Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1936 > January 1936 Decisions > G.R. No. 43357 January 16, 1936 - M. CHUA KAY & CO. v. WIDOW AND HEIRS OF OH TIONG KENG

062 Phil 883:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 43357. January 16, 1936.]

Intestate Estate of the deceased Oh Tiong Keng (alias Oh Tiong King, alias O Tiong Keng). M. CHUA KAY & COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WIDOW AND HEIRS OF OH TIONG KENG, Oppositors-Appellees.

Pedro Concepcion for Appellant.

Marcelo Cariñgal for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. INTESTATE ESTATE; REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS; JURISDICTION. — The record on appeal before us fails to show that any issue of jurisdiction was raised or decided by the trial court. It shows furthermore that the petitioner-appellant voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when it filed its petition in this cause praying for the reappointment of the widow as administratrix and the reappointment of commissioners on claims and appraisal.

2. ID.; ID.; DELAY OF CREDITOR IN PRESENTING CLAIM. — The petitioner as a creditor, if the residence of the deceased was in fact in the Province of Sorsogon, had the right to present a petition for the appointment of an administrator at any time after thirty days after the death of O. T. K. which occurred on November 9, 1932. Instead of acting promptly it preferred to rely on the promise of payment made by the widow and slept on its rights.

3. ID.; ID.; PROMPT ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES. — It is in the public interest that estates should be administered with the utmost reasonable despatch and we see no warrant under the circumstances of this case for reversing the order appealed from.


D E C I S I O N


BUTTE, J.:


This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila denying the petition of the appellant to reopen the intestate proceedings of the estate of Oh Tiong Keng, deceased, and to appoint a new commission on claims and appraisal to pass upon a claim of the appellant against the said estate.

Oh Tiong Keng died in Sorsogon on November 9, 1932. On March 4, 1933, his widow presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the administration of his estate. She was duly appointed and commissioners on claims and appraisal were likewise appointed on due notice and performed their duties in accordance with law. On July 26, 1934, the estate was ordered closed, the property thereof having been distributed to the heirs and the bond of the administratrix having been cancelled. On October 31, 1934, the appellant filed in said cause the petition which is involved on this appeal.

The petitioner alleged in substance that it is one of the creditors of the deceased Oh Tiong Keng in the sum of P20,249.85; that the petitioner was expecting that the administration of the estate of Oh Tiong Keng would be filed in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon inasmuch as it was the province of his residence at the time of his death; that having learned on September 26, 1934, that no such proceeding was filed in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, the petitioner, as one of the creditors of the deceased, filed such a petition in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon; that thereafter it discovered that the Court of First Instance of Manila as aforesaid had taken jurisdiction of the administration of the said estate and the petitioner had no opportunity to present its claim before the commissioners on claims and appraisal appointed by the latter court; that the petitioner was deprived of its opportunity to present its claim by reason of the fraudulent machinations of the widow and heirs of the deceased Oh Tiong Keng; wherefore the petitioner prayed that the proceedings be reopened, that the widow be renominated as administratrix or if she declines then some other person, and that commissioners be appointed to hear and decide the claim of the petitioner.

The substance of the appellant’s arguments on this appeal is that the Court of First Instance of Manila had no jurisdiction to administer the estate of Oh Tiong Keng because at the time of his death he resided in Sorsogon and not in Manila. (Code of Civ. Proc., section 600.) The trial court found that although Oh Tiong Keng died in Sorsogon his residence at the time of his death was in fact Manila. The evidence on this issue of fact is conflicting but in the view which we take of the case we do not think it is necessary to determine this issue of fact. The record on appeal before us fails to show that any issue of jurisdiction was raised or decided by the trial court. It shows furthermore that the petitioner-appellant voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when it filed its petition in this cause praying for the reappointment of the widow as administratrix and the reappointment of commissioners on claims and appraisal. Nor do we deem it proper to go into the question of jurisdiction for the first time on appeal in this case in view of the circumstances that the estate has been finally closed for more than a year and a half and that no action in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon was taken by the petitioner as a creditor until nearly two years after the death of Oh Tiong Keng.

