FULL TEXT CASES 1 (1).docx

Contents Flora v Prado................................ Prado.................................................... ....................................... ................................................ ................................. .... 1 De Borja v Vda de Borja.......................................................................................6 Bailon-Casilao v CA.................................. CA...................................................... ............................................ ...................................... .............. 16 Alejandrino v CA.................................. CA..................................................... ....................................... ............................................ ........................ 22 Mondonido v Roda........................... Roda.............................................. ....................................... ........................................ ............................ ........ 30 Barretto v Tuason........................................ uason............................................................ ................................................... ................................... .... 31  Tordilla  Tordilla v Tordilla........................... ordilla............................................... ........................................ ....................................... .............................. ........... 60  a!oneta v "ustilo............................. "ustilo................................................. ....................................... ...................................... .......................... ....... 62 #era v Ri$ando.......................... Ri$ando............................................. ............................................................ .................................................... ........... 6% De "ala v De "ala........................................... "ala.............................................................. ................................................... ................................ 66 "ar&ia v 'a&uesta.................................... 'a&uesta........................................................ ........................................ ....................................... ................... (0 )RA'*......................... )RA'*............................................. ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ .................................. .............. (2 +son v Del Rosario............................ Rosario................................................ ............................................................... ............................................. .. (2 ,!arle v Po.......................... Po.............................................. ....................................... ...................................................... ......................................... ...... (3 #a&ar v #istal.................................. #istal...................................................... ........................................ ............................................... ........................... (%  Torres  Torres v 'oe................... 'oe...................................... ....................................... .................................................. .......................................... ............ /1 Doroteo v CA.................................... CA........................................................ ........................................ ...................................... ...................... .... 10/ Balus v Balus.................................... Balus........................................................ ........................................ ............................................ ........................ 111 +nion!an v *anti!ane................. *anti!ane..................................... ....................................... ....................................... ........................... ....... 116

Flora v Prado

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 156879. January 20, 2004]

FLORDELIZ !L"#$R FLOR, DO%INDOR !L"#$R an& #O%' !L"#$R, JR., ()*r ()*r+ + o #O #O%' %' !L" !L" #$ #$R, R, 'R., 'R., petitioners  petitioners,, vs vs.. RO-E RO-ER#O R#O,, ERLI ERLIND ND,, DNIEL, GLORI, "#RI!IO, JR. an& EDN, a +urna/)& "RDO an& NR!I' "RDO, respondents respondents..

DE!I'IO N  NRE''N#IGO,  NRE''N#IGO, J . .

The property under litigation is the northern half portion of a residential land consisting of  552.20 suare !eters" !ore or less" situated at #$ th %&enue" 'urphy" (ue)on *ity and co&ered +y Transfer *ertificate of Title No. ,#- issued on %ugust #5" #$/- +y the Register of Deeds of  (ue)on *ity in the na!e of Narcisa rado and her children +y her first hus+and" atricio rado" Sr." na!ely" na!ely" Ro+erto" 1rlinda" Daniel" loria" atricio" 3r. and 1dna" respondents herein. The pertinent facts are as follo4s On Dece!+er #$" #$5$" atricio rado" Sr. died. Narcisa su+seuently !arried 6onifacio *alpatura. In order to support her !inor children 4ith her first hus+and" Narcisa and her +rother7  Agreement of Purchase and  in7la4" To!as *alpatura" Sr." e8ecuted on %pril 2/" #$/9 an  Agreement Sale 4here+y the for!er agreed to sell to the latter the northern half portion of the property for  the su! of #0"500.00. :#; On 3uly 29" #$,-" Narcisa e8ecuted a Deed of Absolute Sale in fa&or  of To!as o&er the said property. :2; In #$,/" #$,/" To!as daught daughter er"" Florde Flordeli) li)a a *alpatu *alpatura ra Flora" Flora" +uilt +uilt a t4o7st t4o7storey orey duple8 duple8 4ith 4ith :-; fire4all fire4all on the northern half portion of the property. Respondents" 4ho occupied the southern half portion of the land" did not o+i?e4ise" 'a8i!o *alpatura" the son of To!as cousin" +uilt a s!all house on the northern portion of the property. On %pril 9" #$$#" respondents filed a co!plaint for declaration of nullity of sale and deli&ery of possession of the northern half portion of the su+
1rlinda failed to contest the transaction 4ithin four years after the disco&ery of the alleged fraud and reaching the !a
TB1 BONOR%6>1 *OERT OF %1%>S *O''ITT1D % R%V1 %6ES1 OF DIS*R1TION IN 'ODIFIN TB1 D1*ISION R1ND1R1D 6 TB1 R1ION%> TRI%> *OERT =ITBOET T%GIN INTO *ONSID1R%TION TB%T" %SID1 FRO' TB1 D1*>%R%TION OF TB1 V%>IDIT OF TB1 S%>1" TB1 1TITION1RS B1R1IN B%V1 T%G1N %*TE%> OSS1SSION OF TB1 S%ID ON17B%>F C#A2 TO TB1 1H*>ESION OF TB1 R1SOND1NTS %ND INTRODE*1D I'ROV1'1NTS TB1R1ON. II

TB1 BONOR%6>1 *OERT OF %1%>S *O''ITT1D % R%V1 %6ES1 OF DIS*R1TION IN 'ODIFIN TB1 D1*ISION R1ND1R1D 6 TB1 R1ION%> TRI%> *OERT =ITBOET T%GIN INTO *ONSID1R%TION TB1 *>1%R %ND EN1(EIVO*%> ST%T1'1NT IN TB1 S%>1 S%>1 TB% TB%T TB1 TB1 S%'1 S%'1 1RT 1RT% %INS INS TO TB1 TB1 *O *ON3 N3E E%> %> SB%R SB%R1 1 OF R1S R1SOND OND1N 1NT T N%R*IS% R%DO %ND TB1 OTB1R R1SOND1NTS B%D NO FIN%N*I%> *%%*IT TO  %*(EIR1 TB1 S%ID RO1RT SIN*1 TB1 =1R1 'INORS TB1N %T TB1 ISSE%N*1 OF TB1 S%ID T*T NO. ,#- ON %EEST #5" #$/-. III

TB1 BONOR%6>1 *OERT OF %1%>S *O''ITT1D % R%V1 %6ES1 OF DIS*R1TION IN NOT D1*>%RIN TB1 B1R1IN R1SOND1NTS EI>T OF >%*B1S IN FI>IN TB1 INST%NT INST%NT *%S1 ON> ON %RI> 9" #$$#" TB%T IS #9 1%RS %FT1R TB1 S%ID S%>1 =ITB TB1 TB1 1TI 1TITI TION ON1R 1RS S T%GIN GIN %*TE%> TE%> OSS OSS1S 1SSI SION ON OF S%ID S%ID OR ORTION TION OF TB1 TB1 RO1RT. I3

TB%T TB1 D1*ISION OF TB1 BON. *OERT OF %1%>S =I>> ENDE> 1NRI*B TB1 R1SOND1NTS %T %T TB1 1H1NS1 OF TB1 B1R1IN 1TITION1RS. :#-;

 %t the outset" it !ust +e stressed that only uestions of la4 !ay +e raised in petitions for  re&ie4 +efore this *ourt under Rule 5 of the Rules of *ourt. :#; It 4as thus error for petitioners to ascri+e to the *ourt of %ppeals gra&e a+use of discretion. This procedural lapse not4ithstanding" in the interest of
Further!ore" Narcisa" in fact did not deny that she e8ecuted an %ffida&it allo4ing spouses =ilfredo and Flordeli)a Flora to construct a fire4all +et4een the t4o7storey duple8 and her  house so!eti!e in #$,/. The duple8 4as !ade of strong !aterials" the roofing +eing gal&ani)ed sheets. =hile the deed of sale +et4een To!as and Narcisa 4as ne&er registered nor annotated on the title" respondents had ?no4ledge of the possession of petitioners of the northern half portion of the property. O+&iously" respondents recogni)ed the o4nership of  To!as" petitioners predecessor7in7interest. Respondents +elatedly clai!ed that only 5"000.00 out of the #0"500.00 consideration 4as paid. 6oth the  Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale state that

said consideration 4as paid in full. 'oreo&er" the presu!ption is that there 4as sufficient consideration for a 4ritten contract. :25; The property +eing con
Resolution dated 3anuary #" 200- is %RT> %FFIR'1D su+
Further!ore" the case is R1'%ND1D to the court of origin" only for the purpose of deter!ining the specific portion +eing con&eyed in fa&or of To!as *alpatura" Sr. pursuant to the partition that 4ill +e agreed upon +y the respondents. 'O ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

De Borja v Vda de Borja G.R. No. L28040 uu+ 18, 1972 #E'##E E'##E OF JO'EF #NG!O, JO'E DE -ORJ, a&/*n*+raora))) JO'E DE -ORJ, a+ a&/*n*+raor, !E#NO DE -ORJ, %#ILDE DE -ORJ an& !RI'N#O DE -ORJ &):)a+)&; a+ !<*&r)n o Jo+)a #an:o, appellees"

&s. #'IN 3D. DE DE -ORJ, '):*a &/*n*+rar*= o <) #)+a) E+a) o Fran:*+:o &) -or>a,appellant. . G.R. No L28568 uu+ 18, 1972 #E'##E E'##E OF #(E L#E FRN!I'!O DE -ORJ, #'IN O. 3D. DE DE -ORJ "

special &s.

%d!inistratri8

appellee"

JO'E DE -ORJ, oppositor7appellant. G.R. No. L28611 uu+ 18, 1972 #'IN 0. 3D. DE -ORJ, a+ &/*n*+rar*= o <) #)+a) E+a) o <) a) Fran:*+:o &) -or>a,plaintiff7appellee"

&s. JO'E DE -ORJ, a+ &/*n*+raor o <) #)+a) E+a) o <) a) Jo+)a #an:o, defendant7

appellant. !"#$%$  Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir for administrator!appellee. 'uiogue & 'uiogue for appellee (atilde de )orja.  Andres (atias for appellee Ca*etano de )orja. Sevilla & Aquino for appellant. !"#+#  Sevilla & Aquino for special administratri-!appellee.

Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir for oppositor!appellant. !"# Sevilla & Aquino for plaintiff!appellee. Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir and David /ueverra for defendant!appellant.

REE', J.-.L., J.: p

Of these cases" the first" nu!+ered >72900 is an appeal +y Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de 6or7295/9 is an appeal +y ad!inistrator 3ose 6or729/## is an appeal +y ad!inistrator 3ose de 6or
second !arriage" Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de 6oruis anaguiton 3r.K The ter!s and conditions of the co!pro!ise agree!ent are as follo4s

 %  R 1 1 ' 1 N T TBIS %R11'1NT !ade and entered into +y and +et4een The heir and son of Francisco de 6oruis anaguiton 3r. =ITN1SS 1TB TB%T it is the !utual desire of all the parties herein ter!inate and settle" 4ith finality" the &arious court litigations" contro&ersies" clai!s" counterclai!s" etc." +et4een the! in connection 4ith the ad!inistration" settle!ent" partition" adinda al Norte con el Rio u4ang ue la separa de la aguna de 6ay@ por el Sur con los herederos de 'arcelo de 6orast =ill and Testa!ent or +y Donation Inter Vi&os or 

'ortis *ausa or purportedly con&eyed to her for consideration or other4ise. The funds for this pay!ent shall +e ta?en fro! and shall depend upon the receipt of full pay!ent of the proceeds of the sale of 3ala> %ND VOID %ND =ITBOET 1FF1*T TB1R1%FT1R.

IN =ITN1SS =B1R1OF" the parties hereto ha&e her unto set their hands in the *ity of 'anila" hilippines" the #2th of Octo+er" #$/-. On #/ 'ay #$//" 3ose de 6or72900" 4hile ad!inistrator 3ose de 6or7295/9 +y the *ourt of First Instance of Nue&a 1ciast =ill and Testa!ent or +y Donation Inter Vi&os or 'ortis *ausa or purportedly con&eyed to her for consideration or other4ise.

This pro&ision e&idences +eyond dou+t that the ruling in the ue&ara case is not applica+le to the cases at +ar. There 4as here no atte!pt to settle or distri+ute the estate of Francisco de 6or72900" pp. -$7 / and 4hich contained the follo4ing clause III. That this agree!ent shall ta?e effect only upon the consu!!ation of the sale of  the property !entioned herein and upon receipt of the total and full pay!ent of the proceeds of the sale +y the herein o4ner heirs7children of Francisco de 6or
na!ely" *risanto" *ayetano and 'atilde" all surna!ed de 6or
Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de 6or7295/9" page #5," that the co!pro!ise agree!ent of #- Octo+er #$/- C%nne8 K%K had +een a+andoned" as sho4n +y the fact that" after its e8ecution" the *ourt of First Instance of Nue&a 1ci72090" page 2- that the sa!e 4as in&alid +ecause of the lapse of the allegedly intended resolutory period of /0 days and +ecause the contract 4as not preceded +y the pro+ate of Francisco de 6or725/#" -0 3une #$,0" -- S*R% 55" that Kestates 4ould ne&er +e settled if there 4ere to +e a re&aluation 4ith e&ery su+seuent fluctuation in the &alues of currency and properties of the estateK" is particularly opposite in the present case.

*o!ing no4 to *ase .R. No. >729/##" the issue is 4hether the Bacienda de 3ala7295/9" upholding as &alid the cession of Tasiana OngsingcoJs e&entual share in the estate of her late hus+and" Francisco de 6orand Registration *ase No. 529 of the pro&ince of Ri)al" .>.R.O. Rec. No. 2/0- CDe 6araguna de 6ay@ containing an area of  #-"99"9,0 s. !. !ore or less" assessed at 2$,"#0. CRecord on %ppeal" pages , and #05 On 20 No&e!+er #$/2" Tasiana O. Vda. de 6or
Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de 6or
e8clusi&e property of the +uyer" pursuant to %rticle #-$/C of *i&il *ode of #99$ and %rticle #9C of the *i&il *ode of the hilippines. The follo4ing shall +e the e8clusi&e property of each spouse 888 888 888 C That 4hich is purchased 4ith e8clusi&e !one y of the 4ife or of the hus+and. =e find the conclusions of the lo4er court to +e untena+le. In the first place" 4itness regorio de 6or72900 is here+y affir!ed@ 4hile those in&ol&ed in *ases Nos. >7295/9 and >729/## are re&ersed and set aside. *osts against the appellant Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de 6or
Bailon-Casilao v CA G.R. No. 78178 r* 15, 1988 DELI -ILON!'ILO, L$Z "$LINONG, E%% "$LINO-NEZ, NILD "$LINO #OLEN#INO, an& '-IN -ILON, petitioners"

&s. #(E (ONOR-LE !O$R# OF ""EL' an& !ELE'#INO F-LE, respondents. 7eronico 5. 1ubio for petitioners. (ario /. 6ortes for private!respondent.

!OR#E', J.:

The fate of petitionersJ clai! o&er a parcel of land rests ulti!ately on a deter!ination of 4hether or  not said petitioners are chargea+le 4ith such laches as !ay effecti&ely +ar their present action. The petitioners herein filed a case for reco&ery of property and da!ages 4ith notice of  lis  pendens on 'arch #-" #$9# against the defendant and herein pri&ate respondent" *elestino %fa+le. The parcel of land in&ol&ed in this case" 4ith an area of 9"9$ suare !eters" is co&ered +y Original *ertificate of Title No. #,,# issued on 3une #2" #$-#" in the na!es of Rosalia" audencio" Sa+ina 6erna+e" Nenita and Delia" all surna!ed 6ailon" as co7o4ners" each 4ith a #A/ share. audencio and Nenita are no4 dead" the latter +eing represented in this case +y her children. >u)" 1!!a and Nilda. 6erna+e 4ent to *hina in #$-# and had not +een heard fro! since then :Decision of the *ourt of %ppeals" Rollo" p. -$;. It appears that on %ugust 2-" #$9" Rosalia 6ailon and audencio 6ailon sold a portion of the said land consisting of #/"29- suare !eters to Donato Delgado. On 'ay #-" #$$" Rosalia 6ailon alone sold the re!ainder of the land consisting of -2"5// suare !eters to onciana V. %resgado de >anu)a. On the sa!e date" >anu)a acuired fro! Delgado the #/"29- suare !eters of land 4hich the latter had earlier acuired fro! Rosalia and audencio. On Dece!+er -" #$,5" 3ohn >anu)a" acting under a special po4er of attorney gi&en +y his 4ife" onciana V. %resgado de >anu)a" sold the t4o parcels of land to *elestino %fa+le" Sr. In all these transfers" it 4as stated in the deeds of sale that the land 4as not registered under the pro&isions of %ct No. $/ 4hen the fact is that it is. It appears that said land had +een successi&ely declared for ta8ation first" in the na!e of *iriaca Della!as" !other of the registered co7o4ners" then in the na!e of Rosalia 6ailon in #$2" then in that of Donato Delgado in #$-/" then in onciana de >anu)aJs na!e in #$/2 and finally in the na!e of *elestino %fa+le" Sr. in #$9-. In his ans4er to the co!plaint filed +y the herein petitioners" %fa+le clai!ed that he had acuired the land in uestion through prescription and contended that the petitioners 4ere guilty of laches.Be

later filed a third7party co!plaint against Rosalia 6ailon for da!ages allegedly suffered as a result of  the sale to hi! of the land.  %fter trial" the lo4er court rendered a decision #. Finding and declaring *elestino %fa+le" a co7o4ner of the land descri+ed in paragraph III of the co!plaint ha&ing &alidly +ought the t4o7si8th C2A/ respecti&e undi&ided shares of Rosalia 6ailon and audencio 6ailon@ 2. Finding and declaring the follo4ing as pro7indi&iso co7o4ners" ha&ing #A/ share each" of the property descri+ed in paragraph III of the co!plaint" to 4it a. Sa+ina 6ailon +. 6erna+e 6ailon c. Beirs of Nenita 6ailon7aulino d. Delia 6ailon7*asilao@ -. Ordering the segregation of the undi&ided interests in the property in order to ter!inate co7o4nership to +e conducted +y any eodetic 1ngineer selected +y the parties to delineate the specific part of each of the co7o4ners. . Ordering the defendant to restore the possession of the plaintiffs respecti&e shares as 4ell as all attri+utes of a+solute do!inion@ 5. Ordering the defendant to pay the follo4ing a. 5"000.00 as da!ages@ +. 2"000.00 as attorneyJs fees and@ c. to pay the costs. :Decision of the Trial *ourt" Rollo" p. -,7-9;. On appeal" the respondent *ourt of %ppeals affir!ed the decision of the lo4er court insofar as it held that prescription does not he against plaintiffs7appellees +ecause they are co7o4ners of the original &endors. Bo4e&er" the appellate court declared that" although registered property cannot +e lost +y prescription" ne&ertheless" an action to reco&er it !ay +e +arred +y laches" citing the ruling in (ejia de ucaz v. /amponia :#00 hil. 2,, C#$5/;. %ccordingly" it held the petitioners guilty of laches and dis!issed their co!plaint. Bence" this petition for re&ie4 on certiorari of the decision of the *ourt of   %ppeals. The principal issue to +e resol&ed in this case concerns the applica+ility of the euita+le doctrine of  laches. Initially though" a deter!ination of the effect of a sale +y one or !ore co7o4ners of the entire

property held in co!!on 4ithout the consent of all the co7o4ners and of the appropriate re!edy of  the aggrie&ed co7o4ners is reuired. The rights of a co7o4ner of a certain property are clearly specified in %rticle $- of the *i&il *ode.Thus  %rt. $-. 1ach co7o4ner shall ha&e the full o0nership of his part and of the acts and +enefits pertaining thereto" and he !ay therefore alienate assign or mortgage it and e&en su+stitute another person in its en
 %s early as #$2-" this *ourt has ruled that e&en if a co7o4ner sells the 4hole property as his" the sale 4ill affect only his o4n share +ut not those of the other co7o4ners 4ho did not consent to the sale :unsalan &. 6oon >iat  hil. -20 C#$2-;. This is +ecause under the afore!entioned codal pro&ision" the sale or other disposition affects only his undi&ided share and the transferee gets only 4hat 4ould correspond to his grantor in the partition of the thing o4ned in co!!on.:Ra!ire) &. 6autista" # hil. 529 C#$0$;. *onseuently" +y &irtue of the sales !ade +y Rosalia and audencio 6ailon 4hich are &alid 4ith respect to their proportionate shares" and the su+seuent transfers 4hich cul!inated in the sale to pri&ate respondent *elestino %fa+le" the said %fa+le there+y +eca!e a co7 o4ner of the disputed parcel of land as correctly held +y the lo4er court since the sales produced the effect of su+stituting the +uyers in the en
Thus" it is no4 settled that the appropriate recourse of co7o4ners in cases 4here their consent 4ere not secured in a sale of the entire property as 4ell as in a sale !erely of the undi&ided shares of  so!e of the co7o4ners is an action. for %RTITION under Rule /$ of the Re&ised Rules of *ourt. Neither reco&ery of possession nor restitution can +e granted since the defendant +uyers are legiti!ate proprietors and possessors in 72,,02" Septe!+er $" #$,," ,$ S*R% 2#" this *ourt has interpreted said pro&ision of la4 to !ean that the

