Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > March 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 30431 March 30, 1929 - Intestacy of Angel Gustilo v. PERPETUA SIAN

053 Phil 155:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 30431. March 30, 1929.]

Intestacy of Angel Gustilo, deceased. AGRIPINO S. GUSTILO, administrator-appellee, v. PERPETUA SIAN, creditor-appellant.

Mariano Ezpeleta for Appellant.

Rosauro R. Borromeo for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; APPEAL FROM ORDER DENYING RELIEF UNDER SECTION 113, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. — An appeal lies from the refusal of a Court of First Instance to grant relief, in a proper case, under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure.


D E C I S I O N


STREET, J.:


This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, in the intestacy of Angel Gustilo, deceased, whereby Judge Santamaria denied relief to the appellant, Perpetua Sian, from a previous order made in the intestacy on April 7, 1928, by Judge Fernando Salas.

It appears that on July 7, 1923, Agripino S. Gustilo was appointed administrator of the estate of his deceased father, Angel Gustilo; and on July 30, 1925, the administrator filed his accounts for the years 1923 to 1925, inclusive. On October 15, 1926, the widow of the intestate, in conjunction with other heirs, presented a motion asking for the removal of the administrator, charging him with being negligent, inefficient and self-serving, and with having falsely made to appear in his accounts exorbitant and illegal expenses, ruinous to the estate under administration. On July 16, 1927, the administrator presented a motion asking that he be granted a salary of P3,000 annually. On the same day the administrator presented separate accounts for the years 1925-1926 and 1926-1927. In the first of these accounts there appeared a deficit of P462.25; while in the second there appeared a deficit of P3, 222.91. To these accounts opposition was made by Leocadia Majito, one of the creditors, the opposition being especially directed to the annual salary of P3,000 which the administrator credited to himself and the sum of P1,000 paid by him to his attorney. This opposition on the part of Leocadia Majito was reiterated nine days later in a writing in which exception was taken to the distribution of surplus in the amount of P11,304.50. Still later, on August 5, 1927, Leocadia Majito, in a more detailed writing of opposition, pointed out that certain alleged debts had been charged twice to the estate and that no adequate vouchers were exhibited to justify the charges.

On August 23, 1927, Judge Santamaria, before whom, as Judge of the First Branch of the Court of Iloilo, the intestacy had hitherto been heard, disapproved the accounts of the administrator and ordered him to file amended accounts within thirty days. On September 30, 1927, the administrator asked for an extension of time within which to file the required amended accounts. This motion was granted, but no amended accounts were ever filed. On February 28, 1928, the administrator presented for a second time the old accounts without change. On March 26, 1928, Judge Fernando Salas (in the absence of Judge Santamaria) ordered the administrator to present amended accounts within ten days; but, in disregard of this order, Judge Salas, on April 7, 1928, reconsidered the order of Judge Santamaria of August 23, 1927, and at the same time approved the same two accounts. Of this order the opposing creditors do not appear to have received due notice. On June 26, 1928, the attorney for the appellant filed a motion asking for the reconsideration of the order of April 7, 1928, alleging fraud, mistake and surprise. In the same motion application was made for the removal of the administrator and for the forfeiture of his bond. This application we consider to have been made under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and it is from an order of Judge Santamaria, expressed with some regret, denying the application to set aside the order of Judge Salas of April 7, 1928, that this appeal is being prosecuted.

There can be no doubt that an appeal lies from a refusal of a court to grant relief in a proper case under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and it is evident that Judge Santamaria, possibly out of an excessive deference for the prior order of an associate, has failed to give relief where relief was in fact called for. The order of Judge Salas, which is the subject of complaint in this appeal, was in our opinion improvident, to say the least, and made without a reasonable opportunity having been given to the adverse creditors to make effective opposition.

From what has been said it follows that the order from which this appeal was taken is erroneous, and, as prayed in the first assignment of error, we hereby set aside the order of Judge Fernando Salas of April 7, 1928, with the result that the proceedings will be restored to the position in which they stood before that order was entered, except as stated in the next paragraph.

A careful examination of the facts revealed in this record concerning the activities of Agripino S. Gustilo, as administrator of Angel Gustilo, convinces this court that the is not a fit person to be administrator of this estate and that he has not in fact administered it so far with due regard to the rights of other persons in interest. It is the opinion of the court, therefore, that he should be removed and required to render his accounts as administrator, in accordance with the second assignment of error.

The third assignment of error, taking exception to the refusal of the trial court to order the forfeiture of the bond of the administrator, in our opinion contemplates an order that would be premature.

The fourth assignment of error involves a criticism of the court a quo for not seeing that the debts of the estate had been more expeditiously paid; and it supplies no basis for resolution here.