The fact that the petitioner relied on the personal promise of the widow that she would pay the petitioner’s claim in small installments and that she failed to comply with that promise is, in our opinion, no sufficient excuse for the delay of the petitioner as creditor in making application for the appointment of an administrator in Sorsogon. Section 642, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"2. If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be unsuitable, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin neglect for thirty days after the death of the person to apply for administration, or to request that administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


It is to be noted that the petitioner, if the residence of the deceased was in fact in the Province of Sorsogon, had the right to present a petition for the appointment of an administrator at any time after thirty days after the death of Oh Tiong Keng which occurred on November 9, 1932. Apparently, instead of acting promptly it preferred to rely on the promise of payment made by the widow and slept on its rights. It is in the public interest that estates should be administered with the utmost reasonable despatch and we see no warrant under the circumstances of this case for reversing the order appealed from.

The judgment is affirmed with costs against the Appellant.

Malcolm, Villa-Real and Imperial, JJ., concur.

GODDARD, J.:


I concur in the result.




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






January-1936 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 42276 January 2, 1936 - VALERIANO REYES ET AL. v. MATIAS RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

    062 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. 43430 January 7, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FILEMON D. MALABANAN

    062 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 41915 January 8, 1936 - LA URBANA v. SIMEON BERNARDO ET AL.

    062 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. 43037 January 29, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO SALCEDO

    062 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. 41941 January 9, 1936 - JUAN BENGZON v. THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN

    062 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. 44149 January 9, 1936 - SIMEON VERGARA v. PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY

    062 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. 43448 January 11, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FILOMENO DEL ROSARIO

    062 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. 43499 January 11, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL ISLANDS v. ISIDORO SANARES Y CAERNE

    062 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. 44370 January 11, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CO CHO , ET AL.

    062 Phil 828

  • G.R. No. 43083 January 13, 1936 - JOSE C. BUCOY v. TORREJON

    062 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. 42199 January 14, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE ABAD LOPEZ

    062 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. 44657 January 14, 1936 - BUENAVENTURA ALANDY, ET AL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID

    062 Phil 841

  • G.R. No. 42258 January 15, 1936 - IN RE: VICTORIANO PAYAD v. AQUILINA TOLENTINO

    062 Phil 848

  • G.R. No. 44096 January 15, 1936 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. TANAY TRANSIT CO. (TEODORO R. YANGCO)

    062 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. 44663 January 15, 1936 - MARCIANO ROMASANTA ET AL. v. SERVILLIANO PLATON

    062 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. 41947 January 16, 1936 - IN RE: VIVENCIO CUYUGAN v. FAUSTINA BARON and GUILLERMO BARON

    062 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. 43012 January 16, 1936 - VENANCIO QUEBLAR v. LEONARDO GARDUÑO, ET AL.

    062 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. 43357 January 16, 1936 - M. CHUA KAY & CO. v. WIDOW AND HEIRS OF OH TIONG KENG

    062 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 44513 January 16, 1936 - L. H. HENNING v. WESTERN EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY CO.

    062 Phil 886

  • G.R. No. 42780 January 17, 1936 - MANILA GAS CORPORATION v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    062 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. 42960 January 17, 1936 - BONIFACIO FERNANDEZ v. NICOLAS DAYAN

    062 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. 42821 January 18, 1936 - JUAN BENGZON v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE and INSULAR AUDITOR

    062 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. 44658 January 24, 1936 - EMILIA DIVINO v. CEFERINO HILARIO

    062 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. 43187 January 29, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ANSELMO CALALO

    062 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. 42898 January 30, 1936 - COSME BIAGTAN v. CONCEPCION VIUDA DE OLLER

    062 Phil 933

  • G.R. No. 43406 January 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MELECIO TORRES ET AL.

    062 Phil 942

  • G.R. No. 42300 January 31, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. AMADEO CORRAL

    062 Phil 945