action for partition is i!prescripti+le or cannot +e +arred +y prescription. For %rticle $ of the *i&il *ode e8plicitly declares KNo prescription shall lie in fa&or of a co7o4ner or co7 heir so long as he e8pressly or i!pliedly recogni)es the co7o4nership.K Further!ore" the disputed parcel of land +eing registered under the Torrens Syste!" the e8press pro&ision of %ct No. $/ that JCno title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered o4ner  shall +e acuired +y prescription or ad&erse possessionJ is suarely applica+le. *onseuently" prescription 4ill not lie in fa&or of %fa+le as against the petitioners 4ho re!ain the registered o4ners of the disputed parcel of land. It is argued ho4e&er" that as to the petitioners 1!!a" >u) and Nelda 4ho are not the registered co7 o4ners +ut !erely represented their deceased !other" the late Nenita 6ailon" prescription lies.Respondents +olster their argu!ent +y citing a decision of this *ourt in Pasion v. Pasion :.R.No. >7#5,5," 'ay -#" #$/#" 2 S*R% 9/" 9$; holding that Kthe i!prescripti+ility of a Torrens title can only +e in&o?ed b* the person in 0hose name the title is registered; and that
Reliance on the aforesaid asion case is futile. The ruling therein applies only against transferees other than direct issues or heirs or to co!plete strangers. The rational is clear If prescription is una&ailing against the registered o4ner" it !ust +e eually una&ailing against the latterJs hereditary successors" +ecause they !erely step into the shoes of the decedent +y operation of la4 CNe4 *i&il *ode" %rticle ,,,@ Old *i&il *ode" %rticle /5," the title or right undergoing no change +y its trans!ission mortis causa :%tus" et al." &. Nune)" et al." $, hil. ,/2" ,/;. The latest pronounce!ent of this *ourt in =mba* v. Alecha :. R. No. /,29" 'arch #9" #$95" #-5 S*R% 2," 2$;" 4hich 4as pro!ulgated su+seuent to the Pasion case reiterated the Atus doctrine. Thus rescription is una&ailing not only against the registered o4ner +ut also against his hereditary successors" +ecause they !erely step into the shoes of the decedent +y operation of la4 and are !erely the continuation of the personality of their  predecessor7in7interest. :6arcelona &. 6arcelona" #00 hil. 25#" 25,;. >aches is li?e4ise una&ailing as a shield against the action of herein petitioners. =ell7stated in this
The second ele!ent spea?s of delay in asserting the co!plainantJs rights. Bo4e&er" the !ere fact of  delay is insufficient to constitute" laches. It is reuired that C# co!plainant !ust ha&e had 2no0ledge of the conduct of defendant or of one under 0hom he claims and C2 he !ust ha&e +een afforded an opportunit* to institute suit . This court has pointed out that laches is not concerned 4ith the !ere lapse of ti!e. Thus >aches has +een defined as the failure or neglect" for an unreasona+le length of ti!e to do that 4hich +y e8ercising due diligence could or should ha&e +een done earlier@ it is negligence or o!ission to assert a right 4ithin a reasona+le ti!e 4arranting a presu!ption that the party entitled to assert it either has a+andoned it or declined to assert it. 4ijam, et al., v. Sibonghano* " .R. No. >72#50" %pril 25" #$/9" 2- S*R% 2$"-5@ Tendo &. La!aco!a" .R. No. >7/-09" %ugust ," #$95" #-9 S*R% ,9" $0;. The doctrine of KlachesK or of Kstale de!andsK is +ased upon grounds of pu+lic policy 4hich reuires for the peace of society" the discourage!ent of stale clai!s and unli?e the statute of li!itations" is not a mere question of time but is principall* a question of inequit* or unfairness of per!itting a right or clai! to +e enforced or  asserted"K :Tiee" a son of Rosalia" 4ho 4as presented as a 4itness +y the plaintiffs7petitioners" testified on cross7e8a!ination that his !other  4as only the ad!inistrator of the land as she is the eldest and her +rothers and sisters 4ere a4ay :TSN" Octo+er 5" #$9-" p. #5;. Indeed" 4hen Delia 6ailon7*asilao left Sorsogon in #$2 after she got !arried" it 4as only in #$9- that she returned. Sa+ina on the other hand" is said to +e li&ing in La!+oanga 4hile 6erna+e 4ho left for *hina in #$-# has not +een heard fro! since then. *onseuently" 4hen Rosalia" fro! 4ho! the pri&ate respondent deri&ed his title" !ade the disputed sales co&ering the entire property" the herein petitioners 4ere una4are thereof. In the second place" they 4ere not afforded an opportunity to +ring suit inas!uch as until #$9#" they 4ere ?ept in the dar? a+out the transactions entered into +y their sister. It 4as only 4hen Delia 6ailon7*asilao returned to Sorsogon in #$9# that she found out a+out the sales and i!!ediately" she and her co7petitioners filed the present action for reco&ery of property. The appellate court thus erred in holding that Jthe petitioners did nothing to sho4 interest in the land.K For the ad!inistration of the parcel of land 4as entrusted to the oldest co7o4ner 4ho 4as then in possession thereof  precisely +ecause the other co7o4ners cannot attend to such a tas? as they reside outside of  Sorsogon 4here the land is situated. Ber co7o4ners also allo4ed her to appropriate the entire produce for herself +ecause it 4as not e&en enough for her daily consu!ption :TSN" Octo+er 5" #$9-" pp. #,7#9;. %nd since petitioner 4as the one recei&ing the produce" it is +ut natural that she 4as the one to ta?e charge of paying the real estate ta8es. No4" if ?no4ledge of the sale +y Rosalia 4as con&eyed to the petitioners only later" they cannot +e faulted for the acts of their co7o4ner 4ho failed to li&e up to the trust and confidence e8pected of her. In &ie4 of the lac? of ?no4ledge +y the petitioners of the conduct of Rosalia in selling the land 4ithout their consent in #$,5 and the a+sence of any opportunity to institute the proper action until #$9#" laches !ay not +e asserted against the petitioners.

The third ele!ent of laches is li?e4ise a+sent. There 4as no lac? of ?no4ledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the co!plainants 4ould assert the right on 4hich they +ase the suit. On the contrary" pri&ate respondent is guilty of +ad faith in purchasing the property as he ?ne4 that the property 4as co7o4ned +y si8 persons and yet" there 4ere only t4o signatories to the deeds of sale and no special authori)ation to self 4as granted to the t4o sellers +y the other co7o4ners. 1&en as the land here 4as !isrepresented in the deeds of sale as Kunregistered"K the truth 4as that  %fa+le already had notice that the land 4as titled in the na!e of si8 persons +y &irtue of the *ertificate of Title 4hich 4as already in his possession e&en +efore the sale. Such fact is apparent fro! his testi!ony +efore the court a quo *OERT ( Fro! 4ho! did you get the certificate of Title  % =hen it 4as !ortgaged +y onciana %resgado. ( It 4as !ortgaged to you +efore you +ought it  % es" our Bonor. CTSN" 'arch 5" #$9" p. #2 =hen cross7 e8a!ined" he stated ( 'r. =itness" the original *ertificate of Title 4as gi&en to you in the year #$," 4as it not  % #$,5. ( In #$,5" you already disco&ered that the title 4as in the na!e of  se&eral persons" is it not  % es" sir. ( =hen you disco&ered that it is in the na!e of se&eral persons" you filed a case in court for authority to cancel the title to +e transferred in your na!e" is it not  % es" sir. ( %nd that 4as denied +y the *ourt of First Instance of Sorsogon +ecause there 4as ordinary one signatory to the deed of sale instead of si8" 4as it not  % Not one +ut t4o signatories. :Decision of the Regional Trial *ourt of Sorsogon" Rollo" p. -5;

Such actual ?no4ledge of the e8istence of other co7o4ners in 4hose na!es the lot su+ater" he e&en filed a petition in the *ourt of First Instance to register the title in his na!e 4hich 4as denied as aforesaid. It !ay +e gleaned fro! the foregoing e8a!ination of the facts that *elestino %fa+le is not a +uyer in good faith. >aches +eing an euita+le defense" he 4ho in&o?es it !ust co!e to the court 4ith clean hands. =B1R1FOR1" the petition for certiorari is here+y R%NT1D" the challenged decision of the *ourt of %ppeals is S1T %SID1" and the decision of the trial court is R1INST%T1D. SO ORD1R1D. 6ernan, /utierrez, Jr., 6eliciano and )idin, JJ., concur.

Alejandrino v CA

TBIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 114151. '))/@)r 17, 1998]

%$RI!I LEJNDRINO, petitioner, vs. #(E (ONOR-LE !O$R# OF ""EL', (ON. -ENIGNO G. G3IOL, R#!9, !E-$ !I#, an& LI!ERIO ". NIA$E, respondents. DE!I'IO N RO%ERO, J .

(uestioned in this petition for re&ie4 on certiorari   is the Decision :#; of the *ourt of %ppeals 4hich ruled that the trial court" in an action for uieting of title" did not act in e8cess of   a+unos left their si8 children na!ed 'arcelino" regorio" *iriaco" 'auricia" >aurencia and %+undio a 2#$7suare7 !eter lot in 'a!+aling" *e+u *ity identified as >ot No. 2,$9 and co&ered +y Transfer *ertificate of Title No. #$/59. Epon the de!ise of the %leicerio Niue" the pri&ate respondent in this case" also purchased portions of the property" to 4it -/.50 suare !eters fro! >aurencia" -/.50 suare !eters fro! regorio through >aurencia" #2.#, suare !eters fro! %+undio also through >aurencia and -/.50 suare !eters fro! 'arcelino or a total area of  #2#./, suare !eters of the %leaurencia Cthe alleged seller of !ost of the #2#./, suare !eters of the property later uestioned the sale in an action for uieting of title and da!ages against pri&ate respondent Niue. It 4as doc?eted as *i&il *ase No. *167,0-9 in the Regional Trial *ourt of  *e+u *ity" 6ranch $" presided +y 3udge 6enigno . a&iola. In due course" the lo4er court rendered a decision on No&e!+er 2," #$$0 disposing of the case as follo4s =B1R1FOR1" the *ourt here+y renders aurencia %leot No. 2,$9 and co&ered +y Transfer *ertificate of Title No. #$/59 4hich  shares totals an area of #/ suare !eters !ore or less@ and the *ourt further Orders plaintiff to #. Vacate the pre!ises su+aurencia appealed the decision to the *ourt of %ppeals under *%7.R. *V No. ---- +ut later 4ithdre4 the sa!e. :; On %pril #-" #$$2" the *ourt of %ppeals considered the appeal 4ithdra4n in accordance 4ith Rule 50 of the Rules of *ourt. :5;

'ean4hile" herein petitioner 'auricia %leaurencias counsel in *i&il *ase No. *167,0-9" filed *i&il *ase No. *167 ##/,- for petitioner 'auricia. The a!ended co!plaint in the latter case dated 'ay #," #$$2 alleged that pri&ate respondent Niue ne&er notified petitioner 'auricia of the purchase of #2#./, suare !eters of  the undivided >ot No. 2,$9 nor did he gi&e petitioner 'auricia the pree!pti&e right to +uy the area as a co7o4ner of the sa!e lot. %s such co7o4ner" petitioner 'auricia !anifested her  4illingness to deposit 4ith the court the a!ount of 2$",,,.,9" the acuisition cost of the portion purchased +y pri&ate respondent Niue. etitioner 'auricia also alleged that she de!anded fro! pri&ate respondent the area of around 2.- suare !eters that the latter had unduly" +aselessly and !aliciously clai!ed as his o4n +ut 4hich" as part of >ot No. 2,$9" actually +elongs to her. The a!ended co!plaint prayed that petitioner 'auricia +e allo4ed to redee! the area of #2#./, suare !eters under the rede!ption price of 2$",,,.,9 and that pri&ate respondent Niue +e ordered to e8ecute the necessary docu!ents for the rede!ption and the e&entual transfer of certificate of title to her. The a!ended co!plaint further prayed for  the return to petitioner 'auricia of the 2.-7suare7!eter portion of the lot and for da!ages a!ounting to ##5"000 and attorneys fees of -0"000. On %ugust 2" #$$-" the lo4er court granted the !otion to ad!it the a!ended co!plaint and forth4ith ordered the defendant therein to file an a!ended ans4er. In *i&il *ase No. *167,0-9 in the !eanti!e" pri&ate respondent filed a !otion for the segregation of the #/7suare7!eter portion of the property that had +een declared +y the trial court as his o4n +y &irtue of purchase. On 'ay /" #$$-" the trial court issued an order the pertinent portions of 4hich read as follo4s ORD1R For resolution is a 'otion to Order Segregation of #/ Suare 'eters In >ot No. 2,$9 dated 3anuary #5" #$$- filed +y defendant and the Opposition thereto dated Fe+ruary 2" #$$2 +y plaintiff. 'o&ant7defendant also filed a re
2. The total area of the land is 2#$ s. !eters Cpar. 2 of co!plaint" thus" the share of  'auricia %leaurencia %leaurencia %leicerio . Niue is specifically ?no4n to +e #/ suare !eters" and that its location shall +e on the frontage of the property 4hile the ,suare !eters of 'aurecia Csic %leot No. 2,$9 4as not decreed in the aurencia %leaurencia and 'aurecia had already e8ecuted an e8traaurencia" despite the fact that the decision of this *ourt had long +eco!e final@ and despite the fact that she e&en 4ithdra4 Csic her  appeal" she still is enicerio Niue !ay proceed to segregate his 2#/ Csic s. !eters fro! >ot NO. 2,$9 co&ered +y T*T No. #$/59" +y ha&ing the sa!e sur&eyed +y a co!petent eodetic 1ngineer" at the e8pense of !o&ant7defendant. SO ORD1R1D.:/; etitioner 'auricia uestioned this order of the lo4er court in a petition for certiorari  and prohi+ition 4ith prayer for the issuance of a 4rit of preli!inary in
8 8 8. In ordering the segregation of the #/ suare !eters" respondent 3udge correctly referred to the te8t of the decision to ascertain 4hich portion of the land co&ered +y T*T No. #$/59 4as actually sold +y >aurencia %leaurencia %leaurencia su+seuently sold her shares to herein pri&ate respondent" per the Deed of %+solute Sale dated Octo+er 2$" #$9/ C18hs. 6 and #0" the parties !ust ha&e referred to the #/ suare !eters in the frontage descri+ed in said docu!ent" 18hi+it #/. >aurencia had no authority to sell !ore" or" less" than that agreed upon in the e8traaurencia and 'auricias agree!ent +ecause he 4as a 4itness to said agree!ent and he relied upon it 4hen he purchased the #/ suare !eters fro! >aurencia. It cannot +e &alidly clai!ed +y petitioner that she 4as depri&ed of her property 4ithout due process of la4 considering that pri&ate respondent is !erely segregating the portion of the land actually sold to hi! +y >aurencia %le
property cannot +e effected +ecause pri&ate respondent is also a defendant in *i&il *ase No. *167##/,-. She asserts that 18hi+it #/" the e8traaurencia %leaurencia in *%7.R. *V No. ---- or *i&il *ase No. *167,0-9. Ender the circu!stances of this case" the ulti!ate issue that needs deter!ination is 4hether or not as an heir of the %leaurencia !ay &alidly sell specific portions thereof to a third party.  %rticle #0,9 of the *i&il *ode pro&ides that 4here there are t4o or !ore heirs" the 4hole estate of the decedent is" before partition " o4ned in co!!on +y such heirs" su+
indiviso portion thereof is specifically go&erned +y %rticle #099 that pro&ides

 %RT. #099. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger +efore the partition" any or all of the co7heirs !ay +e su+rogated to the rights of the purchaser +y

rei!+ursing hi! for the price of the sale" pro&ided they do so 4ithin the period of one !onth fro! the ti!e they 4ere notified in 4riting of the sale +y the &endor. In the instant case" >aurencia 4as 4ithin her hereditary rights in selling her  pro indiviso share in >ot No. 2,$9. Bo4e&er" +ecause the property had not yet +een partitioned in accordance 4ith the Rules of *ourt" no particular portion of the property could +e identified as yet and delineated as the o+ 8 8 8 since a co7o4ner is entitled to sell his undi&ided share" a sale of the entire property +y one co7o4ner 4ithout the consent of the other co7o4ners is not   null and &oid. Bo4e&er" only the rights of the co7o4ner7seller are transferred" there+y !a?ing the +uyer a co7o4ner of the property. The proper action in cases li?e this is not for the nullification of the sale or for the reco&ery of  possession of the thing o4ned in co!!on fro! the third person 4ho su+stituted the co7o4ner  or co7o4ners 4ho alienated their shares" +ut the DIVISION of the co!!on property of the co7 o4ners 4ho possessed and ad!inistered it. :#2; The legality of >aurencias alienation of portions of the estate of the %leaurencias 4ithdra4al of her appeal. =hen pri&ate respondent filed a !otion for  the segregation of the portions of the property that 4ere ad
register of deeds" and should they disagree" they !ay do so in an ordinary action for  partition. 8 8 8. The fact of the e8traaurencia e8pressed her intention to ter!inate the co7o4nership +y selling her share to pri&ate respondent. 'oreo&er" the e8ecution of the deed of e8traaurencia and petitioner 'auricia to physically di&ide the property. 6oth of  the! had acuired the shares of their +rothers and therefore it 4as only the t4o of the! that needed to settle the estate. The fact that the docu!ent 4as not notari)ed is no hindrance to its effecti&ity as regards the t4o of the!. The partition of inherited property need not +e e!+odied in a pu+lic docu!ent. In this regard" Tolentino su+scri+es to that opinion 4hen he states as follo4s 8 8 8. =e +elie&e" ho4e&er" that the pu+lic instru!ent is not essential to the &alidity of  the partition. This is not one of those contracts in 4hich for! is of the essence. The pu+lic instru!ent is necessary only for the registration of the contract" +ut not for its &alidity. The &alidity of an oral contract a!ong the heirs" ter!inating the co7o4nership" has +een recogni)ed +y the Supre!e *ourt in a decision 8 8 8 C4here that tri+unal said %n agree!ent a!ong the heirs that a certain lot should +e sold and its proceeds paid to one of the! is a &alid oral contract" and the sa!e has the force of la4 +et4een the parties fro! and after the original assent thereto" and no one of the! !ay 4ithdra4 or oppose its e8ecution 4ithout the consent of all. In a still later case" the Supre!e *ourt held that partition a!ong heirs or renunciation of an inheritance +y so!e of the! is not e8actly a con&eyance for the reason that it does not in&ol&e transfer of property fro! one to the other" +ut rather a confir!ation or ratification of title or right to property +y the heir renouncing in fa&or of another heir accepting and recei&ing the inheritance. Bence" the court concluded" it is co!petent for the heirs of an estate to enter into an oral agree!ent for distri+ution of the estate a!ong the!sel&es. :#5; The deed of e8traaurencia e&idence their  intention to partition the property. It delineates 4hat portion of the property +elongs to each other. That it 4as not notari)ed is i!!aterial in &ie4 of 'auricias ad!ission that she did e8ecute the deed of e8tra
in deciding the case. The court has in its fa&or the presu!ption of regularity of the perfor!ance of its tas? that has not +een re+utted +y petitioner 'auricia. Neither !ay the fact that the other  heirs of the %leaurencia" the court found that she had trans!itted her rights o&er portions she had acuired fro! her +rothers to pri&ate respondent Niue. The sale 4as !ade after the e8ecution of the deed of e8traaurencia &alidly transferred o4nership o&er the specific front portion of the property 4ith an area of #/ suare !eters. The trial court" therefore" did not a+use its discretion in issuing the order for the segregation of the property. In so doing" it 4as !erely reiterating the partition of the property +y petitioner  'auricia and her sister >aurencia that 4as e!+odied in the deed of e8traaurencia e8ecuted an affida&it :#$; consenting to the appearance of her counsel in any case that petitioner 'auricia !ight file against pri&ate respondent. She affir!ed in that affida&it that she could +e included e&en as a defendant in any case that petitioner 'auricia 4ould file +ecause she fully agreeCd 4ith 4hate&er cause of action 'auricia 4ould ha&e against pri&ate respondent. Such a state!ent can hardly constitute a proper +asis for a finding of foru! shopping" !uch less e&idence of !isconduct on the part of  counsel. %s noted earlier" the t4o cases ha&e different causes of action and the t4o plaintiffs 4ho 4ould ha&e conflicting clai!s under the facts of the case actually presented a united stand against pri&ate respondent. If there is any charge that could +e le&eled against counsel" it is his lac? of thoroughness in pursuing the action for uieting of title. %s counsel for plaintiff therein" he could ha&e i!pleaded petitioner 'auricia ?no4ing fully 4ell her interest in the property in&ol&ed in order to a&oid !ultiplicity of suits. Bo4e&er" such an o!ission is not a sufficient ground for  ad!inistrati&e sanction. (EREFORE " the instant petition for re&ie4 on certiorari is here+y DENIED for lac? of  !erit. *osts against petitioner.

'O ORDERED. :arvasa, C.J. ?Chairman@, apunan, and Purisima, JJ., concur .

Mondonido v Roda

GR No. L-5561 January 26, 1954 LAZARO MONDOÑIDO, lainti-aellant vs. PRESA A!aura "DA. RODA, a# a$%&n&#'ra'or o( ')* In'*#'a'* R&+ar$o Ro$a -de4endant aealed. D. Jesus P. Garcia for appellant. Messrs. Pelaez Pelaez Pelaez and in appellee.

