August 1984 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > August 1984 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-58579 August 24, 1984 - CECILIA ELIZALDE-LANDEGGER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-58579. August 24, 1984.]
CECILIA ELIZALDE-LANDEGGER, Petitioner, v. 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.
Poblador, Azada, Tomacruz, Paredes, 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.
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.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
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.
Petitioner’s counsel in a manifestation dated July 27, 1984 offered no objection to the motion.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Plana and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., (Chairman), is on leave.
Abad Santos, J., I reserve my vote.
Justices Escolin and Cuevas, took no part.
Justices Plana and Gutierrez, JJ., were designated to sit in the Second Division.
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.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
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.
Petitioner’s counsel in a manifestation dated July 27, 1984 offered no objection to the motion.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Plana and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., (Chairman), is on leave.
Abad Santos, J., I reserve my vote.
Justices Escolin and Cuevas, took no part.
Justices Plana and Gutierrez, JJ., were designated to sit in the Second Division.
