SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-1664   October 27, 1906

ESTEBAN ARABES AND HIS WIFE LUCINA ESTOVILLO,Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.DIEGO URIAN, ET AL.,Defendants-Appellants.

Montagne and Dominguez, for appellants.
Leocadio Joaquin, for appellees.

ARELLANO, J.:

The proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Juan Urian and his wife, Maria Nullen, who died intestate, must have been commenced in the year 1894, for it is alleged in the third paragraph of the complaint that some time in February, 1894, as a result of the intestate proceedings instituted by the first two defendants and others, the former Court of First Instance of the Province of La Laguna ordered that an inventory be made of the property left by the deceaseded Urian and his wife. The other defendant in this case, Felipe Onrade, was appointed receiver and administrator of the said property. There were included in the said inventory and turned over to the receiver 12 tracts of land, 2,000 cocoanuts trees, and 80 cavanes of palay which the plaintiffs in this action claimed to be theirs, asking in their complaint that the same be returned to them and that they be paid 6,458 pesos as indemnification for the fruits and earnings of which they had been deprived, and that the defendants pay the costs. The court below made the following findings of fact: ( a) That in 1894 when the proceedings relating to the administration of the estate of Juan Urian were commenced, the property involved in this action was included in the inventory then made, at the suggestion of those who instituted the said proceedings, the defendant Onrade having been appointed administrator of the said property (record, pp. 22, 30, 32, and 94); ( b) that there or four year prior to the date of the inventory the plaintiffs were in the adverse possession of the said property, part of which they purchased from Juan Urian, part they inherited from him, and the remainder they purchased from the heirs, they having reported in the old registry of property of the Province of La Laguna the possessory information proceedings instituted by them evidencing their title to the property in question (record, pp. 31, 32, 35, and 103); and ( c) that in view of said inscription the plaintiffs brought an action in the former Court of First Instance of the Province of La Laguna to have the said property excluded from the inventory in question, the record of the case as well as the intestate proceedings having been lost during the last insurrection (record, pp. 22, 32, 37, and 94).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It should be noted that this action has been continued between the plaintiffs and administrator and receiver Felipe Onrade only, the other defendants Diego Urian and Felix Urian having died. The court below decided that these parties were sufficient for the adjudication of the case without prejudice to the rights of the heirs of the deceased Urian, in accordance with section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court after hearing the evidence introduced by the parties entered judgment directing (1) that the defendant Felipe Onrade should cease to administer the property, which is the subject of this action, and render an account to the court of his administration in accordance with law; (2) that the said defendant should leave the said property in the possession of the plaintiffs as well as the 2,000 cocoanut trees and the 80 cavanes of palay, or pay their value at the market price; (3) that the right is reserved to the person interested to bring an action to recover the ownership of the said property and the indemnification for damages from the proper party; and (4) t