PAL  J.  25 and Fe!ruar 2( 1727 Ri&ardo de Roda a8arded t8o u!li& deeds 9:;s. A and B< 4or&in= 'aaro Mondo>ido sell a ortion o4 land 8i& 8as to inerit 4ro$ teir =randarents =ettin= P200 as advan&e a$ent.?ile te =rantin= o4 su& deeds 8ere alread in li@uidation in te Court o4 First ,nstan&e o4 Ce!u roert o4 is =rand4ater :duardo de Roda. ?it $inor dieren&es te rst do&u$ent is 8ritten as te se&ond. )n Mar& 27 17%0 te lainti led suit asin= te 4ulll$ent o4 te t8o &ontra&ts. Te de4endant as ad$inistrator o4 te reli&t =oods Ri&ardo de Roda resented t8o de4enses 9a< tat su& deeds are null as it &on&erned 4uture ineritan&es and 9!< tat te a&tion is res&ri!ed. A&&ordin= to te a=ree$ent $ade :duardo de Roda and Antonina *eulveda =randarents 8ere Ri&ardo de Roda. :d8ard died in 170% leavin= &ildren and =rand&ildren as eirs. Ri&ardo on !eal4 o4 is 4ater inerited te 325 art o4 te assets o4 its a!uelo.Ri&ardo died in 1733 and in 173% te reli&s 8ere distri!uted =oods :duardo.Ri&ardo is late =rand4ater and is sister Ro!erta re&eived in tat to  or teir arti&iation in te ineritan&e o4 :duardo 8i& 8as run ! te 8ido8 o4 Ri&ard =ivin= tis to Ro!erta teir arti&iation in te rodu&ts o4 su& erita=e. Antonina *eulveda died in 1750E its assets 8ere li@uidated and in 175/ a &ourt a8arded to teir eirs &ildren and =rand&ildren. ,n tis &ontra&t te 8ido8 o4 Ri&ardo de Roda ad re&eived no arti&iation !e&ause se and Ro!erta ad a=reed tat te arti&iation o4 Ri&ardo and Ro!erta =oods :duardo de Roda 8ould sta in te ands o4 te 8ido8 o4 Ri&ard and te arti&iation o4 te !roters te$selves Antonina =oods *eulveda Ro!erta 8ould re&eive. A4ter &onsiderin= te 4a&ts and a=ree$ent o4 te t8o s&rits te &ourt dis$issed te &lai$ 4or te reason tat tese 8ritin=s dealt on 4uture ineritan&e. A=ainst te lainti aealed tis de&ision ar=uin= tat tese s&ritures re4er to reli&t :duardo Roda =oods and not to tose o4 :duardo and Antonina us!ands. #o dou!t te are 8ritten in a 8a tat one &an not !e sure i4 Ri&ardo sold is interest in te roert

o4 er late =rand4ater :duardo onl or tose o4 teir =randarents :duardo and AntoninaE !ut even i4 e ad ro$ised to sell is interest in te roert 4ro$ is =rand4ater and =rand$oter te ro$ise o4 sale re=ardin= te assets o4 te latter is null and =un denin value !e&ause it re4ers to sale o4 4uture ineritan&e. )n 4uture ineritan&e - sas te *anis Civil Code - $a not o8ever &on&lude oter &ontra&ts tan tose 8ose urose is to ra&ti&e te division !et8een livin= under a Go8 10%6. art. 9Arti&le 12(1 ar 2nd Arroo.. against  "erona %/ ur Fil 25%E..  Tordilla against  .. Tordilla 60 ur Fil 1(2.< Antonina Ri&ardo *eulveda lived even i4 a8arded te s&rituresE !ut te are not ero in ter$s o4 assets re&i!ria Ri&ardo intestate is =rand4ater :duardo !e&ause tese reli&s =oods 8ere alread in te ro&ess o4 li@uidation 8en te ri=ts to Ri&ardo otor=o.'os su&&ession are trans$itted ! oeration o4 la8 4ro$ te $o$ent deat 9art. 6%( Cod. Civ. *anis.< Ri&ardo alread o8ned te 325 arts o4 su& roert ! 8a o4 =enuine resent and no 4uture ineritan&e.  Te de4ense o4 res&rition sould !e esti$ated. *in&e 173% 8en te 8ido8 o4 Ri&ardo de Roda ad re&eived te arti&iation o4 er late us!and in real reli&t o4 te late :duardo de Roda and te &o$lainant &ould en4or&e te s&ritures 9:;s A and B< !ut e did !ut onl in Mar& 25 17%0 in 8i& e resented is de$and. Te ave alread assed 1% earsE te ar$ said a&tion ad to !e !rou=t 8itin a eriod o4 ten ears ursuant to Arti&le 53 ara=ra 1 o4 te Code o4 Civil Pro&edure.  Te &o$lainantHs &lai$ tat e $ust return te a$ount o4 P200 as rea$ent !aseless. ,4 te ali&ant ad re@uested er4or$an&e o4 te s&ritures 8itin te eriod set ! la8 and te de4endant 8ould not ave $et ten tere 8ould &onse@uido &o$lian&e a=ree$ent or 4ailin= tat te return o4 P200 lus da$a=es in tat ave !een in&urred. For tese reasons te de&ision aelada 8it &osts a=ainst te aellant is &onr$ed. Paras, Pres., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Juice, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ.,  &on&ur.

Barretto v Tuason G.R. No+. L?6811, ?6827, ?6840, ?6872 N#ONIO

%.

-RRE##O

%ar:< ?1, 19?4 

RO!(,

E#

L., plaintiffs7appellees"

&s. $G$'#O (. #$'ON  DE L "Z, E# L.,  defendants7appellants@ -ENI#O LEGRD  RO!E', a&/*n*+raor o <) )+a) o <) &):)a+)& -)n*o L)ar&a y &) a "aB, E# L., E'#NI'LO REN', E# L., an& N -R!IN' #ORRE', alias N -R!IN' "EREZ; E# L.,inter&enors7appellants@ ERI-ER#O #$'ON, E# L., inter&enors7appellees.  Araneta, De Jo*a, 3aragoza and Araneta and Jose Bulo for defendants!appellants. 5usebio 9rense and :icolas )elmonte for intervenors! appellants egarda de la Paz et al.

6eria and a 9 for intervenors!appellees Arenas et al. J.A. olfson for intervenors!appellants )arcinas 4orres et al.  Antonio Sanz and Courtne* hitne* for plaintiffs!appellees. Duran, im and 4uason for intervenors!appellees /. (aga et al. :o appearance for the other intervenors!appellees. I%"ERIL, J.:

For the third ti!e" there is presented for our consideration the ma*orazgo founded +y the deceased Don %ntonio Tuason. The first occasion 4as 4hen +oth plaintiffs and defendants appealed fro! a decision of the *ourt of First Instance of 'anila" dis!issing the co!plaint and the counterclai! filed" 4ithout costs. The appeals thus interposed 4ere doc?eted under No. 2-$2-" and the decision pro!ulgated on 'arch 2-" #$2/" is pu+lished in full in &olu!e 50 hilippine Reports" page 999 et  seq. the second occasion 4as 4hen so!e of the defendants instituted a certiorari  proceeding against the *ourt of First Instance of 'anila" so!e of the plaintiffs" and other inter&enors" +ecause of  the appoint!ent" at the latterJs instance" of the 6an? of the hilippine Islands as recei&er of all the properties constituting the ma*orazgo. Said proceeding 4as doc?eted under No. -22-" and the decision pro!ulgated on Fe+ruary ," #$-0" is pu+lished in full in &olu!e 5 hilippine Reports" page # 09 et seq. %nd the third is +rought a+out +y four appeals ta?en +y the defendants and so!e inter&enors fro! certain portions of the decision and order rendered +y the court during the ne4 trial held pursuant to our resolution of 4hich 4e shall hereafter ha&e occasion to spea?. The four appeals no4 +efore us 4ere doc?eted separately" +ut for a +etter understanding of the uestions 4hich 4e propose to resol&e" 4e ha&e thought it con&enient to render a single decision 4herein each appeal 4ill +e discussed indi&idually. "RELI%INR !ON'IDER#ION'

6efore entering upon a consideration of the appeals" it is con&enient to set out so!e funda!ental facts 4hich ha&e +een su+!itted" discussed" and resol&ed in the decision rendered in the original and principal case" and 4hich are of the ut!ost i!portance to +ear in !ind in resol&ing the uestions raised ane4 in the appeals. These facts are The ma*orazgo 4as founded +y Don %ntonio Tuason on Fe+ruary 25" #,$. On 3une  of the sa!e year the founder died in the *ity of 'anila. The ma*orazgo 4as appro&ed +y 1o*al Cedula of %ugust 20" #,$5. On Octo+er ##" #920" the Statute of *i&il Disentail!ents 4as pro!ulgated in Spain" 4as e8tended to the hilippine Islands" and too? effect therein on 'arch #" #9/" +y &irtue of a Royal Decree of  Octo+er -#" #9/-. The properties of the ma*orazgo consist of the aciendas de Santa (esa * Diliman, acienda de (ariquina" and t4o ur+an properties situated on Rosario Street" 'anila. 6y agree!ent of the parties" the assessed &alue of the said properties is aciendas de Santa (esa * Diliman

-"550"//.00

acienda de (ariquina

#"50,"#0.00

Properties on 1osario Street 

52"-92.00

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5"/00"#/9.00

 %fter the pro!ulgation of the decision in the principal case" the defendants filed a !otion of  reconsideration and &arious persons filed !otions of inter&ention as?ing at the sa!e ti!e that they +e ad!itted as inter&enors for the purpose of participating in one7fifth of the properties. The resolution pu+lished in &olu!e 50 hilippine Reports" page $5$ et seq." 4as adopted" 4herein Cpage $/- the follo4ing funda!ental conclusions" esta+lished in the decision" 4ere reiterated Resol&ing" therefore" said !otion for reconsideration" 4e reiterate the follo4ing conclusions" declaring finally C# That the first7+orn possessor of this ma*orazgo 4as a !ere usufructuary of the entailed properties. C2 That this ma*orazgo 4as a fideicomiso. C- That the charge to distri+ute the fifth of the re&enues fro! said properties 4as a fa!ily trust. C That article  of the Disentailing >a4 of Octo+er ##" #920 is applica+le to the present case. C5 That the fifth of the properties into 4hich" +y &irtue of said la4" the fifth of the re&enue 4as con&erted on 'arch #" #9/" 4hen the Disentailing >a4 +eca!e effecti&e in the hilippines" has re!ained and su+sists as a  fideicomiso up to the present date. C/ That the plaintiffsJ right of action has not prescri+ed. C, That the registration of the entailed properties under %ct No. $/ !ust" 4ith respect to the fifth of the said properties conser&ed up to the present ti!e as a  fideicomiso" +e held to ha&e +een !ade in fa&or of the +eneficiaries of said fifth part. C9 That the plaintiffs" as 4ell as any other descendants of the founder" are entitled to participate in the fifth of the properties of this ma*orazgo in accordance 4ith the si8th clause of the deed of foundation and article  of the Disentailing >a4. The !otion of reconsideration 4as denied in so far as it 4as inco!pati+le 4ith the final and funda!ental conclusions arri&ed at in the decision and in the resolution" +ut the !otion for a ne4 trial of the inter&enors M 4ho appeared in order that they or any other person entitled to participate in one7fifth of the properties !ay inter&ene" either +y filing other co!plaints of inter&ention or +y a!ending the co!plaint filed M 4as granted. The dispositi&e part of said resolution reads literally as follo4s ORD1R In &ie4 of the foregoing" it is ordered

Ca That the !otion for reconsideration filed +y counsel for the defendants is denied in so far  as it is inco!pati+le 4ith the funda!ental conclusions 4e ha&e arri&ed at in the present cause and enu!erated in the preceding resolution. Cb That the dispositi&e part of our decision in this cause +e set aside. Cc  That the record in the present case" together 4ith the petitions of inter&ention !entioned" +e returned to the *ourt of First Instance of 'anila in order that the ne4 parties !ay inter&ene in this cause and pro&e their alleged rights" and that the original plaintiffs !ay" if  they so desire" a!end their co!plaint. Cd  That the plaintiffs ta?e the necessary steps to include as parties to this cause all such ?no4n and un?no4n persons 4ho !ay ha&e the right to participate in the said fifth part of the properties of this foundation" reuiring the! to a ppear and pro&e their rights. Ce That said *ourt of First Instance proceed to try this cause and render
on +ehalf of the plaintiffs and %raneta  Larago)a on +ehalf of the defendants" for all intents and purposes and 4ith respect to the parties affected" is held as su+sisting" as 4ell as the oral and docu!entary e&idence presented +y the parties during the original trial of the cause" the original parties as 4ell as o hereafter !ay inter&ene" +eing entitled to introduce such additional e&idence as they !ay desire upon the su+7-/9##  %1%> OF TB1 INT1RV1NORS SERN%'1D >1%RD%  D1 >% %L The appellants in this case are the +rother and sisters 6enito" *onsuelo. Rita" surna!ed >egarda y de la a). These inter&enors clai! participations in one7fifth of the properties in t4o capacities First. is descendants of the younger son a+lo Tuason" and" second" for ha&ing inherited fro! their  parents the participations in one7fifth of the properties 4hich 4ere sold to the latter +y certain relati&es of the founder. They li?e4ise clai! the share to 4hich they 4ould +e entitled in the participations of certain relati&es of the younger daughter" 1ustauia 'a. Tuason" 4ho sold said participations to the defendants. =e 4ill hereafter ha&e occasion to pass on this contention in discussing the four assigned error.

The follo4ing is an enu!eration of the na!es of the &endors of their participations in fa&or of the parents of the appellants" gi&ing the dates of the respecti&e deeds #. DOROT1% TE%SON" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y her in fa&or of 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a).dated Septe!+er #-" #99#. C18hi+it %7>egarda. 2. IS%61> %R1N%S" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y her and her hus+and Francisco 1ste+an" in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and de la a)" dated Octo+er 2" #99 18hi+it 67>egarda. -. The +rothers 1NRI(E1. S1V1RINO" and DO'INO" surna!ed FR%N*O" +y a deed of  a+solute sale e8ecuted +y the! in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated No&e!+er ," #99. C18hi+it *7>egarda. . The sisters 6%>6IN% S%NTOS TE%SON and '%D%>1N% S%NTOS TE%SON" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y the! in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated 3anuary 2-" #995. C18hi+it D7>egarda. 5. %O>IN%RI% TE%SON" +y a deed of a+solute sale" e8ecuted +y her in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dates Fe+ruary #," #995. C18hi+it F7 >egarda. /. 1ST16%N DE%RT1" ISIDR% '%RI% DE%RT1" and %>13%NDRO DE%RT1" +y a deed of  a+solute sale e8ecuted +y the! in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated Fe+ruary #," #995. C18hi+it F7>egarda. ,. TO'%S% TE%SON D1 TO6I%S" 4ho 4as then a 4ido4" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y her in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated Octo+er  -" #999. C18hi+it 7>egarda. 9. >EIS TE%SON and 1DRO TE%SON" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y the! in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated %pril ," #99/. C18hi+it B7 >egarda. $. %>13%NDRO" %N%*>1TO" T1ODORI*O" '%RI%" %ND DIONISI%" surna!ed *%'%*BO y TE%SON" and TO'%S" 1N*%RN%*ION" '%RI%" and '1R*1D1S" surna!ed '%*%R%N%S y TE%SON" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y the! in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated %ugust ##" #99/. C18hi+it I7>egarda. #0. F1>I1 . %>*%>D1" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y hi! in fa&or of the said spouses" dated Octo+er 2," #99/. C18hi+it 37>egarda. ##. (EINTIN% *%STI>>O VIED% D1 3E%N N. *. R11S" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y her in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated %pril 25" #999. C18hi+it G7>egarda. The &endor" (uintina *astillo Viuda de 3uan N. *. Reyes" 4ho had a participation in the entailed properties as descendant in the direct line of the founder" acuired the participation of the latter" the said &endor (uintina *astillo ha&ing +een declared the sole and uni&ersal heir +y 4ill of the said 3uan N. *. Reyes" as e&idenced +y 18hi+it G7#7>egarda.

#2. T1ODOR% 1IL'1NDI" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y her in fa&or of the spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a!" dated Octo+er -" #999. C18hi+it >7>egarda. #-. 1TRON% '%RI% DE%RT1" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y her in fa&or of the said spouses 6enito >egarda and Teresa de la a)" dated Octo+er 9" #999. C18hi+it >7#7 >egarda. #. %V1>INO TE%SON alias %NDR1S %V1>INO TE%SON" +y a deed of a+solute sale e8ecuted +y hi! in fa&or of the father of the herein inter&enors" 6enito >egarda" dated 'arch 5" #99-. C18hi+it '7>egarda. Of the said sales" only those e8ecuted +y the follo4ing 4ere i!pugned C# Isa+el %renas@ C2 To!asa Tuason de To+ias@ C- >uis Tuason and edro Tuason@ C %leuis Tuason" and edro Tuason" 4ho sold their  participations in the properties in litigation to the father and !other of the inter&enors >egarda y de la a)" 4ere already recei&ing the re&enue on the date the Disentailing Statute too? effect. II. In declaring null and &oid as to one7half of the participations sold" instead of &alid in their  entirety" the sale !ade +y To!asa de To+ias C18hi+it 7>egarda and that e8ecuted +y >uis and edro Tuason C18hi+it B7 >egarda" and in not adegarda y de la a) the entire participations corresponding to said &endors. III. In e8cluding fro! the sales the participations corresponding to the &endors in the portions +elonging to the younger children 4ithout succession of the founder" and in not adegarda y de la a). IV. In not adegarda y de la a) the participations sold +y so!e descendants of the founderJs daughter" 1ustauia 'aria Tuason" and in the e&ent of the distri+ution of said participations a!ong the descendants" in general" of the founder" in not adegardas. V. In not adegarda y de la a) the participation corresponding to the &endor Dorotea Tuason as descendant of Santos >uciano Tuason. VI. In not ordering the defendants to pay legal interest. VII. In denying the !otion for a ne4 trial. The first t4o assigned errors are inti!ately related" as they refer to the sales of their participations e8ecuted +y To!asa Tuason de To+ias" >uis Tuason" and edro Tuason. Referee O+en held in his report that the sales !ade +y said &endors did not transfer !ore than one7half of their participations" +ecause on the dates of the sales they 4ere the ones 4ho recei&ed the re&enue and they could not

dispose of !ore than one7half of their participations" reser&ing the other half in fa&or of their  i!!ediate successors" in accordance 4ith the pro&isions of article " in connection 4ith articles 2 and -" of the Disentailing Statute. The court entertained the sa!e opinion. In support of their contention" the appellants ad&ance the follo4ing reasons C# That the said &endors 4ere not the ones 4ho recei&ed the re&enue on 'arch #" #9/" 4hen the Disentailing Statute too? effect@ conseuently" the reser&ation of one7half is not applica+le to the sales in uestion@ C2 that the present action of the i!pugners to in&alidate the sales as to one7half thereof  has already prescri+ed@ C- that the appellants ha&e acuired +y prescription of o4ner ship the entire participations sold@ and C that the inaction of the i!pugners of the sales for a period of years 4ithout e8ercising their alleged right estops the! fro! clai!ing the participations sold" under the doctrine ?no4n as estoppel +y laches.  %lthough 4e ha&e e8a!ined the oral and docu!entary e&idence adduced" to ascertain 4hether  To!asa Tuason de To+ias" >uis Tuason" and edro Tuason 4ere in fact the ones 4ho recei&ed the re&enue 4hen the Disentailing Statute too? effect M and 4e are in a position to state that the first of  said &endors 4as not in fact the one 4ho recei&ed the re&enue on said date +ut the Tuason +rothers M ne&ertheless" 4e do not !a?e any pronounce!ent on this uestion in &ie4 of the fact that the first t4o assigned errors under consideration should +e resol&ed in connection 4ith the other argu!ents relati&e to prescription of action and o4nership and estoppel +y laches. It 4ill +e recalled that the deed of sale of the participation of To!asa Tuason de To+ias 4as e8ecuted on Octo+er -" #999" and the sale of those of the +rothers >uis and edro Tuason on %pril ," #99/@ the co!plaints of inter&ention 4hich assailed the &alidity of the sales of said participations for the first ti!e 4ere filed in #$2," hence" appro8i!ately forty7one years ha&e elapsed fro! the first sale to the date its &alidity 4as i!pugned for the first ti!e" and a+out thirty years fro! the e8ecution of the second sale to the said date. The right no4 e8ercised +y the i!pugners of the sales is a personal action 4hose prescription should +e go&erned +y the la4s in force at the ti!e of the e8ecution of the deeds of sale" that is"  %pril ," #99/" and Octo+er -" #999" na!ely" >a4 5" Title 9" 6oo? ##" of the :ovisima 1ecopilacion" and >a4 2#" Title 2$" Partida -" 4hich pro&ide for the period of ten years C*rusado vs. 6ustos and 1scaler" - hil." #,.  %rticle #$-$ of the present *i&il *ode pro&ides  %RT. #$-$. rescription 4hich +egan to run +efore the pu+lication of this *ode shall +e go&erned +y the prior la4@ +ut if" after this *ode too? effect" all the ti!e reuired +y the sa!e for prescription +as elapsed" it shall +e sufficient e&en if according to such prior la4 a longer  period of ti!e 4ould ha&e +een reuired.  %nd article #-0# of the sa!e *ode pro&ides  %RT. #-0#. The action of annul!ent shall last four years. The ter! shall co!!ence to run M In cases of inti!idation or &iolence fro! the day on 4hich it has ceased@ In those of error or deceit or falsity of consideration." fro! the date of the consu!!ation of  the contract@