In conclusion, the order of April 7, 1928, above referred to, is abrogated, the administrator, Agripino S. Gustilo, is removed from office, with liability to account, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. So ordered, without costs.

Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30282 March 1, 1929 - SERAPION ADESER v. MATEO TAGO

    052 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. 30019 March 2, 1929 - KUI PAI & CO. v. DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE

    052 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. 30491 March 2, 1929 - DONATO CRUZ, ET AL. v. TEOFILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    052 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. 30981 March 2, 1929 - ESTEBAN MONTERAMOS, ET AL. v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. 28532 March 4, 1929 - JESUS R. ROA v. CONCEPCION ROA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. 30382 March 5, 1929 - CEBU AUTOBUS CO. v. ANDRES D. DAMIAN

    052 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 30814 March 5, 1929 - ROSALIO GONZALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    052 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. 30896 March 5, 1929 - HIGINO ENAGE v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    052 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. 29462 March 7, 1929 - IGNACIO DEL PRADO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    052 Phil 900

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-15 March 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. 30953 March 7, 1929 - NARCISA JAVIER v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 910

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-30015 March 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. 30247 March 11, 1929 - HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE v. FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL.

    052 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. 29752 March 12, 1929 - SOTERO IGNACIO v. SANTOS CHUA HONG

    052 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. 30264 March 12, 1929 - MANILA RALROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    052 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. 30460 March 12, 1929 - C. H. STEINBERG v. GREGORIO VELASCO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. 29292 March 13, 1929 - TOMASA C. VIUDA DE PAMINTUAN v. JUAN TIGLAO

    053 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 30393 March 14, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO PERADILLA

    053 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 29927 March 15, 1929 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO

    053 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 30291 March 15, 1929 - CATALINO SEVILLA v. GAUDENCIO TOLENTINO

    053 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 30035 March 18, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTASIA ABADILLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 30780 March 18, 1929 - AURELIANO ROSANES v. AMADO PEJI

    053 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 30513 March 19, 1929 - VICENTE ARDOSA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA ET AL.

    053 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 30601 March 21, 1929 - ANTONIO CHUA CHIACO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 32329 March 23, 1929 - In re LUIS B. TAGORDA

    053 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 29503 March 23, 1929 - AGRIPINA GALLION v. NARCISO L. GAYARES ET AL.

    053 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 30020 March 23, 1929 - ADELA ROMERO DE PRATTS v. MENZI & CO.

    053 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 30067 March 23, 1929 - PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CO. v. MARIANO TUASON

    053 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 30266 March 25, 1929 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. FRED J. ELSER

    054 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. 29832 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANUTO ASINAS ET AL.

    053 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 30074 March 25, 1929 - MARIANO CARAGAY v. FRANCISCO URQUIZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 30242 March 25, 1929 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ALVARA FAJARDO

    053 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 30280 March 25, 1929 - NICANOR CARAG v. WARDEN OF THE PROVINCIAL JAIL

    053 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 30305 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLANDINA ISTORIS

    053 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. 30600 March 25, 1929 - RAMON DELES v. ARELLANO ALKONGA

    053 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 30705 March 25, 1929 - MACARIO E. CAESAR v. FILOMENO GARRIDO

    053 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 30289 March 26, 1929 - SERAPIA DE GALA v. APOLINARIO GONZALES

    053 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 30608 March 26, 1929 - RAFAEL CARANDANG v. GALICANO AFABLE

    053 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 28379 March 27, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIA CABANGIS ET AL.

    053 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 29448 March 27, 1929 - JOSE CASTILLO v. ESTEBAN VALDEZ ET AL.

    053 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 29721 March 27, 1929 - AMANDO MIRASOL v. ROBERT DOLLAR CO.

    053 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 29967 March 27, 1929 - JOSE GASTON ET AL. v. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. ET AL.

    053 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 30490 March 27, 1929 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ALBALADEJO Y CIA.

    053 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 30514 March 27, 1929 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. CRISTOBAL ABAGAT ET AL.

    053 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 30837 March 27, 1929 - POLICARPO RADAZA v. FRANCISCO D. ENAJE

    053 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 30431 March 30, 1929 - Intestacy of Angel Gustilo v. PERPETUA SIAN

    053 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 30541 March 30, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE BELLA BAUTISTA

    053 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 30610 March 30, 1929 - MANUEL SALAK v. LUIS ESPINOSA

    053 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 30648 March 30, 1929 - RUFINO FAUSTO v. JOSE VILLARTA

    053 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 30836 March 30, 1929 - VICENTE OLANO v. BERNARDINO TIBAYAN

    053 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 31348 March 30, 1929 - TAN C. TEE & CO. v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    053 Phil 172