May 16 and May 27, 1983 at Makati, Metro Manila and in New York. Among the stipulations of the agreement found in paragraph 3 thereof is that petitioner Cecilia Elizalde-Landegger should withdraw the instant petition for review.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner's counsel in a manifestation dated July 27, 1984 offered no objection to the motion.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Plana and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Abad Santos, J., reserves his vote.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., took no part.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Makasiar, J. (Chairman), is on leave.