=hen the purpose of the action is to in&alidate the un authori)ed contracts of a !arried 4o!an" fro! the date of the dissolution of the !arriage@ =ith respect to contracts !ade +y !inors or incapacitated persons" fro! the date they 4ere released fro! guardianship.  %ccording to these pro&isions" the action of annul!ent" ad!itting that it had not yet prescri+ed 4hen the *i&il *ode too? effect in these Islands on Dece!+er ," #99$ C'ia4s of the Partidas and the :ovisima 1ecopilacion and under the pro&isions of the *i&il *ode" and in the latter case" e&en the supposition that the prescripti&e period for an action of annul!ent of contracts had +een e8tended to ten years" instead of four" in accordance 4ith the pro&isions of section -" No. #" of the *ode of *i&il rocedure. C=illard" Notes on *i&il *ode@ 6rillantes vs. 'argare
in euity
 %nd in the case of 4uason vs. (arquez C5 hil." -9#" the sa!e principle 4as again applied as follo4s The euita+le doctrine ter!ed 4ith uestiona+le propriety Kestoppel +y laches"K has particular applica+ility to the fact +efore us. Ine8cusa+le delay in asserting a right and acuiescence in e8isting conditions are a +ar to legal action. . . . =e see no good reason 4hy the said euita+le doctrine should not +e applied to the case at +ar. The i!pugners of said sales ha&e let pass a nu!+er of years fro! the accrual of their right of action to annul the sales 4ithout e8ercising such right" and ha&e &oluntarily per!itted appellantsJ predecessors in interest to enegarda +rothers and sisters" +y their fourth assigned error" no4 atte!pt to re&erse the finding of the court that the defendants are not thus estopped. %nd appellantsJ purpose is o+&ious if the sales are in&alidated" the participations" su+
descendants of the said younger daughter and cannot +e logically e8tended to the sales !ade +y se&eral of her descendants. 'oreo&er" as properly o+ser&ed +y the court" to sustain appellantsJ theory 4ould result in the a+surd case of the other descendants of said younger daughter 4ho did not sell their participations +eing depri&ed thereof uciano Tuason and Feli8 6olois Tuason. In a!endatory report of referee O+en the participation of this &endor as descendants of Santos >uciano Tuason 4as o&erloo?ed. The appellants filed a !otion of reconsideration as?ing" a!ong other things" that the participation of said &endor as descendant of Santos >uciano Tuason +e li?e4ise aduciano Tuason. In other 4ords there 4as a transposition of na!es" hence" appellants state in their +rief that this in&ol&es a !ere correction of a clerical error. In &ie4 of the foregoing 4e find the fifth assigned error 4ell7founded. In their si8th assigned error the appellants contend that the defendants are +ound to pay the! legal interest on the a!ounts of !oney to +e aduis Tuason and edro Tuason in fa&or of the appellants" are &alid in their entirety and should" therefore" +e aduciano Tuason should +e ad
 %1%> OF TB1 INT1RV1NOR %N% 6%R*IN%S TORR1S C alias %N% 6%R*IN%S 1R1L %ND OTB1RS It 4ill +e recalled" fro! 4hat has +een said in connection 4ith the first appeal" that 1ustauia 'a. Tuason died lea&ing succession" not4ithstanding the stipulation to the contrary +y the plaintiffs and the defendants at the trial of the principal case. The herein appellants are descendants of the younger daughter 1ustauia 'a. Tuason. %ll of the!" 4ith the e8e!ption of To!as 6arcinas y Reyes" are descendants of To!as 6arcinas" 4ho" 4ith the said To!as 6arcinas y Reyes" sold all their rights" interest" and participation in one7fifth of the re&enue of the ma*orazgo through their  attorney7in7fact 'anuel de los Reyes" in fa&or of the estate of Teresa de la a). Said appellants attri+ute to the appealed decision the follo4ing errors I. =e here+y adopt as our o4n all of the pertinent assign!ents of errors of the other  inter&enors in .R. Nos. -/9## and -/90" 4hich are applica+le to the inter&enors here and" +y reference" here+y incorporate their argu!ents in support of said errors. II. The lo4er court erred in holding the sale e8ecuted +y 'anuel de los Reyes" pretending to act under and +y &irtue of aforesaid &oid po4er of attorney" &alid" and in failing to hold sa!e null and &oid. III. The lo4er court erred in holding the sale e8ecuted +y 'anuel de los Reyes" pretending to act under and +y &irtue of aforesaid &oid po4er of attorney" &alid" and in failing to hold sa!e null and &oid. IV. The lo4er court erred in interpreting aforesaid sale e8ecuted +y 'anuel de los Reyes" pretending to act under aforesaid &oid po4er of attorney" and in so interpreting said sale as to depri&e these inter&enors of their true rights under the ma*orazgo founded +y Don %ntonio Tuason. 18hi+it Tuason7# sho4s that on 3une 9" #9$" the said To!as 6arcinas y *ru)" To!as 6arcinas y Reyes" 6enita 6arcinas y *ru)" and 'aria 'ani+usan y 6arcinas" through their attorney7in7fact 'anuel de los Reyes" sold all their participations in one7fifth of the re&enue of the ma*orazgo 4hich they had in possession as descendants of the younger daughter 1ustauia 'a Tuason" including all their rights and interest in the said one7fifth of the re&enue" for the su! of 5"000. In the said deed of  sale there 4as reproduced in full the po4er of attorney 4hich said &endors had conferred on their  attorney7in7fact 'anuel de los Reyes" e8ecuted on 3uly " #9$-" in the *ity of %gaPa" capital of  'arianas Islands" +efore the
The unders undersign igned ed is of the opinio opinion" n" theref therefore ore"" that that the deed deed 18hi+i 18hi+itt Tuaso Tuason7# n7# legally legally transferred to the estate of DoPa Teresa de la a) 4hat appears in said deed" +elonging to the grantors therein na!ed The court affir!ed the conclusion of the referee in the follo4ing language The court agrees 4ith the referee that" not4ithstanding the e8ecution of the po4er of  attorney in the *ity of %gaPa +efore the
888

888

5. %n agree!ent for the leasing for a longer period than one year" or for the sale of real property" or of an interest therein" and such agree!ent" if !ade +y the agent of the party sought to +e charged" is in&alid unless the authority of the agent +e in 4riting and su+scri+ed +y the party sought to +e charged. It" therefore" follo4s that under the legal pro&isions a+o&e uoted" the po4er conferred upon 'anuel de los Reyes is &alid although no notary pu+lic inter&ened in its e8ecution. %nd the sale e8ecuted +y said attorney7in7fact is li?e4ise &alid +ecause in the e8ecution of the corresponding deed the essential reuisites pro&ided +y la4 4ere co!plied 4ith. The a+o&e refuses appellants second" third" fourth assigned errors relating to the &alidity of the po4er of attorney and the deed of sale of the participations already referred to. The first assign!ent does not specify any error co!!itted +y the court and the appellants only !a?e and re produce therein" as their o4n" the assign!ents of error of the inter&enors7appellants in .R. Nos. -/9## and -/90. It is not incu!+ent upon us to consider seriously an assign!ent of error of  this nature" although the assign!ents of error !ade +y the other appellants 4ill +e considered and resol&ed in due ti!e. In resu!e" 4e find the four assigned errors of these appellants untena+le. .R. No. -/90  %1%> OF 1ST%NIS>%O% 1ST%NIS>%O% %R1N%S %ND OTB1RS The herein appellants are li?e4ise descendants of the founder of the ma*orazgo" So!e of the! directly sold to the defendants their participations in one7fifth of the re&enue and all their rights and interest in the ma*orazgo@ the others are descendants of other relati&es of the founder 4ho li?e4ise sold their participations in one7fifth of the re&enue and all their rights and interest in the ma*orazgo in fa&or of the sa!e defendants. The deeds e&idencing the sales ha&e +een !ar?ed as 18hi+its 2" -" " 5" /" ," #0" ## #2" #-" #" #/" and #,. The appellants i!pugn all the sales as null and &oid and in their +rief assign the follo4ing errors I. The court erred in holding that" +y the deeds of sale e8ecuted +y the inter&enors7 appellants" or their predecessors in interest" in fa&or of the defendants and the predecessors in intere interest st of the inter& inter&eno enors rs >egard >egarda a and sister sisters" s" the partic participa ipatio tions ns of the for!er for!er in the o0nership and dominion of one7fifth of the properties of the ma*orazgo 4ere sold and in not declaring said sales null and &oid. II. The court erred in finding that on the date of the e8ecution of the sale !ade +y Israel  %renas the latter had no i!!ediate successor and in disappro&ing the report of the referee on this uestion. III. The court erred in finding that *a!ila Tuason died after the year #9/" 4hen the Disentailing Statute too? effect in the hilippines" and not in #9/- as found +y the referee.K In support of the first assigned error" the follo4ing propositions are ad&anced C# That the &endors intended intended to sell only their participati participations ons in one7fifth one7fifth of the re&enue and" not the o4nership or other  rights 4hich they had in the ma*orazgo" conseuently" the sales 4ere null and &oid for lac? of said &endorsJ consent@ C2 that the purchasers 4ere ad!inistrators or trustees of the properties of 

the ma*orazgo" and" therefore" fall under the prohi+ition found in article #5$ of the *i&il *ode@ C- that the purchasers the spouses >egarda" at the ti!e they purchased the participations of so!e of  the inter&enors" 4ere legal ad!inistrators of the properties of the ma*orazgo" and" therefore" lac?ed the capacity to +uy in accordance 4ith the pro&isions of the :ovisima 1ecopilacion then applica+le@ C that the purchasers o+tained the &endorsJ consent through fraud" and C5 that the said are !oreo&er null and &oid under the e8press pro&isions of article " in connection 4ith article -" of the Disentailing 'atute" for lac? of prior for!al appraisal and partition of the properties constituting the fifth of the ma*orazgo. *onsidering the &ie4 4e ha&e ta?en in respect of the first assigned error" a &ie4 4hich 4e 4ill hereafter set forth" it 4ould see! unnecessary to ans4er the argu!ents ad&anced +y the appellants. Bo4e&er" 4e 4ill +riefly state the follo4ing  %fter a careful e8a!ination e8a!ination of all the deeds of sale" 4e 4e hold. as did the referee and the the court" that the &endors sold not only their participations in the re&enue +ut also all their rights and interest in the properties of the ma*orazgo. In other 4ords" said &endors in fact sold their participations and rights in the o4nership of the ma*orazgo" to 4hich the one7fifth one7fifth of the re&enue 4as con&erted con&erted in &ie4 of the enforce!ent of the Disentailing Statute in the Islands. The purchasers" strictly spea?ing" 4ere not legal ad!inistrators or fiduciaries of the rights sold to the! +y the &endors" at least in the sense in 4hich the prohi+ition then e8isting 4as e8pressed and esta+lished. %s the court correctly stated" the purchasers" in connection 4ith the transactions" acted as !ere coproprietors or tenants in co!!on" and the right to +uy 4hich they then e8ercised 4as e8pressly recogni)ed +y la4. The fraud i!puted to the purchasers has not +een pro&ed@ the e&idence sho4s that the &endors had full ?no4ledge of the rights 4hich they sold and that there+y they con&eyed to the &endees all the interest 4hich they could ha&e in the ma*orazgo.  %nd 4ith respect to the lac? of for!al appraisal and partition of one7fifth of the properties of  the ma*orazgo" prior to the sales" reuisites found in article " in connection 4ith article -" of the Disentailing Statute" it is sufficient to state our opinion that non7co!pliance there4ith should not produce either the effect or the !eaning attri+uted to the! +y the appellants. It see!s to us that the court court 4as right right in interp interpret reting ing that that the apprai appraisal" sal" partit partition ion"" and inter& inter&ent ention ion of the i!!edi i!!ediate ate successor are reuired only in cases in 4hich the actual possessor of properties or the one 4ho recei&es the re&enue desires to dispose of his participations in a specific and particular for!" +ut not 4hen" as in the case under consideration" undi&ided and indeter!inate rights or participations 4ere sold. In case of an hereditary estate" for instance" a coheir !ay sell his successory right" although undeter!ined" 4ithout the necessity either of a prior appraisal or partition of said estate or notice to or inter&ention +y the other coheirs. =e 4ill no4 +riefly +riefly state the &ie4 4e ha&e ta?en of the first assigned assigned error. The !ost recent sales i!pugned i!pugned 4ere !ade +et4een the year #$05 and #$#0@ the oldest deeds 4ere e8ecuted e8ecuted +et4een the years #9$# and #9$9. On the other hand" the appellants challenged the &alidity of said sales for  the first ti!e in 3anuary and Fe+ruary" #$2$. Theretofore" at least" nineteen years had elapsed as to the sale effected in #$#0. =e hold that the lapse of the period of nineteen years is !ore than that reuired for the prescription of the action of annul!ent +egan +y the appellants through their  co!plaints of inter&ention" and in support of this holding 4e recur here to all that 4e said on the su+egarda. =e are li?e4ise of the opinion that the appellants are no4 +arred fro! clai!ing any right in connection 4ith said sales under the doctrine of estoppel +y laches. =e repeat 4hat 4e said on this point in the appeal of the >egardas"

to the effect that the &alidity of sales !ay not +e uestioned ane4 after the purchasers ha&e en OF TB1 D1F1ND%NTS %EESTO B. TE%SON  D1>% %L %ND OTB1RS This appeal is interposed +y the defendants 4ho 4ere the possessors of all the properties of  the ma*orazgo at the ti!e the principal case 4as instituted and +efore the 6an? of the hilippine Islands 4as appointed recei&er. Said appellants i!pute to the appealed decision and order the follo4ing error FIRST 1RROR The lo4er court erred in not passing upon certain &ital issues on the ground that they had +een definitely concluded. S1*OND 1RROR The trial court erred in not finding that the fifth part of the ma*orazgo +elongs in fee si!ple to the defendants. TBIRD 1RROR The trial court erred in distri+uting the fifth part as follo4s three7eighths thereof a!ong all the descendants of the founder Cincluding those of the first possessor of the ma*orazgo per  stirps of great grandchildren" including those 4ho ha&e already died@ and the re!aining fi&e eighths a!ong the descendants of the fi&e younger children of the founder 4ho died lea&ing succession" distri+uting the sa!e per stirps of said chil dren. FOERTB 1RROR The trial court erred in not finding that the plan of distri+ution !ore in confor!ity 4ith the pro&isions of article  of the Disentailing >a4" 4ould +e to assign to each recipient C4hether  plaintiff or inter&enor a portion of the one7fifth of the entail in the proportion that the pension 4hich he used to recei&e +ears to the net inco!e of the fifth on the entail.

FIFTB 1RROR The trial court erred in not distri+uting the three7eights e8clusi&ely a!ong the defendants. SIHTB 1RROR In case the preceding assign!ent of error +e o&er ruled" 4e respectfully su+!it that the trial court erred in distri+uting the three7eights in eual portions per stirps of the great great grandchildren Ctataranietos" including those 4ho ha&e already died" instead of distri+uting the sa!e only a!ong those that are li&ing" or" !ore properly" instead of distri+uting the sa!e per stirps of the children of the founder. S1V1NTB 1RROR The trial court erred in not finding 4hat is the &alue in pesos of the different participations assigned to the different parties in this case. 1IBT 1RROR The trial court erred in not finding that the plaintiffs ha&ing filed a personal action against the defendants as?ing 1V1NTB 1RROR The trial court erred in finding that the sales e8ecuted +y the inter&enors or their  predecessors in interest of any rights that they !ight ha&e had in the fifth of  the ma*orazgo in uestion" did not co&er the right that they had to participate in the three eighths 4hich originally correspond to the three younger children of the founder 4ho died 4ithout lea&ing succession. T=1>V1 1RROR The trial court erred in not reuiring the referee to file an a!ended report in confor!ity 4ith the order of the trial court dated %pril $" #$-#.

6y 4ay of preli!inary o+ser&ation 4e 4ill state that it is not our intention to hold that the uestions raised +y the appellants in their first" second" third" fourth" fifth" si8th" and eighth assigned errors are res judicata +ecause they ha&e +een su+!itted" discussed at length" and resol&ed in the decision rendered in the principal case" +ecause 4e +elie&e this to +e unnecessary@ +ut 4e understand" and so decide" that unless it is sho4n that said uestions ha&e +een erroneously resol&ed and that there e8ist sufficient reasons
888

888

Resol&ing" therefore" said !otion for reconsideration" 4e reiterate the follo4ing conclusions" declaring finally C# That the first7+orn possessor of this ma*orazgo 4as a !ere usufructuary of the entailed properties. C2 That this ma*orazgo 4as a fideicamiso. C- That the charge to distri+ute the fifth of the re&enues fro! said properties 4as a fa!ily trust. C That article  of the Disentailing >a4 of Octo+er ##" #920 is applica+le to the present case. C5 That the fifth of the properties into 4hich" +y &irtue of said la4" the fifth of the re&enue 4as con&erted on 'arch #" #9/" 4hen the Disentailing >a4 +eca!e effecti&e in the hilippines" has re!ained and su+sists as a  fideicomiso up to the present date. C/ That the plaintiffsJ right of action has not prescri+ed. C, That the registration of the entailed properties under %ct No. $/ !ust" 4ith respect to the fifth of the said properties conser&ed up to the present ti!e as a  fideicomiso" +e held to ha&e +een !ade in fa&or of the +eneficiaries of said fifth part. C9 That the plaintiffs" as 4ell as any other descendants of the founder" are entitled to participate in the fifth of the properties of this ma*orazgo in accordance 4ith the si8th clause of the deed of foundation and article  of the Disentailing >a4.

C$ The pronounce!ents !ade in our decision 4ith respect as to the a!ount of the participation of each clai!ant shall +e set aside in &ie4 of the !otions of the inter&enors 4hich 4e a+out to e8a!ine. C 8bid ." pp. $/-" $/. No clearer and !ore categorical language could ha&e +een e!ployed to e8press the intention of the court to adhere to and reiterate the conclusions and principles already esta+lished in the decision originally rendered" not4ithstanding the !otion of reconsideration and ne4 trial. Neither can there +e any dou+t as to the uestions 4hich the court considered definitely resol&ed and 4hich should not +e the su+
888

888

Ce That said *ourt of First Instance proceed to try this cause and render a4. This" ho4e&er" 4as not the 4ill of  the testator" Don 3ose Se&erino Tuason" nor the 4ill of his successors" all of 4ho! respected the ma*orazgo and held it as su+sisting de facto. In no e&ent could the properties pass into the hands of the heir 3ose Victoriano Tuason co!pletely free. It 4as necessary to preser&e the! intact until they 4ere appraised and the fifth part thereof had +een segregated for  distri+ution a!ong the recipients of the re&enues and their i!!ediate successors" in accordance 4ith the pro&isions of article  of the statute. It is a fact that the trust su+sisted and still su+sists. The successi&e possessors of the entail ha&e preser&ed and preser&e the properties of the ma*orazgo respecting and distri+uting the fifth of the re&enue a!ong the descendants of the younger children of the founder. 6ut the entail could not and cannot continue perpetually. Its a+olition 4as decreed +y the statute as of the #st day of 'arch" #9/. Its perpetual sur&i&al 4ould +e contrary" not only to

the Disentailing >a4 of Octo+er ##" #920" +ut also the *i&il *ode in force 4hich" under  articles ,9# and ,95" paragraph 2" positi&ely prohi+its perpetual entails. If up to the present ti!e the entail in uestion su+sists" this has +een +ecause the interested parties ha&e +een !aintaining it 4ithout proceeding to the appraisal and distri+ution of the entailed properties" as reuired +y articles 2 and  of the Disentailing >a4@ and in accordance 4ith the doctrine announced +y the Supre!e *ourt of Spain on Octo+er 2$" #95," a+o&e cited" the properties of this ma*orazgo" pre ser&ed de facto +y the interested parties as entailed" legally retain this character for the purposes of their partition 4hich !ust +e effected in accordance 4ith the statute of Octo+er ##" #920. Fro! 4hat has +een said it follo4s that since 'arch #" #9/" the date upon 4hich the said Disentailing >a4 ca!e into force in the hilippine Islands" the successi&e possessors of the properties of this ma*orazgoconstituted the!sel&es trustees" charged 4ith the ad!inistration and preser&ation of the said properties and the distri+ution of the fifth of the re&enue a!ong the descendants of the younger children of the founder. *onseuently" after the entail 4as a+olished" one7half of the four7fifths of the proof %sgo continued su+a4 on the one hand" and the conduct of the interested parties on the other" 4e !ay say first" that the trust of the na?ed o4nership instituted in fa&or of the descendants of the founder  indefinitely 4as a+olished" in conseuence of the disentail!ent@ and second" that the trust of  the usufruct of the properties +eca!e con&erted into a trust of the properties the!sel&es" the +eneficiaries +eing the sa!e" +ut as o4ners@ that is to say" the first7+orn successor as to one7half of four7fifths of the said properties" and the descendants of the younger children of  the founder 4ith respect to the re!aining fifth. C 8bid ." pp. $-/7$-9. Resol&ing" therefore" said !otion for reconsideration" 4e reiterate the follo4ing conclusions" declaring finally 888

888

888

C5 That the fifth of the properties into 4hich" +y &irtue of said la4" the fifth of the re&enue 4as con&erted on 'arch #" #9/" 4hen the Disentailing >a4 +eca!e effecti&e in the hilippines" has re!ained and su+sists as a  fideicomiso up to the present date. 888

888

888

C, That the registration of the entailed properties under %rt No. $/ !ust" 4ith respect to the fifth of the said properties conser&ed up to the present ti!e as a  fideicomiso" +e held to ha&e +een !ade in fa&or of the +eneficiaries of said fifth part. C9 That the plaintiffs" as 4ell as any other descendants of the founder" are entitled to participate in the fifth of the properties of this ma*orazgo in accordance 4ith the si8th clause of the deed of foundation and article  of the Disentailing >a4. C8bid ." pp. $/-" $/.

The argu!ents no4 ad&anced +y the appellants in sup port of their second assigned error are not entirely ne4 +ecause they 4ere already +rought out 4hen the uestion 4as su+!itted and discussed in the principal case and 4e do not find therein any 4eighty reasons 1D TO TB1 R1'1D The recipients of the fifth of the re&enues are indicated in the si8th clause of the instru!ent of  foundation" the te8t of 4hich 4e again transcri+e KIt shall +e his duty to set apart one7fifth of the net re&enue deri&ed fro! the entail each year" and that one7fifth part shall +e di&ided into eight parts" gi&ing one to each of !y eight children" and in their a+sence" to !y grandchildren" +ut upon the understanding that if one or  !ore of !y children should die 4ithout succession" the part +elonging to the! shall +e distri+uted a!ong !y children and other descendants of !ine according to their needs and as prudence !ay dictate to hi!" so that" 4hen the ti!e arri&es that none of !y children are ali&e" it shall then +e al4ays understood that said fifth part shall +e applied to all those of !y descendants 4ho are poor" the apportion!ent to +e !ade +y hi! prudently according to their needs and therefore the possessor of the entail is here+y charged to discharge this duty 4ith conscientious scruple.K C 8bid ." pp. $#" $2. 888

888

888

If the descendants of the younger children" su+seuent to the grandchildren of the founder" are granted under certain circu!stances the right to possess the ma*orazgo itself" 4ith all its properties" 4e do not see ho4 it can +e said that these descendants" su+seuent to grandchildren" the sons of sons" 4ere prohi+ited fro! recei&ing a fifth of the re&enues of said properties. It is our understanding that the intention of the founder 4as not to restrict the grant of the usufruct of the fifth of the re&enue +y li!iting it to a certain nu!+er of generations of the younger children" +ut that he intended to e8tend it to all of the descendants of the latter. If  this is so 4e should apply to the case the rule of la4 of the Partidas CRule 29" Title -" ,th Partido" 4hich says ;Privilegia recipiunt largum interpretationem voluntati consonan concedentis.K Cri&ileges are to +e interpreted 4ith li+erality in accordance 4ith the 4ill of hi! 4ho grants the!. Further!ore" that the present plaintiffs are entitled to recei&e the fifth of the re&enues has +een repeatedly recogni)ed +y the defendants 4hen they purchased" in #$05" fro! Don 3ose Rocha y Rui)" and in #$#/ fro! DoPa Re!edios %ragon y Rocha their respecti&e participations in the fifth of the re&enue" according to paragraph #/ of the stipulation of facts" and 4hile in the years #$#, to #$2# the said defendants deli&ered to Don %ntonio 'aria 6arretto y Rocha" and to Don Santiago" Don 3ulio and Don %ndres Rocha y Rui) Delgado" and their sister" DoPa Rosario@ and in the years #$#, to #$22" to DoPa Isa+el" DoPa 1nriueta" DoPa *ar!en" Don %ntonio" Don %lfredo and Don *lodoaldo Rocha y ereyra" Don Francisco 6eech y Roeon and Don To!as

Tuason" and to the !inors DoPa *onsuelo" Don 3uan" DoPa Rosario and DoPa *ar!en Tuason" and DoPa Victoria Rufina" DoPa %na *onsolacion Tuason" and DoPa %suncion Ro!ana Tuason 4ido4 of *a+allero" their respecti&e participations in the fifth of the re&enue" as appears fro! the cross7co!plaint of the defendants" ad!itted in para graph 9 of  the stipulation of facts.  %nd it appears that the said Don 3ose Rocha y Rui) 4as the son of Don >oren)o Rocha" a grandson" in turn" of DoPa regoria N. Tuason C18hi+it / and paragraphs 2 and #/ of the stipulation of facts that DoPa Re!edios %ragon y Rocha is a relati&e of the founder C18hi+it ," ad!itted in paragraph #/ of the stipulation of facts @ and that the said recipients of the fifth of the re&enue fro! the year #$#, to #$2# and fro! the year #$#, to #$22" are all descendants of grandchildren of the younger children of the founder. Caragraphs 2 to -0" ad!itted in paragraph # of the stipulation of facts. C 8bid ." pp. $" $5. 888

888

888

assing to the a!ount of the articipation 4hich is due the! respecti&ely" for the purpose of  deter!ining this point 4e !ust ha&e regard to the intention of the founder" as it is e8pressed in the instru!ent creating the ma*orazgo. It 4as his 4ill that the fifth of the re&enue should he di&ided into eight parts" and that to each of his children" other than his first +orn" one part should +e gi&en. Epon the death of each of these children" +y &irtue of the pro&isions of the instru!ent of foundation" and +y operation of la4" their right to an eighth part of the re&enue 4hich they recei&ed during their lifeti!e 4as trans!itted to their heirs. That is" each of these eight portions of the fifth of the re&enue 4as trans!itted fro! succession to succession" 4ithin the stirps of each of the eight younger children 4ho died lea&ing succession. The heirs of a younger son or daughter could legally participate in the eight part corresponding to another stirps" as long K heirs in the direct line of this stirps sur&i&ed@ that is to say" each of  the eight portions of the fifth" e8cept those corresponding to young children +orn 4ithout succession. The heirs of a younger child could not legally participate in the eight corresponding to another stirps" 4hile heirs of this stirps in" the direct line sur&i&e. That is to say" each one of the said eight parts of the fifth" e8cept those corresponding to the younger  children dying 4ithout succession" 4as preser&ed and trans!itted fro! generation to generation 4ithin each respecti&e stirps. This plan of di&ision of participation" +ased upon the 4ill of the founder and the precepts of  the la4" is that 4hich in our
of the defendants" +ut +earing in !ind the different rights 4ith 4hich each heir participates" +y reason of the greater or lesser pro8i!ity of his relationship to the founder" for the purpose of deter!ining if he is to inherit  per capita or per stirpes. =e say some of the defendants " +ecause 4ith the e8ception of the ten !entioned in paragraph 5 of the co!plaint" the other  defendants are either persons 4hose relationship has not +een deter!ined Cparagraph / of  the co!plaint or ha&e refused to +eco!e parties to this action Cparagraph -0 of the co!plaint. Fro! 4hat has +een said it follo4s that one7half of the fifth of the properties corresponding to the younger sons lea&ing succession" four7fortieth parts CA0 of the 4hole of the properties of this foundation !ust +e di&ided into four eual portions" +ecause one portion" or one7 fortieth part C#A0 corresponds to each stirps of the said four younger children. The other  one7half of the said fifth" that is to say" the other four7fortieth parts CA0 of the 4hole of the properties of this foundation !ust +e distri+uted in general a!ong the plaintiffs and so!e of  the defendants" ta?ing into consideration the circu!stances of their respecti&e heirships. C8bid ." pp. $/7$9. The foregoing paragraphs contain conclusions of fact and of la4 esta+lished after a careful study of  the pro&isions found in the foundation and of the la4s applica+le to the case" and are suarely applica+le to the facts recently pro&ed at the ne4 trial" e8cept that fi&e7eighths of the fifth should +e di&ided a!ong the descendants of the fi&e C5 younger children 4ith succession and the re!aining three7eighths of the fifth a!ong the relati&es in general of the founder" +ecause it de&eloped that the younger daughter 1ustauia 'a. Tuason had left heirs" contrary to the stipulation of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The argu!ents ad&anced +y the appellants in support of said assign!ents of error do not
Tuason de la a)" the father of the said defendants. 4hich testa!entary proceedings 4ere finally disposed of and filed 3une 25" #$20. If" as 4e ha&e found and decided" the successi&e possessors of the properties of  this ma*orazgo 4ere and ha&e +een !ere trustees of the said properties" holding the! in trust for the +enefit of the +eneficiaries" part of 4ho! are the recipients of the fifth of the re&enues" and their descendants" the registration of the title to said properties under %ct No. $/ in fa&or of the said defendant !ust +e dee!ed to ha&e +een effected for the +enefit of  the +eneficiaries of said properties" part of 4ho! are the present plaintiffs. The doctrine esta+lished +y this court in the case of Severino vs. Severino  C hil." --" is applica+le to this feature of the case.  %lthough the plaintiffs endea&ored to de!onstrate that the said defendants registered the title +y fraud" it is our opinion that the alleged fraud has not +een pro&en in this action. Ne&ertheless" the e8istence of fraud is unnecessary to arrant the declaration that registration of the Title under %ct No. $/ is not a legal o+stacle to this action +rought +y plaintiffs" and the ad
=ith respect to the plea of prescription" counsel for defendants contend that inas!uch as plaintiffs" prior to the filing of the present co!plaint" had !ade no effort to enforce their rights since the #st day of 'arch" #9/" their action is +arred. 6ut fro! the records it that up to the year #$22 the defendant ha&e +een recogni)ing in the entries in their +oo?s" and in deeds" such as 18hi+its / and ," signed +y Don %ugusto Tuason de la a)" as grantee" the right of  the descendants of the younger children of the founder to the fifth of the re&enue" and therefore the trust 4hich this charge i!plies@ further!ore" said defendants !ade pay!ents on account of the fifth of the re&enue. These acts of recognition and pay!ents" !ade during the said period of ti!e" pre&ent the operation of prescription. Section 50" *ode of *i&il rocedure. Further!ore" this +eing a case 4hich deals 4ith a trust 4hich su+sisted fro! the ti!e of its foundation and +y &irtue thereof up to 'arch #" #9/" and thereafter do4n to the present ti!e +y the e8press 4ill of the present parties" the defense of prescription cannot +e entertained. 6y &irtue of the said trust the possession of the said defendants could not +e regarded as a +asis for an acuisiti&e prescription in their fa&or against the plaintiffs +ecause such possession has not +een nor is it under clai! of o4nership" +ut a title held in the na!e and on +ehalf of the +eneficiaries" so!e of 4ho! are the plaintiffs in general. For this reason the defense of prescription cannot +e enforced +et4een the trustee and the +eneficiaries 4hile the trust relations continue" as 4as i!pliedly held in the case of the /overnment of the Philippine 8slands vs. AbadillaC/ hil." /2. C 8bid ." pp. $-97$0. Strictly spea?ing there 4as no alteration in the nature of the action then co!!enced +y the plaintiffs. They clai!ed inde!nity for da!ages in the a!ount of half a !illion pesos +elie&ing that the registration of the real properties of the ma*orazgo in fa&or of the defendants and the issuance of  the corresponding certificates of title" !ade the latter the e8clusi&e o4ners thereof@ +ut this court

held that a trust +eing in&ol&ed" the titles should +e under stood as issued in fa&or of all the co7 proprietors" a!ong the! the plaintiffs" and in &ie4 of this ruling the plaintiffs 4ere declared entitled" not to an inde!nity" +ut to a participation in one7fifth of the aforesaid properties. Fro! this it follo4s that" although the plaintiffs 4ere granted a relief different fro! that they had as?ed for" the rights 4hich they in&o?ed fro! the &ery +eginning and upon 4hich they +ased the action 4hich they +egan" 4ere" ne&ertheless" the sa!e to 4it" their rights as relati&es or descendants of the founder of  the ma*orazgo. They erred in the choice of the re!edy to 4hich they 4ere entitled" +ut they did not change the essential ground of the action. In either case the right 4hich they 4anted to enforce 4as the sa!e" +ut it de&eloped that the adeuate re!edy 4as not the" one they as?ed for +ut that granted to the! +y the court. In their ninth assigned error the appellants contend that the court erred in declaring null and &oid as to one7half the sales of their participations e8ecuted +y the inter&enors 'ariano %renas" 1stanislaoa  %renas" 3ulio Tuason" Se&erino Tuason" 1ncarnacion Roegardas !ay +e ta?en as reproduced herein. The !ost recent sale 4as !ade in #$#/ and the first co!plaint of inter&ention uestioning the &alidity of the sales 4as filed in #$2/" that is" after the lapse of !ore than ten years. During all this ti!e the defendants 4ere in the enegardas" in resol&ing a si!ilar case" that pursuant to the pro&isions of article /5, of the *i&il *ode" successory rights are trans!itted fro! the death of the person lea&ing the hereditary estate" 4here fore. it cannot +e said that in the afore!entioned sales undeter!ined rights 4ere con&eyed. It is true that on the dates of the sales"

the a!ount of the participations sold 4ere not yet deter!ined" +ut dou+tless it could +e fi8ed and reduced to figures through the appraisal a nd liuidation pro&ided for +y the Disentailing Statute. The t4el&e and last assigned error states that the court should ha&e reuired the referee to file an a!ended report pursuant to the order of %pril 9" #$-#. The error" if any is no ground for either  !odification or re&ersal. There is no dou+t that the referee should file his a!ended and final report" +ut this !ay +e prepared and su+!itted for appro&al after the appeals ha&e +een disposed of and the present decision has +eco!e final. =e find no !erit in this assigned error. Su!!ari)ing 4hat has +een said in connection 4ith this appeal 4e ha&e #. That the first" second" third" fourth" fifth" si8th" se&enth" eight" tenth and t4elfth assigned error are 4ithout !erit and !ust +e as they are here+y o&erruled@ 2. That the sales e8ecuted +y 'ariano %renas" 1stanislao %renas" 3ulio Tuason" Se&erino Tuason" 1ncarnacion Ro
In &ie4 of all the foregoing considerations" and disposing finally of all the appeals interposed" it is ordered 8n case /.1. :o. E#

#. That the appealed decision and order +e a!ended" in the sense that the sales e8ecuted +y To!asa Tuason de To+ias" >uis Tuason" and edro Tuason" in fa&or of the inter&enors >egarda" are &alid" and that the participations sold there+y should +e adegarda of the participations co!ing fro! the younger children 4ithout succession" are &alid" and" conseuently" said participations should +e aduciano Tuason" should +e ad
#. That the aforesaid appealed decision" in so far as it has +een affected +y the appeal interposed +y the inter&enors7appellants in this case" is here+y affir!ed@ 8n case /.1. :o. E#%$ 

#. That the decision of the court is here+y affir!ed in so far as it has +een affected +y the appeal interposed in this case +y the inter&enors7appellants 1stanislaoa %renas and others@ 8n case /.1. :o. E#F" 

#. That the appealed decision and order are here+y a!ended" in the sense that the sales e8ecuted +y 'ariano %renas" 1stanislaoa %renas" 3ulio Tuason" Se&erino Tuason" 1ncarnacion Ro
')ara) O*n*on+ '#REE#, J., concurring

In &ie4 of the fact that our order granting a ne4 trial" reported in )aretto vs. 4uason C50 hil." 999" $//" is considered +y the court to +e so li!ited as to pre&ent further consideration of the funda!entals" I dee! it unnecessary to repeat the consideration 4hich led !e to dissent in part fro! the conclusions reached at the for!er hearing" and I therefore no4 concur. ($LL, J., C*< C
I a! constrained to concur in the result" feeling +ound +y the la4 of the case as it e8ist in this  ands" -$ hil." ,,. If I 4ere free to &ote on the !erits" I 4ould deny all relief to plaintiffs. 3I!ER', J., concurring

In the a+o&e entitled cases I &oted to affir! the decisions of the lo4er court" 4ith the !odifications proposed +y the  ponente" and I here+y authori)e the *hief 3ustice or the 3ustice acting in his place to certify that I &oted in said cases as hereina+o&e stated.

I certify that  Justice J.C. 7ic2ers too? part in the consideration of the a+o&e enu!erated cases" and &oted to affir! the appealed decision" as !odified in the pre&ailing opinion. M %V%N*1Q%" *.3. -D 'N#O', J., dissenting

I regret that I a! una+le to agree 4ith the pre&ailing opinion in this case 4hich is not only 4ell74ritten +ut !anifests conscientious and painsta?ing la+or. In !y a4 of Octo+er ##" #920" +eca!e effecti&e in the hilippines. %s declared +y this court in that case on page $-/ K6ut the entail could not and cannot continue perpetually. Its a+olition 4as decreed +y the statute as of the #st day of 'arch" #9/. Its perpetual sur&i&al 4ould contrary" not only to the Disentailing >a4 of Octo+er ##" #920" +ut also the *i&il *ode in force 4hich" under articles ,9# and ,95" paragraph 2" positi&ely prohi+its perpetual entails.K %fter 'arch #" #9/" the trust" as such" could not legally e8ist" irrespecti&e of the su+seuent conduct of the parties concerned. The effect of the effect of the Disentailing >a4 4as to &est in the cestui   or +eneficiary +oth the +eneficial and legal o4nership of the trust property" su+a4 as to the right of alienation. This ga&e the cestui  his heirs or assigns" the right to possession of the trust property. The e8ercise of this right 4as su+
888

888

Cb That the dispositi&e part of our decision in this cause +e set aside. Cc  That the record in the present case" together 4ith the petitions of inter&ention !entioned" +e returned to the *ourt of First Instance of 'anila in order that the ne4 parties !ay inter&ene in this cause and pro&e their alleged rights" and that the original plaintiffs !ay" if  they so desire" a!end their co!plaint. 888

888

888

Ce That said *ourt of First Instance proceed to try this cause and render
888

888

It see!s clear" therefore" that the case should not as it in fact does not" a precedent. 'oreo&er" it should +e +orne in !ind that the co!!on la4 doctrine of stare decisis has not strictly follo4ed in this a4 is not 4holly +ound +y the rules of past generations. It is a !yth of the la4J" that stare decisis is i!pregna+le or is anything !ore than a salutary !a8i! to pro!ote a4K" ale >a4 3ournal :#$22;" &ol. HHHI" pp. -/#" -/-. In Bert) vs. =ood!an C2#9 E. S." 205" 2#2@ -0 Sup. *t." /2#" /22 :#$#0;" the Supre!e *ourt of the Enited States" through 3ustice >urton said KThe *ircuit *ourt of %ppeals 4as o+&iously not + ound to follo4 its o4n prior decision. The rule of stare decisis" though one tending to consistency and unifor!ity of decision" is not fle8i+le. =hether it shall +e follo4ed or departed fro! is a uestion entirely 4ithin the discretion of the court" 4hich is again called upon to consider a uestion once decided.K  %nd in %da!s 18p. *o. vs. 6ec?4ith C#00 Ohio St." -9" -5#" -52@ #2/ N. 1." -00" -0#" :#$#$;" the Supre!e *ourt of Ohio said K% decided case is 4orth as !uch as it 4eighs in reason and righteousness" and no !ore. It is not enough to say thus saith the court.J It !ust pro&e its right to control in any gi&en situation +y the degree in 4hich its supports the rights of a party &iolated and ser&es the causes of a4" pp. 50" 5#" /5. The ci&ilian theory" as e8e!plified +y the French practice" has +een stated +y rof. >a!+ert of the Eni&ersity of >yons in an article pu+lished in the ale >a4 3ournal KIn France" the a4K" ale >a4 3ournal :#$2$;" &ol. HHHIH" pp. #" #.

In a recent case" spea?ing of the doctrine of stare decisis" this court said Is the court 4ith ne4 !e!+ership co!pelled to follo4 +lindly the doctrine of the Velasco case The rule of stare decisis is entitled to respect. Sta+ility in the la4" particularly in the +usiness field" is desira+le. 6ut idolatrous re&erence for precedent" si!ply as precedent" no longer rules. 'ore i!portant than anything else is that the court should +e right. %nd particularly it is not 4ise to su+ordinate legal reason to case la4 and +y so doing perpetuate error 4hen it is +rought to !ind that the &ie4s no4 e8pressed confor! in principle to the original decision and that since the first decision to the contrary 4as sent forth there has e8isted a respecta+le opinion of non7confor!ity in the court. Indeed" on at least one occasion has the court +ro?en a4ay fro! the re&a!ped doctrine" 4hile e&en in the last case in point the court 4as e&enly di&ided as it 4as possi+le to +e and still reach a decision. Chilippine Trust *o!pany and S!ith" 6ell  *o!pany vs. 'itchell" p. -0" ante. In conclusion" I +elie&e that 4hate&er rights of action the plaintiffs in these cases !ight ha&e had" ha&e either +een +ared +y laches or prescri+ed. Bence they should ta?e nothing +y their actions. -$##E, J., dissenting

I a! of the opinion that the assign!ents of error of the defendants7appellants nu!+ered #" 2" -" " 5" / and 9 should +e sustained and I" therefore" dissent.  % Torrens title 4as issued to the defendants7appellants in #$#5 under the pro&isions of the >and Registration %ct C%ct No. $/. This court has repeatedly held that such titles are final" irre&oca+le and incontesta+le. Fro! #9,9" 4hen DoPa Teresa de la a) succeeded to the estate of her child" 3ose Victoriano Tuason" she held possession as o4ner until her death in #9$0 4hen the property passed to the defendants all of 4ho! are direct descendants of DoPa Teresa de la a)" Fro! #9,9 to #$2- 4hen the present action 4as co!!enced M that is for forty7fi&e years" the defendants and their  predecessors in title held possession as o4ners. They ha&e" therefore" acuired a title +y prescription. C%rticles /" ," #$5$ and #$/0" *i&il *ode. See also Gineald vs. *a+ututan" -5 hil." -9-" 0/. The si8th clause of the instru!ent creating this estate tail C ma*orazgo dated Fe+ruary 25" #,$" did not create a fa!ily trust. Nor is there any e&idence sho4ing that the appellees or their predecessors in title co!e 4ithin the language of the si8th clause of that instru!ent 4hich" at !ost" !ight +e construed to +e precatory trust. Nor 4as that precatory trust indeter!ina+le. The possi+le +eneficiaries thereof no longer e8isted in 'arch #" #9/ 4hen the Spanish Statute of Disentail!ent 4as e8tended to the hilippine Islands. It is to +e noted that article  of the Statute of Disentail!ent pro&ided for the ter!ination of fa!ily trust. The Statute of Disentail!ent" effecti&e in the hilippines on 'arch #" #9/" a+olished estates tail and pro&ided that all properties entailed are restored to the class of a+solutely free properties. The possessors of entailed estates 4ere e!po4ered at once to freely dispose of one7half of the entailed property" the other half to pass to the i!!ediate successor to the title" 4ho 4as e!po4ered to dispose of it freely as o4ner. Ender these pro&isions" after the death of 3ose Tuason" his heir" on 3anuary 25" #9,$" Teresa de la a) too? the title in fee si!ple to all the properties in&ol&ed in this entailed estate. The plaintiffs" 4ho at this late date see? to i!press said title 4ith a trust" are guilty of  e8tre!e laches. The Torrens title issued to the defendants in #$#5 should +e sustained.

 Tordilla v Tordilla EN BANC G.R. No. 39547. May 3, 1934 In re Intestate estate of the deceased Francsco !ord""a, GA#$ENCIA !%R$I&&A, Petitioner Appellee, '. M%I(E( !%R$I&&A, o))onent*a))e""ant. Man"y + Reyes for  Appellant . %ca)o + Cea and B-ena'ent-ra B"ancaf"or for  Appellee. (&&AB#( 1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; PROPERTY SUBJECT TO COLLATION; ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY DONATED. — Appellant’s !ntent"!n "n #"s t#"$% ass"&n'ent !( e$$!$ t#at) *#e$e e$ta"n +al,e "s state% "n a %ee% !( %!nat"!n) t#at +al,e ann!t -e ,est"!ne% *#en t#e p$!pe$t"es a$e -$!,&#t "nt! !llat"!n) "s "n!$$et) as a$t"le 1/0 !( t#e C"+"l C!%e p$!+"%es (!$ t#e assess'ent !( t#e p$!pe$t2 at "ts at,al +al,e at t#e t"'e !( t#e %!nat"!n. T#e at,al +al,e at t#e t"'e !( t#e %!nat"!n "s a ,est"!n !( (at *#"# ',st -e esta-l"s#e% -2 p$!!( t#e sa'e as an2 !t#e$ (at. 3. ID.; ID.; FRUITS AND INTEREST. — T#e ($,"ts an% "nte$est p$!%,e% -2 p$!pe$t2 s,-4et t! !llat"!n ',st -e ase$ta"ne% ,n%e$ a$t"le 1/05 !( t#e C"+"l C!%e. 6See 7,"n&,"n& +. A-,t!n an% A-,t!n) 08 P#"l.) 100.9 :. ID.; CONTRACTS IT< RESPECT TO FUTURE IN1 !( t#e C"+"l C!%e. 0. ID.; ARTICLE 80/) CI?IL CODE) STILL IN FORCE. — T#e attent"!n !( t#e !,$t *as n!t alle% t! an2 ase "n *#"# a$t"le 80/ !( t#e C"+"l C!%e #as -een t$eate% as ent"$el2 an% !'pletel2 $epeale%) an% In $e Intestate Estate !( Ta%@Y 60 P#"l.) >9) (!ll!*e%.

$ECI(I%N

/#&&,  J.0

T#"s "s an appeal ($!' a %e"s"!n !( t#e C!,$t !( F"$st Instane !( Ca'a$"nes S,$ p$!+"%"n& (!$ t#e %"st$"-,t"!n !( t#e estate !( !ne F$an"s! T!$%"lla) *#! %"e% "ntestate "n Na&a) Ca'a$"nes S,$) !n Dee'-e$ 18) 153) lea+"n& as #"s !nl2 #e"$s #"s *"%!*) a le&"t"'ate s!n) t#e %e(en%ant an% appellant) an% a $e!&n"e% nat,$al %a,&#te$) pet"t"!ne$ an% appellee. It '"&#t -e sa"% -2 *a2 !( "nt$!%,t"!n t#at t#e $e!$% "s +!l,'"n!,s an% t#at 'an2 ,est"!ns !( (at !,l% #a+e -een lea$l2 esta-l"s#e% -2 %"$et 'eans $at#e$ t#an t! lea+e t#e ,est"!n "n %!,-t -2 p$esent"n& !nl2 "$,'stant"al e+"%ene. T#"s "s espe"all2 t$,e as t! t#e ("$st an% se!n% ass"&n'ents !( e$$!$ *#"# $ea%

 4&#an$!-l es.!'.p#

I. In "nl,%"n& "n t#e pa$t"t"!n t#at $es"%ent"al l!t !nta"n"n& ::3 s,a$e 'ete$s an% '!$e (,ll2 %es$"-e% as pa$el 639 "n t#e %e"s"!n 65@>/ R. A.9 . II. In "nl,%"n& ten 61/9 a$a-a!s an% s"= 69 attle 6Ite's 8 an% 5 "n De. at pp. >/@>1 R. A.9 a'!n& t#e p$!pe$t"es pa$t"t"!ne% an% "n n!t #!l%"n& t#at sa"% an"'als %! n!t e="st an% ne+e$ a'e t! t#e p!ssess"!n !( t#e estate. $ala*+"$t,a1a*l"-$a$ 2

In a p$"!$ p$!ee%"n& -et*een t#e %eease% an% a t#"$% pa$t2) t#e t#"$% pa$t2 *as &"+en a $"&#t t! $ep,$#ase t#e lan% t#e$e "n ,est"!n. B,t t#e (at) stan%"n& al!ne) %!es n!t $e'!+e t#e l!t ($!' t#e p$!pe$t"es le(t -2 t#e %eease%. T#e (at "s *#et#e$ !$ n!t t#e t#"$% pa$t2 #a% e=e$"se% #"s !pt"!n t! $ep,$#ase. T#at (at *as *ell n!*n t! appellant an% *as eas"l2 s,sept"-le !( %e("n"te an% a,$ate p$!!(. 1 !( t#e C"+"l C!%e *#"# $ea%s  4&#an$!-l es.!'.p#

ART. 13>1. All t#"n&s) e+en (,t,$e !nes) *#"# a$e n!t !,t !( t#e !''e$e !( 'an) 'a2 -e t#e s,-4et@ 'atte$ !( !nt$ats. Ne+e$t#eless) n! !nt$at 'a2 -e ente$e% " nt! *"t# $espet t! (,t,$e " n#e$"tanes) e=ept t#!se t#e !-4et !( *#"# "s t! 'ae a %"+"s"!n "nte$+"+!s !( t#e estate) "n a!$%ane *"t# a$t"le 1/. An2 se$+"es n!t !nt$a$2 t! la* !$ t! &!!% '!$als 'a2 als! -e t#e s,-4et@'atte$ !( a !nt$at.

$ala*+"$t,a1a*l"-$a$ 2

T#e at"!n !( t#e t$"al !,$t "n #!l%"n& E=#"-"t < t! -e ,n!nt$!+e$te% an% p$e%"at"n& "ts ("nal at"!n !n t#e te$'s !( t#at %!,'ent *as e$$!ne!,s an% !nt$a$2 t! la*. T#e tent# ass"&n'ent !( e$$!$ $ea%s In a%4,%"at"n& t! t#e nat,$al %a,&#te$ t#e sa'e s#a$e !$ a'!,nt !( p$!pe$t"es as t#at a%4,%"ate% t! t#e le&"t"'ate s!n. T#"s ass"&n'ent !( e$$!$ "s -ase% !n a$t"le 80/ !( t#e C"+"l C!%e *#"# p$!+"%es  4&#an$!-les. !'.p#

ART. 80/. #en t#e testat!$ lea+es le&"t"'ate #"l%$en !$ %esen%ants) an% als! nat,$al #"l%$en) le&all2 an!*le%&e%) ea# !( t#e latte$ s#all -e ent"tle% t! !ne@#al( !( t#e p!$t"!n pe$ta"n"n& t! ea# !( t#e le&"t"'ate #"l%$en *#! #a+e n!t $ee"+e% an2 -ette$'ent) p$!+"%e% t#at a s,((""ent a'!,nt $e'a"ns !( t#e %"sp!sa-le p!$t"!n) ($!' *#"# "t ',st -e taen) a(te$ t#e -,$"al an% (,ne$al e=penses #a+e -een pa"%.

T#e le&"t"'ate #"l%$en 'a2 pa2 t#e p!$t"!n pe$ta"n"n& t! t#e nat,$al !nes "n as#) !$ "n !t#e$ p$!pe$t2 !( t#e estate) at a (a"$ +al,at"!n. $ala*+"$t,a1a*l"-$a$2

Appellee !nten%s t#at a$t"le 80/ !( t#e C"+"l C!%e #as -een $epeale% -2 t#e C!%e !( C"+"l P$!e%,$e) -ase% !n t#e state'ent !( t#"s !,$t "n C!nep"!n +. J!se 60 P#"l.) 8/59. It "s t$,e t#at "n t#e 'a4!$"t2 %e"s"!n "n t#at ase "t speas !( a$t"le 80/ -e"n& $epeale%. #"le) *"t# t#e ,est"!n t#e$e !ns"%e$e%) na'el2) ($!' *#e$e t#e (,ne$al e=penses s#!,l% -e taen) t#e C!%e !( C"+"l P$!e%,$e #an&e% t#e $,le as t! t#!se "te's ($!' *#at #a% (!$'e$l2 -een "n t#e C"+"l C!%e) -2 $ea%"n& t#e *#!le %e"s"!n *e #a+e n! #es"tan2 "n sa2"n& t#at *#at t#e !,$t t#en #a% "n '"n% *as n!t a $epeal !( t#e a$t"le -,t "n (at 'e$el2 a '!%"("at"!n t#e$e!(. In t#e ase !( In $e Intestate Estate !( Ta%@Y) (!,n% "n t#e sa'e +!l,'e 60 P#"l.) >9) t#"s !,$t) spea"n& t#$!,&# t#e C#"e( J,st"e) appl"e% a$t"le 80/ !( t#e C"+"l C!%e "n t#e (!ll!*"n& lan&,a&e  4&#an$!-le s.!'.p#

T! %ete$'"ne t#e s#a$e t#at pe$ta"ns t! t#e nat,$al #"l% *#"# "s -,t !ne@#al( !( t#e p!$t"!n t#at "n ,al"t2 an% ,ant"t2 -el!n&s t! t#e le&"t"'ate #"l% n!t -ette$e%) t#e latte$’s p!$t"!n ',st ("$st -e ase$ta"ne%. I( a *"%!* s#a$es "n t#e "n#e$"tane) t!&et#e$ *"t# !nl2 !ne le&"t"'ate #"l%) as "n t#e "nstant ase) t#e #"l% &ets) a!$%"n& t! t#e la*) t#e t#"$% !nst"t,t"n& t#e le&"t"'ate "n (,ll ! *ne$s#"p) an% t#e t#"$% a+a"la-le (!$ -ette$'ent "n nae% !*ne$s#"p) t#e ,s,($,t !( *#"# &!es t! t#e *"%!*. T#en t#e nat,$al #"l% ',st &et !ne@#al( !( t#e ($ee t#"$% "n (,ll !*ne$s#"p an% t#e !t#e$ #al( !( t#"s t#"$% "n nae% !*ne$s#"p) ($!' *#"# t#"$% #"s p!$t"!n ',st -e taen) s! (a$ as p!ss"-le) a(te$ %e%,t"n& t#e (,ne$al an% -,$"al e=penses. . . . .

$ala*+"$t,a1a*l"-$a$ 2

O,$ attent"!n #as n!t -een alle% t! an2 ase "n *#"# t#"s !,$t #as t$eate% a$t"le 80/ as ent"$el2 an% !'pletel2 $epeale%. e a$e t#e$e(!$e !( t#e !p"n"!n t#at t#"s ase ',st -e %"sp!se% !( a!$%"n& t! t#e a-!+e ,!tat"!n ($!' t#e ase !( Ta%@Y. T#e ele+ent# ass"&n'ent !( e$$!$ $elates t! a 'atte$ !( a!,ntan2 *#"# t#e !,$t !$%e$e% t! tae plae a(te$ "ts !$"&"nal %e"s"!n #a% -e!'e "n (!$e an% nee%s n! (,$t#e$ %"s,ss"!n at t#"s t"'e. T#e %e"s"!n an% !$%e$s !( t#e t$"al !,$t ',st t#e$e(!$e -e $e+e$se% an% t#e ase $e'an%e% (!$ (,$t#e$ p$!ee%"n&s !ns!nant *"t# t#"s !p"n"!n. C!sts a&a"nst appellee. S! !$%e$e%. Mal!l') ?"lla@Real) I'pe$"al an% 7!%%a$%)  JJ.) !n,$.

 a!oneta v "ustilo G.R. No. 1641

January 19, 1906 J-ONE#, plaintiff7appellant"

GER%N

&s. RI!RDO G$'#ILO, E# L.,  defendants7appellees. edesma, Sumulong and Del!Pan, 9rtigas and 6isher for appellees.

'uintos

for

appellant.

!R'ON, J.:

In these proceedings pro+ate 4as denied the last 4ill and testa!ent of 'acario 3a+oneta" deceased" +ecause the lo4er court 4as of the opinion fro! the e&idence adduced a t the hearing that 3ulio 3a&ellana" one of the 4itnesses" did not attach his signature thereto in the presence of Isa+elo

3ena" another of the 4itnesses" as reuired +y the pro&isions of section /#9 of the *ode of *i&il rocedure. The follo4ing is a copy of the e&idence 4hich appears of record on this particular point" +eing a part of the testi!ony of the said Isa+eo 3ena (.

#/#

=ho first signed the 4ill

 %.

#/#

I signed it first" and after4ards %niceto and the others.

(.

#/#

=ho 4ere those others to 4ho! you ha&e
 %. #/# %fter the 4itness %niceto signed the 4ill I left the house" +ecause I 4as in a hurry" and at the !o!ent 4hen I 4as lea&ing I sa4 3ulio 3a&ellana 4ith the pen in his hand in position ready to sign C en actitud de firmar . I +elie&e he signed" +ecause he 4as at the ta+le. . . . (. 4ill.

#/#

State positi&ely 4hether 3ulio 3a&ellana did or did not sign as a 4itness to the

 %. #/# I canJt say certainly" +ecause as I 4as lea&ing the house I sa4 3ulio 3a&ellana 4ith the pen in his hand" in position ready to sign. I +elie&e he signed. (.

#/#

=hy do you +elie&e 3ulio 3a&ellana signed

 %. #/# 6ecause he had the pen in his hand" 4hich 4as resting on the paper" though I did not actually see hi! sign. (.

#/#

18plain this contradictory state!ent.

 %. #/# %fter I signed I as?ed per!ission to lea&e" +ecause I 4as in a hurry" and 4hile I 4as lea&ing 3ulio had already ta?en the pen in his hand" as it appeared" for the purpose of  signing" and 4hen I 4as near the door I happened to turn !y face and I sa4 that he had his hand 4ith the pen resting on the 4ill" !o&ing it as if for the purpose of signing. (. #/# State positi&ely 4hether 3ulio !o&ed his hand 4ith the pen as if for the purpose of signing" or 4hether he 4as signing  %.

I +elie&e he 4as signing.

The truth and accuracy of the testi!ony of this 4itness does not see! to ha&e +een uestioned +y any of the parties to the proceedings" +ut the court" ne&ertheless" found the follo4ing facts On the 2/th day of Dece!+er" #$0#" 'acario 3a+oneta e8ecuted under the follo4ing circu!stances the docu!ent in uestion" 4hich has +een presented for pro+ate as his 4ill 6eing in the house of %rcadio 3arandilla" in 3aro" in this pro&ince" he ordered that the docu!ent in uestion +e 4ritten" and calling 3ulio 3a&ellana" %niceto 3al+uena" and Isa+elo

3ena as 4itnesses" e8ecuted the said docu!ent as his 4ill. They 4ere all together" and 4ere in the roo! 4here 3a+oneta 4as" and 4ere present 4hen he signed the docu!ent" Isa+elo 3ena signing after4ards as a 4itness" at his reuest" and in his presence and in the presence of the other t4o 4itnesses. %niceto 3al+uena then signed as a 4itness in the presence of the testator" and in the presence of the other t4o persons 4ho signed as 4itnesses. %t that !o!ent Isa+elo 3ena" +eing in a hurry to lea&e" too? his hat and left the roo!. %s he 4as lea&ing the house 3ulio 3a&ellana too? the pen in his hand and put hi!self  in position to sign the 4ill as a 4itness" +ut did not sign in the presence of Isa+elo 3ena@ +ut ne&ertheless" after 3ena had left the roo! the said 3ulio 3a&ellana signed as a 4itness in the presence of the testator and of the 4itness %niceto 3al+uena. =e can not agree 4ith so !uch of the a+o&e finding of facts as holds that the signature of 3a&ellana 4as not signed in the presence of 3ena" in co!pliance 4ith the pro&isions of section /#9 of the *ode of *i&il rocedure. The fact that 3ena 4as still in the roo! 4hen he sa4 3a&ellana !o&ing his hand and pen in the act of affi8ing his signature to the 4ill" ta?en together 4ith the testi!ony of the re!aining 4itnesses 4hich sho4s that 3a&ellana did in fact there and then sign his na!e to the 4ill" con&inces us that the signature 4as affi8ed in the presence of 3ena. The fact that he 4as in the act of lea&ing" and that his +ac? 4as turned 4hile a portion of the na!e of the 4itness 4as +eing 4ritten" is of no i!portance. Be" 4ith the other 4itnesses and the testator" had asse!+led for the purpose of  e8ecuting the testa!ent" and 4ere together in the sa!e roo! for that purpose" and at the !o!ent 4hen the 4itness 3a&ellana signed the docu!ent he 4as actually and physically present and in such position 4ith relation to 3a&ellana that he could see e&erything 4hich too? place +y !erely casting his eyes in the proper direction" and 4ithout any physical o+struction to pre&ent his doing so" therefore 4e are of opinion that the docu!ent 4as in fact signed +efore he finally left the roo!. The purpose of a statutory reuire!ent that the 4itness sign in the presence of the testator  is said to +e that the testator !ay ha&e ocular e&idence of the identity of the instru!ent su+scri+ed +y the 4itness and hi!self" and the generally accepted tests of presence are &ision and !ental apprehension. CSee %!.  1ng. 1nc. of >a4" &ol. -0" p. 5$$" and cases there cited. In the !atter of 6edell C2 *onnoly CN.." -29 it 4as held that it is sufficient if the 4itnesses are together for the purpose of 4itnessing the e8ecution of the 4ill" and in a position to actually see the testator 4rite" if they choose to do so@ and there are !any cases 4hich lay do4n the rule that the true test of &ision is not 4hether the testator actually sa4 the 4itness sign" +ut 4hether he !ight ha&e seen hi! sign" considering his !ental and physical condition and position at the ti!e of the su+scription. CSpoone!ore vs. *a+les" // 'o." 5,$. The principles on 4hich these cases rest and the tests of presence as +et4een the testator and the 4itnesses are eually applica+le *n &))r/*n*n C<)<)r <) C*n)++)+ +*n)& <) *n+ru/)n *n <) r)+)n:) o )a:< o<)r " as reuired +y the statute" and applying the! to the facts pro&en in these proceedings 4e are of opinion that the statutory reuisites as to the e8ecution of the instru!ent 4ere co!plied 4ith" and that the lo4er court erred in denying pro+ate to the 4ill on the ground stated in the ruling appealed fro!. =e are of opinion fro! the e&idence of record that the instru!ent propounded in the se proceedings was satisfactorily proven to be the last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta, deceased, and  that it should therefore be admitted to probate.

The
#era v Ri$ando G.R. No. L5971

F)@ruary 27, 1911

-E#RIZ

NER,

L., plaintiffs7appellees"

E#

&s. NR!I' RI%NDO, defendant7appellant. 7alerio 6ontanilla  Anacleto Diaz for appellees.

and

Andres

Asprer

for

appellant.

!R'ON, J.

The only uestion raised +y the e&idence in this case as to the due e8ecution of the instru!ent propounded as a 4ill in the court +elo4" is 4hether one of the su+scri+ing 4itnesses 4as present in the s!all roo! 4here it 4as e8ecuted at the ti!e 4hen the testator and the other su+scri+ing 4itnesses attached their signatures@ or 4hether at that ti!e he 4as outside" so!e eight or ten feet a4ay" in a large roo! connecting 4ith the s!aller roo! +y a door4ay" across 4hich 4as hung a curtain 4hich !ade it i!possi+le for one in the outside roo! to see the testator and the other  su+scri+ing 4itnesses in the act of attaching their signatures to the instru!ent.  % !a
other sign" had they chosen to do so" considering their !ental and physical condition and position 4ith relation to each other at the !o!ent of inscription of each sig nature. 6ut it is especially to +e noted that the position of the parties 4ith relation to each other at the moment of the subscription of each signature" !ust +e such that they !ay see each other sign if  they choose to do so. This" of course" does not !ean that the testator and the su+scri+ing 4itnesses !ay +e held to ha&e e8ecuted the instru!ent in the presence of each other if it appears that they 4ould not ha&e +een a+le to see each other sign at that !o!ent" 4ithout changing their relati&e positions or e8isting conditions. The e&idence in the case relied upon +y the trial
De "ala v De "ala G.R. No. L27989 In)+a) 'INFORO'O

F)@ruary 8, 1928 o

<)

&):)a+)&

")&ro

&)

Gaa.

GL, petitioner7appellee"

DE

&s. GENERO'O DE GL an& JO'EF L-'#RO, opponents7appellants. Jose /. /eneroso and Araneta  Abad Santos, Camus, Delgado & 1ecto for appellee.

&

3aragoza

for

appellants.

'#REE#, J.:

This is an ad!inistration proceeding fro! the *ourt of First Instance of the ro&ince of Taya+as 4here+y the petitioner" Sinforoso de ala" see?s to enforce the liuidation of the estate of his father" edro de ala" deceased" against 3osefa %la+astro" as 4ido4" and eneroso de ala" a son of the decedent and half7+rother of the plaintiff" and to reco&er fro! the! the hereditary portion 4hich the plaintiff alleges pertains to hi! in said estate. Opposition 4as !ade to the proceeding +y the t4o

defendants" and this opposition finally too? the for! of a !otion to e8clude the plaintiff fro! the participation in the estate on the ground that he had no herita+le interest therein. Epon considering this !otion the trial court sustained the plaintiffJs right and denied the !otion. Fro! this order the defendants appealed. The first point raised in the appellantsJ +ill of e8ceptions has reference to a !atter of procedure" 4hich" in the &ie4 4e ta?e of the case" is not necessary to the decision. =e therefore pro&isionally assu!e that no error 4as co!!itted +y the trial
For the application of the corresponding legislation in cases not e8pressly deter!ined in the *ode" the follo4ing rule shall +e o+ser&ed #. Rights originating" according to prior legislation" in acts that occurred under the re gi!en of  such legislation shall +e go&erned there+y" e&en if the *ode regulates the! in so!e other  4ay or does not recogni)e the!. 6ut if the right shall ha&e +een declared for the first ti!e in this *ode" it shall ha&e effect at once" although the fact originating it !ay ha&e occurred under the for!er regi!en" 4hene&er it is not pre
888

888

#2. Rights to the inheritance of one 4ho !ay ha&e died" 4ith or 4ithout a 4ill" +efore this *ode goes into effect" shall +e go&erned +y prior legislation. The inheritance of those dying after4ards" 4ith or 4ithout a 4ill" shall +e allotted and di&ided in accordance 4ith this *ode" +ut in har!ony" in so far as the latter per!its it" 4ith the testa!entary dispositions. Therefore legal portions" +etter!ents" and legacies shall +e respected@ +ut their a!ounts shall +e reduced 4hen it is not possi+le in any other !anner to gi&e to each participant in the inheritance the share pertaining to hi! according to this *ode. Fro! the facts already stated it 4ill +e seen that +oth the natural and the legiti!ate son of edro de ala 4ere +orn +efore the *i&il *ode 4ent into effect in these Islands@ 4hile the death of the father  and the enforced
pro&isions of the latter" to 4hich end the pro&isions of 4ills e8ecuted +efore 'ay #st" #99$" referring to the rights of said heirs" 4ill +e ad
6ut it is supposed that the decision of this court in the case of Rocha &s. Tuason and Rocha de Despu
')ara) O*n*on+ %L!OL%, J., concurring

I concur on the ground that the parties ha&ing e8pressly stipulated and ad!itted that Sinforo de ala is a natural son of the deceased edro de ala" and as such entitled to a certain portion of the estate" are no4 estopped to deny those facts. The appellants cannot +e per!itted to ad&ance a ne4 theory of the case at this late date intended to de!onstrate that Sinforo de ala has no right to the inheritance left +y edro de ala. Suits should !o&e for4ard not +ac?4ard. There !ust +e an end to litigation so!eti!e. %lthough opposing interests ha&e succeeded in ?eeping Sinforo de ala out of all participation in his inheritance for ten years" they should no longer +e allo4ed to do so. There is no need of the *ourt deciding any of the nice legal uestions presented.

Repu+lic of the hilippines '$"RE%E !O$R#

'anila 1N 6%N* G.R. No. L?0289

%ar:< 26, 1929

'ER"I DE GL,  petitioner7appellant"

&s. "OLINRIO GONZLE' an& 'INFORO'O ON, opponents7appellants.

Sumulong, avides & ilado for petitioner!appellant. /odofredo 1e*es for opponent!appellant /onzales. 1amon Dio2no for opponent!appellant 9na. O'#RND, J.:

On No&e!+er 2-" #$20" Se&erina on)ales e8ecuted a 4ill in 4hich Serapia de ala" a niece of Se&erina" 4as designated e8ecutri8. The testatri8 died in No&e!+er" #$2/" lea&ing no heirs +y force of la4" and on Dece!+er 2" #$2/" Serapia" through her counsel" presented the 4ill for pro+ate. %polinario on)ales" a nephe4 of the deceased" filed an opposition to the 4ill on the ground that it had not +een e8ecuted in confor!ity 4ith the pro&isions of section /#9 of the *ode of *i&il rocedure. On %pril 2" #$2," Serapia de ala 4as appointed special ad!inistratri8 of the estate of the deceased. She returned an in&entory of the estate on 'arch -#" #$2," and !ade se&eral de!ands upon Sinforoso Ona" the sur&i&ing hus+and of the deceased" for the deli&ery to her of the property in&entoried and of 4hich he 4as in possession. On Septe!+er 20" #$29" the *ourt of First Instance ordered Sinforoso Ona to deli&er to Serapia de ala all the property left +y the deceased. Instead of deli&ering the property as ordered" Sinforoso filed a !otion as?ing the appoint!ent of Serapia de ala as special ad!inistratri8 +e cancelled and that he" Sinforoso" +e appointed in her stead. The !otion 4as opposed +y +oth %polinario on)ales and +y Serapia de ala" +ut on 'arch -" #$29" it 4as ne&ertheless granted" Serapia 4as re!o&ed" and Sinforoso 4as appointed special ad!inistrator in her place" principally on the ground that he had possession of the property in uestion and that his appoint!ent 4ould si!plify the proceedings. In the !eanti!e and after &arious continuances and delays" the court +elo4 in an order dated 3anuary 20" #$29" declared the 4ill &alid and ad!itted it to pro+ate. %ll of the parties appealed" Serapia de ala fro! the order re!o&ing her fro! the office of special ad!inistratri8" and %polinario on)ales and Sinforoso Ona fro! the order pro+ating the 4ill. SerapiaJs appeal reuires +ut little discussion. The +urden of the argu!ent of her counsel is that a special ad!inistrator cannot +e re!o&ed e8cept for one or !ore of the causes stated in section /5- of the *ode of *i&il rocedure. 6ut that section can only apply to e8ecutors and regular ad!inistrators" and the office of a special ad!inistrator is uite different fro! that of regular ad!inistrator. The appoint!ent of a special ad!inistrator lies entirely in the sound discretion of the court@ the function of such an ad!inistrator is only to collect and preser&e the property of the deceased and to return an in&entory thereof@ he cannot +e sued +y a creditor and cannot pay any de+ts of the deceased. The fact that no appeal can +e ta?en fro! the appoint!ent of a special ad!inistrator indicates that +oth his appoint!ent and his re!o&al are purely discretionary" and 4e cannot find that the court +elo4 a+used its discretion in the present case. In re!o&ing Serapia de ala and appointing the present possessor of the property pending the final deter!ination of the &alidity of the 4ill" the court pro+a+ly pre&ented useless litigation. The appellants Sinforoso Ona and %polinario on)ales argue that the 4ill in uestion 4as not e8ecuted in the for! prescri+ed +y section /#9 of the *ode of *i&il rocedure as a!ended +y %ct No. 2/5. That section reads as follo4s No 4ill" e8cept as pro&ided in the preceding section" shall +e &alid to pass any estate" real or personal" nor charge or affect the sa!e" unless it +e 4ritten in the language or dialect ?no4n +y the testator and signed +y hi!" or +y the testatorJs na!e 4ritten +y so!e other person in his presence" and +y his e8press direction" and attested and su+scri+ed +y three or !ore credi+le 4itnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. The testator or the person reuested +y hi! to 4rite his na!e and the instru!ental 4itnesses of the 4ill" shall also sign" as aforesaid" each and e&ery page thereof" on the left !argin" and said pages shall +e nu!+ered correlati&ely in letters placed on the upper part of each sheet. The attestation shall state the nu!+er of sheets or pages used" upon 4hich the 4ill is 4ritten" and the fact that the testator signed the 4ill and e&ery page thereof" or caused so!e other person to 4rite his na!e" under his e8press direction" in the presence of three 4itnesses" and the latter 4itnessed and signed the 4ill and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. The principal points raised +y the appeal are C# that the person reuested to sign the na!e of the testatri8 signed only the latterJs na!e and not her o4n@ C2 that the attestation clause does not !ention the placing of the thu!+7!ar? of the testatri8 in the 4ill@ and C- that the fact that the 4ill had +een signed in the presence of the 4itnesses 4as not stated in the attestation clause +ut only in the last paragraph of the +ody of the 4ill. The first point can +est +e ans4ered +y uoting the language of this court in the case of the 1state of 'aria Sal&a" . R. No. 2/99##  %n e8a!ination of the 4ill in uestion disclosed that it contains fi&e pages. The na!e of the old 4o!an" 'aria Sal&a" 4as 4ritten on the left hand !argin of the first four pages and at the end of the 4ill. %+out in the center of her na!e she placed her thu!+7!ar?. %+out in the center of her na!e she placed her thu!+7!ar?. The three 4itnesses li?e4ise signed on the left7hand !argin and at the end of the 4ill.

On these facts" the theory of the trial ." pp. ##/7##,. The opinion uoted is e8actly in point. The testatri8 thu!+7!ar? appears in the center of her na!e as 4ritten +y Serapia de ala on all of the pages of the 4ill. The second and third points raised +y Sinforoso Ona and %polinario on)ales are sufficiently refuted +y uoting the last clause of the +ody of the 4ill together 4ith the attestation clause" +oth of 4hich are 4ritten in the Tagalog dialect. These clauses read as follo4s Sa ?atunayang ang ?asulatang ito" na !ay ani! na dahon" ay siyang naglala!an ng a?ing huling tagu+ilin" at sa hindi ?o ?aala!ang lu!agda ng a?ing pangalan" ipina!anhi? ?o sa a?ing pa!an?in na si Serapia de ala na isulat ang a?ing pangalan at apellido" at sa tapat ay inilagda ?o ang titi? ng ?anang daliri ?ong hinlala?i" sa 4al?as at sa +a4at isa sa ani! C/ na dahon ng ?asulatang ito" at itoJs gina4a niya sa ?autusan at sa harap ?o at ng tatlong sa?sing nagpapatutuo sa huli ngayon i?a dala4ang poJt tatlo ng No+ie!+re ng #$20. CSgd. S1V1RIN% ONL%>1S inatutunayan na!in na ang ?asulatang ito na +inu+uo ng ani! C/ na dahon na pinir!ahan sa harap na!in ni Serapia de ala sa ?ahilingan ni Se&erina on)ales sa 4a?as at sa !ga gilid ng +a4aJt isa sa ani! C/ na dahon at isinaysay na ang ?asulatang ito ay siyang huling ha+ilin o testa!ento ni Se&erina on)ales" ay pinir!ahan na!in" +ilang !ga sa?si sa 4a?as at sa gilid ng +a4aJt dahon sa harap at sa ?ahilingan ng tinurang testadora" at ang +a4at isa sa a!in ay pu!ir!a sa harap ng lahat at +a4at isa sa a!in" ngayon i?a dala4ang poJt tatlo ng no&ie!+re ng taong #$20 ng taong #$20. CSgd. 1>1ET1RIO N%TIVID%D 3E%N SE'E>ON FR%N*IS*O N%TIVID%D The translation in 1nglish of the clauses uoted reads as follo4s In &irtue of this 4ill" consisting of si8 pages" that contains !y last 4ish" and +ecause of the fact that I cannot sign !y na!e" I reuest !y niece Serapia de ala to 4rite !y na!e" and a+o&e this I placed !y right thu!+7!ar? at the end of this 4ill and to each of the si8 pages of this docu!ent" and this 4as done at !y direction and in the presence of three attesting 4itnesses" this 2-rd of No&e!+er" #$20. CSgd. S1V1RIN% ONL%>1S =e certify that this docu!ent" 4hich is co!posed of si8 C/ sheets and 4as signed in our presence +y Serapia de ala at the reuest of Se&erina on)ales at the end and on the !argins of each of the si8 C/ sheets and 4as declared to contain the last 4ill and testa!ent of Se&erina on)ales" 4as signed +y us as 4itnesses at the end and on the !argins of each sheet in the presence and at the reuest of said testatri8" and each of us signed in the presence of all and each of us" this 2-rd day of No&e!+er of the year #$20. CSgd. 1>1ET1RIO N%TIVID%D 3E%N SE'E>ON FR%N*IS*O N%TIVID%D

 %s 4ill +e seen" it is not !entioned in the attestation clause that the testatri8 signed +y thu!+7!ar?" +ut it does there appear that the signature 4as affi8ed in the presence of the 4itnesses" and the for! of the signature is sufficiently descri+ed and e8plained in the last clause of the +ody of the 4ill. It !ay+e conceded that the attestation clause is not artistically dra4n and that" standing alone" it does not uite !eet the reuire!ents of the statute" +ut ta?en in connection 4ith the last clause of the +ody of the 4ill" it is fairly clear and sufficiently carries out the legislati&e intent@ it lea&es no possi+le dou+t as to the authenticity of the docu!ent. The contention of the appellants Sinforoso Ona and %polinario on)ales that the fact that the 4ill had +een signed in the presence of the 4itnesses 4as not stated in the attestation clause is 4ithout !erit@ the fact is e8pressly stated in that clause. In our opinion" the 4ill is &alid" and the orders appealed fro! are here+y affir!ed 4ithout costs. So ordered. Johnson, Street, (alcolm, Johns, 1omualdez and 7illa!1eal, JJ., concur.

"ar&ia v 'a&uesta G.R. No. L4067

No)/@)r 29, 1951

In <) %a)r o <) C* o N#ERO %ER!DO, &):)a+)&. RO'RIO GR!I,  petitioner"

&s. J$LIN L!$E'#, E# L.,  respondents. 5lviro . Peralta and ermenegildo A. Prieto 6austino ). 4obia, Juan 8. 8nes and 6ederico 4acason for respondents.

for

petitioner.

"R', C.J.:

This is an appeal fro! a decision of the *ourt of %ppeals disallo4ing the 4ill of %ntero 'ercado dated 3anuary -" #$-. The 4ill is 4ritten in the Ilocano dialect and contains the follo4ing attestation clause =e" the undersigned" +y these presents to declare that the foregoing testa!ent of %ntero 'ercado 4as signed +y hi!self and also +y us +elo4 his na!e and of this attestation clause and that of the left !argin of the three pages thereof. age three the continuation of this attestation clause@ this 4ill is 4ritten in Ilocano dialect 4hich is spo?en and understood +y the testator" and it +ears the corresponding nu!+er in letter 4hich co!pose of three pages and all the! 4ere signed in the presence of the testator and 4itnesses" and the 4itnesses in the presence of the testator and all and each and e&ery one of us 4itnesses. In testi!ony" 4hereof" 4e sign this state!ent" this the third day of 3anuary" one thousand nine hundred forty three" C#$- %.D.

CSgd. NE'1RI%NO 1V%N1>IST%

CSgd. 6I6I%N% I>>1I6>1

CSgd. KROS1ND% *ORT1S

The 4ill appears to ha&e +een signed +y %tty. Florentino 3a&ier 4ho 4rote the na!e of %ntero 'ercado" follo4ed +elo4 +y K% reugo del testatorK and the na!e of Florentino 3a&ier. %ntero 'ercado is alleged to ha&e 4ritten a cross i!!ediately after his na!e. The *ourt of %ppeals" re&ersing the ope) vs. >i+oro" 9# hil." 2$. It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the 4ill is the usual signature of %ntero 'ercado or e&en one of the 4ays +y 4hich he signed his na!e. %fter !ature reflection" 4e are not prepared to li?en the !ere sign of the cross to a thu!+!ar?" and the reason is o+&ious. The cross cannot and does not ha&e the trust4orthiness of a thu!+!ar?. =hat has +een said !a?es it unnecessary for us to deter!ine there is a sufficient recital in the attestation clause as to the signing of the 4ill +y the testator in the presence of the 4itnesses" and +y the latter in the presence of the testator and of each other. =herefore" the appealed decision is here+y affir!ed" 4ith against the petitioner. So ordered. 6eria, Pablo, )engzon, Padilla, 1e*es, Jugo and )autista Angelo, JJ., concur.

)RA'* +son v Del Rosario G.R. No. L496?

January 29, 195? $'ON, plaintiff7appellee"

%RI

&s. %RI DEL RO'RIO, !ON!E"!ION NE-RED, !ONRDO NE-RED, DO%INDOR NE-RED, ND F$'#INO NE-RED, Jr.,  defendants7appellants. Priscilo 5vangelista )rigido /. 5strada for appellant. -$#I'# NGELO, J.

for

appellee.

This is an action for reco&ery of the o4nership and possession of fi&e C5 parcels of land situated in the 'unicipality of >a+rador" ro&ince of angasinan" filed +y 'aria Eson against 'aria del Rosario and her four children na!ed *oncepcion" *onrado" Do!inador" and Faustino" surna!ed Ne+reda" 4ho are all of !inor age" +efore the *ourt of First Instance of angasinan. 'aria Eson 4as the la4ful 4ife of Faustino Ne+reda 4ho upon his death in #$5 left the lands in&ol&ed in this litigation. Faustino Ne+reda left no other heir e8cept his 4ido4 'aria Eson. Bo4e&er" plaintiff clai!s that 4hen Faustino Ne+reda died in #$5" his co!!on7la4 4ife 'aria del Rosario too? possession illegally of said lands thus depri&ing her of their possession and en
There is no !erit in this clai!. %rticle 225- a+o&e referred to pro&ides indeed that rights 4hich are declared for the first ti!e shall ha&e retroacti&e effect e&en though the e&ent 4hich ga&e rise to the! !ay ha&e occurred under the for!er legislation" +ut this is so only 4hen the ne4 rights do not pre
,!arle v Po G.R. No. L5064 -IEN3ENIDO

F)@ruary 27, 195? I-RLE,  plaintiff7appellant"

.

&s. E'"ERNZ %. "O,  defendant7appellant. 'uirico del (ar Daniel P. 4umula2 and Conchita 6. (iel appellee.

for

appellant.

#$'ON, J.

This action co!!enced in the *ourt of First Instance of *e+u to annul a deed of sale con&eying to the defendant" in consideration of #",00" one undi&ided half of a parcel of land 4hich pre&iously had +een sold" along 4ith the other half" +y the sa!e &endor to the plaintiffJs grantors.
#st. M That >eonard <. =instanley and *atalina Na&arro 4ere hus+and and 4ife" the for!er  ha&ing died on 3une /" #$/ lea&ing heir the sur&i&ing spouse and so!e !inor children@ 2nd. M hat upon the death of >.3. =instanley" he left a parcel of land descri+ed under  Transfer *ertificate of title No. 2-$# of the Registry of Deeds of the ro&ince of *e+u@ -rd. M That the a+o&e !entioned property 4as a con
The decision 4ill +e affir!ed su+
#a&ar v #istal G.R. No. L??006 D):)/@)r 8, 1982 NI!NOR

N!R"

petitioner"

&s. !L$DIO . NI'#L a+ %un*:*a Ju&) o E+)ranBa, u+an &) 'ur, "RO3IN!IL '(ERIFF o u+an &) 'ur, ILDEFON'O J"I#N an& N#ONIO DOLORI!ON" respondents. 4ranquilino 9. Calo, Jr. for petitioner. 8ldefonso Japitana and Antonio )oloricon for respondents.

G$#IERREZ, JR., J.:

Nicanor Nacar filed this petition for certiorari" prohi+ition" and !anda!us 4ith preli!inary inate Isa+elo Nacar =ith reli!inary %ttach!entK On the +asis of this co!plaint" including an allegation Kthat defendant are Csic a+out to re!o&e and dispose the a+o&e7na!ed property Cse&en cara+aos 4ith intent to defraud plaintiff hereinK" and considering that 'r. 3apitana had gi&en security according to the Rules of *ourt" 3udge Nistal issued the order co!!anding the pro&incial sheriff to attach the se&en C, heads of cattle in the possession of petitioner Nicanor  Nacar. %ctually only four C cara+aos 4ere attached +ecause three C- cara+aos had earlier +een slaughtered during the rites preceding the +urial of the late Isa+elo Nacar. Nicanor Nacar filed a !otion to dis!iss" to dissol&e 4rit of preli!inary attach!ent" and to order the return of the cara+aos. ri&ate respondent 3apitana filed an opposition to this !otion 4hile inter&enor %ntonio Doloricon filed a co!plaint in inter&ention asserting that he 4as the o4ner of the attached cara+aos and that the certificates of o4nership of large cattle 4ere in his na!e. The respondent 3udge denied the !otion to dis!iss pro!pting 'r. Nacar to co!e to the Supre!e *ourt.

In a resolution dated 3anuary #2" #$,#" this *ourt" upon the posting of a +ond in the a!ount of  #"000.00" directed the issuance of a preli!inary !andatory inD1FONSO 3%IT%N% *i&il *ase No. /5 laintiff" FOR M Versus M *>%I' %%INST TB1 1ST%T1 NI*%NOR N%*%R TB1 >%T1 IS%61>O N%*%R =ITB Defendant. R1>I'IN%R %TT%*B'1NT 8 7777777777777777777777777777777778 *O'>%INT *O'1S NO= the undersigned plaintiff and +efore this Bonora+le *ourt" respectfully a&ers 888 888 888 That at &arious dates since the year #$/9" the defendant ha&e Csic incurred inde+tedness to the plaintiff in the total su! of T=O TBOES%ND S1V1N BENDR1D NIN1T ON1 C2",$#.00 1SOS" 4hich said a!ount had long +een o&erdue for pay!ent" and 4hich the defendant up to this date ha&e Csic not +een a+le to pay" despite repeated de!ands fro! the plaintiff@ That the defendant Isa+elo Nacar died last %pril" #$,0 lea&ing a!ong other things personal property consisting se&en C, heads of cara+aos no4 in the possession of  the defendant Nicanor Nacar@ That plaintiff herein file a clai! against the estate of the late Isa+elo Nacar to reco&er  the afore!entioned su! of 2",$#.$$@ That defendant are Csic a+out to re!o&e and dispose the a+o&e !entioned property 4ith intent to defraud plaintiff herein@ That plaintiff is 4illing to put up a +ond for the issuance of a preli!inary attach!ent in an a!ount to +e fi8ed +y the *ourt" not e8ceeding the su! of  2",$#.00 4hich is the plaintiffJs clai! herein@ =B1R1FOR1" it is respectfully prayed that pending the hearing of this case" a 4rit of  preli!inary attach!ent +e issued against the properties of the defendant to ser&e as security for the pay!ent or satisfaction of any
of  2",$#"00 4ith legal interest fro! Septe!+er #5" #$,0 plus costs of this suit. C%nne8 K%K" p. , rollo. In his !otion to dis!iss" the petitioner raised the issue of lac? of
888 888 888 Ender the circu!stances of this case" respondent 3apitana has no cause of action against petitioner  Nacar.(atha* v. Consolidated )an2 and 4rust Compan* C59 S*R% 55$ gi&es the ele!ents of a &alid cause of action  % cause of action is an act or o!ission of one party in &iolation of the legal right of  the other. Its essential ele!ents are" na!ely C# the e8istence of a legal right in the plaintiff" C2 a correlati&e legal duty in the defendant" and C- an act or o!ission of the defendant in &iolation of plaintiffJs right 4ith conseuential in7#$,5#" Fe+ruary 29" #$//" #/ S*R% 25#" 255. On the other hand" Section - of Rule / of the Rules of *ourt pro&ides that the co!plaint !ust state the ulti!ate facts constituting the plaintiffJs cause of action. Bence" 4here the co!plaint states ulti!ate facts that constitute the three essential ele!ents of a cause of action" the co!plaint states a cause of action@ C*o!!unity In&est!ent and Finance *orp. &s. arcia" 99 hil. 2#5" 2#9 other4ise" the co!plaint !ust succu!+ to a !otion to dis!iss on that ground. Indeed" although respondent 3apitana !ay ha&e a legal right to reco&er an inde+tedness due hi!" petitioner Nicanor Nacar has no correlati&e legal duty to pay the de+t for the si!ple reason that there is nothing in the co!plaint to sho4 that he incurred the de+t or had anything to do 4ith the creation of the lia+ility. %s far as the de+t is concerned" there is no allegation or sho4ing that the petitioner  had acted in &iolation of 'r. 3apitanaJs rights 4ith conseuential in> TB1 FOR1OIN" this *ourt for the interest of +oth parties 4ill not for the !eanti!e dis!iss this case. %ntonio Doloricon is here+y gi&en #0 days fro! receipt hereof 4ithin 4hich to file his third7party co!plaint. The plaintiff 4ho in his

opposition to defendantJs !otion to dis!iss pray Csic for the custody of the cara+aos. This *ourt further reuires plaintiff to put up the additional +ond of  I"000.00 after 4hich the latter !ay +e entitled of Csic the custody of the cara+aos su+ Section I" Rule #/ of the Rules of *ourt" pro&iding in part that =ithin the ti!e for pleading a !otion to dis!iss !ay +e !ade on any of the follo4ing grounds@ ... Cg That the co!plaint states no cause of action. ... e8plicitly reuires that the sufficiency of the co!plaint !ust +e tested e8clusi&ely on the +asis of the co!plaint itself and no other should +e considered 4hen the ground for !otion to dis!iss is that the co!plaint states no cause of action. ursuant thereto this *ourt has ruled that  %s a rule the sufficiency of the co!plaint" 4hen challenged in a !otion to dis!iss" !ust +e deter!ined e8clusi&ely on the +asis of the facts alleged thereinJ CEy *hao &s. De >a Ra!a Stea!ship *o." Inc." >7#$5" Septe!+er 2$" #$/2" / S*R% /$" ,2. See also De 3esus" et al. &s. 6elar!ino et al." $5 hil. -/5" -,#@ Dalandan" et at. &s. 3ulio" et al." >7 #$#0#" Fe+ruary 2$" #$/" #0 S*R% 00@ Ra!itere et al. &s. 'ontinola Vda. de ulo" et al." >7#$,5#" Fe+ruary 29" #$//" #/ S*R% 250" 25@ %cuna &s. 6atac roducers *ooperati&e 'ar?eting  %ssociation" Inc." et al." >720--9" 3une -0" #$/," 20 S*R% 52/" 5-# Bence" it 4as error for the respondent court not to dis!iss the case si!ply +ecause respondent Doloricon filed the co!plaint for inter&ention alleging that he o4ned the cara+aos. 'oreo&er" e&en assu!ing that respondent 3apitana had a legal right to the cara+aos 4hich 4ere in the possession of petitioner Nacar" the proper procedure 4ould not +e to file an action for the reco&ery of the outstanding de+ts of the late Isa+elo Nacar against his stepfather" the petitioner  Nacar as defendant. %s 4e said in (aspil v. 1omero C/# S*R% #$,  %ppropriate actions for the enforce!ent or defense of rights !ust +e ta?en in accordance 4ith procedural rules and cannot +e left to the 4hi!s or caprices of  litigants. It cannot e&en +e left to the untra!!eled discretion of the courts of
=B1R1FOR1" the petition is here+y granted. The preli!inary !andatory in
')ara) O*n*on+

3'A$EZ, J., concurring

I concur in the result. The funda!ental error co!!itted +y the pri&ate respondents 4as in pursuing their clai! in an ordinary action@ and that +y the respondent !unicipal
respondents !ay only +e satisfied +y a &oluntary act on the part of the heirs of Isa+elo Nacar" or  pursued in the appropriate settle!ent proceedings. % !unicipal court !ay not entertain such a proceeding" it not +eing &ested" under the la4 then in force" 4ith pro+ate
')ara) O*n*on+ 3'A$EZ, J., concurring

I concur in the result. The funda!ental error co!!itted +y the pri&ate respondents 4as in pursuing their clai! in an ordinary action@ and that +y the respondent !unicipal
*i&il *ase No. /5 should accordingly +e dis!issed and the 4rit of attach!ent issued therein dissol&ed.

 Torres v 'oe G.R. No. L24569

F)@ruary 26, 1926

%N$EL L$Z

LO"EZ

DE

#ORRE', petitioner7appellant an& -$ENO, appellant"

&s. %RGRI# LO"EZ, opponent7appellee.  Araneta & 3aragoza (arcaida, Capili & 9campo and 4homas Car* elch for appellee.

for

appellant.

%L!OL%, J.:

This case concerns the pro+ate of the alleged 4ill of the late To!as Rodrigue) y >ope). To!as Rodrigue) died in the *ity of 'anila hilippine Islands. On Fe+ruary 25" #$2" lea&ing a considera+le estate. Shortly thereafter 'anuel Torres" one of the e8ecutors na!ed in the 4ill as?ed that the 4ill of Rodrigue) +e allo4ed. Opposition 4as entered +y 'argarita >ope)" the first cousin of  the deceased on the grounds C# That the testator lac?ed !ental capacity +ecause at the ti!e of senile dementia and 4as under guardianship@ C2 that undue influence had +een e8ercised +y the persons +enefited in the docu!ent in conu) >ope) presented the supposed 4ill" 18hi+it %" to To!as Rodrigue)" she told hi! to sign said 18hi+it % +ecause it 4as a docu!ent relati&e to the co!plaint against one *astito" 4hich 18hi+it " then pending in the
4as o+tained through fraudulent and deceitful representations of those 4ho 4ere interested in it. CRecord on %ppeal" p. 2- Fro! the decision and ope) as the ad!inistrator of his property C18hi+it ,. On Octo+er 22" #$2-" 'argarita >ope) petitioned the *ourt of First Instance of 'anila to na!e a guardian for To!as Rodrigue) +ecause of his age and pathological state. This petition 4as opposed +y %ttorney regorio %raneta acting on +ehalf of To!as Rodrigue) for the reason that 4hile Rodrigue) 4as far fro! strong on account of his years" he 4as yet capa+le of loo?ing after his property 4ith the assistance of his ad!inistrator" Vicente F. >ope). The deposition of To!as Rodrigue) 4as ta?en and a perusal of the sa!e sho4s that he 4as a+le to ans4er nearly all of the uestions propounded intelligently C18hi+it 57g. % trial had at 4hich considera+le oral testi!ony for  the petitioner 4as recei&ed. %t the conclusion of the hearing" an order 4as issued +y the presiding  ope) as his guardian. C18hi+it -,. Inas!uch as counsel for the appellee !a?e such of one incident 4hich occurred in connection 4ith the guardianship proceedings" it !ay as 4ell +e !entioned here as later. This episode concerns the effort of deputy sheriff 3oauin arcia to !a?e ser&ice on To!as Rodrigue) on Octo+er -#" #$2-. =e 4ill let the 4itness tell in his o4n 4ords 4hat happened on the occasions in uestion I found hi! lying do4n on his +ed. . . . %nd 4hen it Cthe cleaning of his head 4as finished" I again entered his roo!" and told hi! that I had an order of the court 4hich I 4anted to read as I did read to hi!" +ut after reading the order he as?ed !e 4hat the order !eant@ JI read it to you so that you !ay appear +efore the court" understand"J then I read it again" +ut he as?ed 4hat the order said@ in &ie4 of that fact I left the order and departed fro! the house. CS. R." p. /2. To return to our narrati&e M possi+ly inspired +y the latter portion of the order of 3udge Dia)" To!as Rodrigue) 4as ta?en to the hilippine eneral Bospital on No&e!+er 2," #$2-. There he 4as to re!ain sic? in +ed until his death. The physician in charge during this period 4as Dr. 1lias Do!ingo.

In the clinical case record of the hospital under the topic KDiagnosis Cin full"K 4e find the follo4ing KSenility@ Bernia inguinal@ Decu+itusK C18hi+it 9. On the door of the patientJs roo! 4as placed a placard reading M KNo &isitors" e8cept father" !other" sisters" and +rothers.K CTesti!ony of head nurse physician" there 4ere per!itted to &isit the patient only the follo4ing na!ed persons Santiago >ope)" 'anuel Ra!ire)" Ro!ana >ope)" >u) >ope) de 6ueno" Re!edio >ope)" 6enita >ope)" Trinidad Vi)carra" %polonia >ope)" %ntonio Ba!an" and regorio %raneta CC18hi+it $. The list did not include the na!es of 'argarita >ope) and her  hus+and %ntonio Ventura. Indeed the last na!ed persons e8perienced considera+le difficulty in penetrating in to the roo! of Rodrigue). Santiago >ope) states that on one occasion 4hen he 4as &isiting To!as Rodrigue) in the hospital " Rodrigue) e8pressed to hi! a desire to !a?e a 4ill and suggested that the !atter +e ta?en up 4ith Vicente F. >ope) CS. R." p. 550. This infor!ation Santiago >ope) co!!unicated to Vicente F. >ope)" 4ho then inter&ie4ed 'a8i!ino 'ina" a practicing attorney in the *ity of 'anila" for the purpose of securing hi! to prepare the 4ill. In accordance 4ith this reuest" 3udge 'ina conferred 4ith To!as Rodrigue) in the hospital in Dece!+er #/th and Dece!+er 2$th. Be ascertained the 4ishes of Rodrigue) and 4rote up a testa!ent in rough draft. The attorney e8pected to return to the hospital on Dece!+er -#st to ha&e the 4ill e8ecuted +ut 4as una+le to do so on account of ha&ing to !a?e a trip to the pro&inces. %ccordingly" the papers 4ere left 4ith Santiago >ope). In corro+oration of the a+o&e state!ents" 4e transcri+e a portion of 3udge 'inaJs testi!ony 4hich has not +een challenged in any 4ay  %R%N1T% (. =ill you please tell your !oti&e for holding an inter&ie4 4ith Vicente >ope) '%HI'INO 'IN% %. Then I arri&ed in the house of Vicente >ope)" after the usual greeting and other uni!portant things" he consulted !e or presented the uestion as to 4hether or  not D. To!as could !a?e his 4ill" ha&ing announced his desire to do so. I told hi! that it see!ed that 4e 4ere not called upon to decide or gi&e an opinion as to 4hether or not he can !a?e a 4ill@ it is a uestion to +e su+!itted to the court" +ut as he had announced his desire" it is our duty to co!ply 4ith it. Then he reuested !e to do 4hat 4as necessary to co!ply 4ith his 4ishes I told hi! I 4as to see hi!@ then 4e agreed that on the !orning ne8t to the follo4ing e&ening that is on the #/th" I should go to the eneral Bospital and so I did. (. Did you go to the hospital in the e&ening of the #/th M %. es" sir. (. Did you !eet D. To!as M %. es" sir. (. Did D. To!as tell you his desire to !a?e a 4ill O*%'O >eading.  %R%N1T% I 4ithdra4. =hat" if anything" did D. To!as tell you on that occasion 4hen you sa4 hi! there M %. Be told !e that. (. lease tell us 4hat con&ersation you had 4ith D. To!as Rodrigue) M %. The con&ersation I had 4ith hi! that e&ening M according to !y +est recollection M I cannot tell the e8act 4ords and perhaps the order. %fter the usual greetings" ood e&ening" D. To!as" J ood e&ening"J Bo4 are you"J J Bo4 do you do Very 4ell" ope) 4hy does he not co!e. Be cannot co!e +ecause he has !any things to do"

and +esides it is hard for hi! and !a?es hi! tired" so he told !e to co!e.J 'ina" your  tenant" attorney.J %re you an attorney es.J =here do you li&e I li&e in (uiapo.J Oh" in (uiapo" a good district" it is gay a co!!ercial place you !ust ha&e so!e +usiness there +ecause that is a co!!ercial place. Enfortunately" I ha&e none" D. To!as.J =ell" you !ust +e ha&e +ecause the profession alone does not gi&e enough. =here is your office I 4or? in the office of 'r. *hicote. That 'r. *hicote !ust +e rich" it see!s to !e that he is. The profession gi&es al!ost nothing it is +etter to ha&e properties. I a! an attorney +ut do not depend upon !y profession. I interrupted D. To!as saying" since you 4ant to !a?e a 4ill" 4hen and to 4ho! do you 4ant to lea&e your fortune Then he said" To 4ho! else To !y cousin Vicente >ope) and his daughter >u) >ope). =hich properties do you 4ant to gi&e to your cousin and niece %ll !y properties" =onJt you specify the property to +e gi&en to each of the! =hat for %ll !y property. DonJt you ha&e any other relati&es es" sir I ha&e. =onJt you gi&e any to those relati&es =hat for 4as his ans4er. =ell" do you 4ant to specify said properties" to say 4hat they are and he again said" =hat for they ?no4 the!" he is !y attorney7in7fact as to all property. I also said" =ell and as legacy 4onJt you gi&e property to other persons ans4ers" I thin?" so!ething" they 4ill ?no4 it. %fter +eing as?ed" =ho! do you thin?" 4ould you 4ant to +e your e8ecutor %fter hesitating a little" This Torres" 'anuel or  Santiago >ope) also. Then I as?ed hi!" =hat is your religion Be ans4ered" Ro!an  %postolic *atholic" and then he also as?ed !e" and your %lso Ro!an %postolic *atholic" =here ha&e you studiedJ JIn the Eni&ersity of Santo To!as.J JIt is con&enient to preser&e the *atholic religion that our descendants ha&e left us. %nd you" 4hat did you ha&e anything !ore to say as to your testa!entary dispositions No" he ans4ered. Then I re!ind hi!" Jou ?no4 that Vicente >ope) has sent !e to get these dispositions of yours" and he said" es" do it.J I as?ed hi!" =hen do you 4ant it done >ater on" I 4ill send for you. %fter this +elie&ing to ha&e done !y duty" I +ade hi! good7+ye. (. Did you ha&e any other occasion to see hi! M %. es. (. =hen M %. On Dece!+er 2$" #$2-" also in the e&ening. (. =hy did you go to see hi! M %. 6ecause as I had not recei&ed any !essage either  fro! Vicente >ope) or To!as Rodrigue)" as I had recei&ed notices in connection 4ith the fe4 cases I had in the pro&inces particularly in Taya+as" 4hich co!pelled !e to +e a+sent fro! 'anila until 3anuary #st at least" for I !ight +e there for se&eral days" so I 4ent to the eneral Bospital of !y o4n accord M since I had not recei&ed any !essages fro! the! M 4ith a rough draft 4hich I had prepared in accordance 4ith 4hat he had told !e in our  con&ersation. %fter the greetings" I told hi!" Bere I a! D. To!as@ this is the rough draft of  your 4ill in accordance 4ith your for!er state!ents to !e in order to su+!it it to you. Do you 4ant to read itJ Jlease do !e the fa&or of reading it. I read it slo4ly to hi! in order that he could understand it . %fter reading" Is it all right" that is the 4ay"M fe4 4ords M you see it ta?es only a fe4 !inutes@ no4 I can e8ecute the 4ill. =e can do it ta?es only a fe4 !inutes.J In &ie4 of that state!ent of his" I called his attention" J 6ut 4e donJt ha&e 4itnesses" D. To!as.J I loo?ed out through the door to see if I could call so!e 4itnesses +ut it 4as late then and it 4as thought +etter to do it on the -#st of Dece!+er. Then 4e tal?ed a+out other  things" and he again as?ed. =here 4ere you +orn I told hi! in (uiapo. %h" good district" and especially no4 that the fiesta of (uiapo is co!ing near"J and then I interrupted hi!" es" the fiesta of the Boly *hild and of Our >ady of 'ount *ar!elJ +ecause 4e also tal?ed a+out the fiesta of San Se+astian. I again re!inded hi! that 4e could not do it +ecause the 4itnesses 4ere not there and he e8plained" ood *hrist!as present" isnJt itJ I did not tell hi! anything and in &ie4 of that I did not dee! it necessary to stay there any longer.

(. =ith 4ho! did you !a?e the arrange!ent to !a?e the 4ill on the e&ening of the -#st of  Dece!+er M you said that it 4as agreed that the 4ill +e e8ecuted on the e&ening of  Dece!+er -#st M %. =ith Santiago >ope) and Don To!as. (. =as the 4ill e8ecuted on the -#st of Dece!+er M %. =hat happened is this In &ie4 of  that agree!ent" I fi8ed up the draft 4hich I had" dating it the -#st of Dece!+er" putting e&erything in order@ 4e agreed that Santiago 4ould !eet !e on -#st day +et4een fi&e and si8 in the e&ening or a little +efore" +ut it happened that +efore the arri&al of that date Santiago >ope) ca!e and told !e that I need not trou+le a+out going to the eneral Bospital@ +ecause it could not +e carried out for the reason that certain reuisites 4ere lac?ing. In &ie4 of this and +earing al4ays in !ind that on the follo4ing day I had to go to the pro&inces" I told Santiago >ope) that I 4ould lea&e the papers 4ith hi! +ecause I !ight go to the pro&inces. (. =hat !ay +e the !eaning of those 4ords good *hrist!as present M %. They are gi&en a *hrist!as present 4hen *hrist!as co!es or on the occasion of *hrist!as. (. I sho4 you this docu!ent 4hich is !ar?ed 18hi+it %" tell !e if that is the 4ill or copy of the 4ill 4hich you deli&ered to Santiago >ope) on Dece!+er 2#" -#" #$2- M %. =ith the e8ception of the 4ords J- de enero de #$2J It see!s to +e literally identical. CS. R. pp. 27 2$.  %s the 4itness stated" the 4ill 4hich 4as prepared +y hi! is identical 4ith that signed +y the testator  and the attesting 4itnesses 4ith the single e8ception of the change of the date fro! Dece!+er -#" #$2-" to 3anuary -" #$2. T4o copies +esides the original of the 4ill 4ere !ade. The 4ill is +rief and si!ple in ter!inology. For purposes of record" 4e copy the 4ill as here translated into 1nglish ON> %1 In the *ity of 'anila" hilippines Islands" this 3anuary -" #$2" I" To!as Rodrigue)" of age and resident of the *ity of 'anila" hilippine Islands" do freely and &oluntarily !a?e this !y 4ill and testa!ent in the Spanish language 4hich I ?no4" 4ith the follo4ing clauses First I declare that I a! a Ro!an %postolic *atholic" and order that !y +ody +e +uried in accordance 4ith !y religion" standing and circu!stances. Second. I na!e !y cousin Vicente F. >ope) and his daughter >u) >ope) de 6ueno as !y only uni&ersal heirs of all !y property. Third. I appoint D. 'anuel Torres and D. Santiago >ope) as !y prosecutors. In 4itness 4hereof I sign this type4ritten 4ill" consisting of one single page" in the presence of the 4itness 4ho sign +elo4. CSgd. TO'%S RODRIE1L C>eft TO'%S 1>I%S

!arginal

signatures RODRIE1L 6ONO%N

V.  %. D1 %SIS

>.

>1%RD%

=e here+y certify that on the date and in the place a+o&e indicated" Don To!as Rodrigue) e8ecuted this 4ill" consisting of one single type4ritten page" ha&ing signed at the +otto! of  the 4ill in the presence of us 4ho sa4 as 4itnesses the e8ecution of this 4ill" 4e signed at the +otto! thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. CSgd. 1>I%S  %. C18hi+it %.

V.

>. D1

>1%RD% 6ONO%N %SIS

On the afternoon of 3anuary -" #$2 there gathered in the uarters of To!as Rodrigue) in the hilippine eneral Bospital" Santiago >ope) and Dr. %. De %sis" attesting 4itness@ and Dr. 1lias Fernando *alderon" Dr. 1lias Do!ingo and Dr. Florentino Berrera" physicians" there for purposes of  o+ser&ation. CTesti!ony of 1lias 6onoan" S. R." p. 9 of Vl. >egarda" S. R. p. -.  ossi+ly also 'rs. >u) >ope) de 6ueno and 'rs. Nena >ope) 4ere present@ at least they 4ere ho&ering in the +ac?ground.  %s to 4hat actually happened" 4e ha&e in the record t4o a+solutely contradictory accounts. One e!anates fro! the attesting 4itness" Doctor 6onoan. The other is the united testi!ony of all re!aining persons 4ho 4ere there. Doctor 1lias 6onoan 4as the first 4itness called at the trial. Be testified on direct e8a!ination as to for!al !atters" such as the identification of the signatures to the 4ill .On cross7e8a!ination" he rather started the proponents of the 4ill +y stating that >u) >ope) de 6ueno told To!as Rodrigue) to sign the docu!ent it concerned a co!plaint against *astito and that no+ody read the 4ill to the testator. Doctor 6onoanJs testi!ony along this line is as follo4s (E1STIONS. '%R*%ID%  (. =hy 4ere you a 4itness to the 4ill of To!as Rodrigue)  %raneta I o+u) +y telephone telling !e to +e in the hospital at - oJcloc? sharp in the afternoon of the -d of 3anuary. (. =ho is that >u) 4ho! you ha&e !entioned M %. >u) >ope)" daughter of Vicente >ope). (. =hat day" 3anuary -" #$2 %. es" sir. (. =hen did >u) >ope) tal? to you in connection 4ith your going to the hospital M %. On the !orning of the -d she called !e up +y telephone. (. On the !orning M %. On the !orning.

(. 6efore 3anuary -" #$2" 4hen the 4ill of To!as Rodrigue) 4as signed" did >u) >ope) tal? to you %. es" sir. (. Bo4 !any days appro8i!ately +efore 4as it M %. I cannot tell the day" it 4as appro8i!ately one 4ee? +efore" M on that occasion 4hen I 4as called up +y her a+out the deceased Vicente >ope). (. =hat did she tell you 4hen you 4ent to the house of Vicente >ope) one 4ee? appro8i!ately +efore signing the 4ill 7 %. That To!as Rodrigue) 4ould !a?e a 4ill. (. DonJt you ?no4 4here the 4ill of To!as Rodrigue) 4as !ade 7 %. In the eneral Bospital. (. =as that docu!ent 4ritten in the hospital M %. I ha&e not seen it. (. =hen you 4ent to the eneral Bospital on 3anuary -" #$2" 4ho 4ere the persons you !et in the roo! 4here the patients 4as  M %. I !et one of the nieces of the deceased To!as Rodrigue)" 'rs. Nena >ope) and Dna. >u) >ope). (. =ere those the only persons M %. es" sir. (. =hat ti!e appro8i!ately did you go to the eneral Bospital on 3anuary -d M %. % uarter to -. (. %fter you" 4ho ca!e M %. %ntonio de %sis" Doctor Berrera" later on Doctor *alderon arri&ed 4ith Doctor 1lias Do!ingo and lastly Santiago >ope) ca!e and then 'r. >egarda. (. =hen you entered the roo! of the patient" D. To!as Rodrigue)" in the eneral Bospital in 4hat position did you find hi!M %. Be 4as lying do4n. (. Did you greet D. To!as Rodrigue) %. I did. (. Did D. To!as Rodrigue) ans4er you M %. Dna. Nena i!!ediately ans4ered in ad&ance and introduced !e to hi! saying that I 4as the +rother of his godson. (. