July 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > July 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 165696 : July 07, 2008] ALEJANDRO B. TY V. SYLVIA S. TY, IN HER CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF ALEXANDER TY:
[G.R. No. 165696 : July 07, 2008]
ALEJANDRO B. TY V. SYLVIA S. TY, IN HER CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF ALEXANDER TY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the first Decision of this Court dated July 07, 2008
G.R. No. 165696 (Alejandro B. Ty v. Sylvia S. Ty, in her capacity as Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Alexander TY) .
Petitioner�s Motion for Reconsideratio is DENIED for lack or merit:
1.) the findings of the Court of Appeals on who paid for the properties in question and to what extent are factual in nature and have not been shown to be attained with grave abuse of discretion, and are, therefore, properly sustained;
2.) the ruling in Abellana v. Ponce, G.R. No. 160488, September 3, 2004, is not applicable, as the property in the case was placed in the name of a niece, not a child, so the presumption of donation under Art. 1448 of the Civil Code did not arise; and;
3.) the judgment of the Court is complete because the matter of exactly how much to collate into the estate of petitioner in the event of his death must necessarily be part of the collection proceedings in that event and is not proper to resolve herein.
SO OREDERED.
G.R. No. 165696 (Alejandro B. Ty v. Sylvia S. Ty, in her capacity as Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Alexander TY) .
Petitioner�s Motion for Reconsideratio is DENIED for lack or merit:
1.) the findings of the Court of Appeals on who paid for the properties in question and to what extent are factual in nature and have not been shown to be attained with grave abuse of discretion, and are, therefore, properly sustained;
2.) the ruling in Abellana v. Ponce, G.R. No. 160488, September 3, 2004, is not applicable, as the property in the case was placed in the name of a niece, not a child, so the presumption of donation under Art. 1448 of the Civil Code did not arise; and;
3.) the judgment of the Court is complete because the matter of exactly how much to collate into the estate of petitioner in the event of his death must necessarily be part of the collection proceedings in that event and is not proper to resolve herein.
SO OREDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUITA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUITA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division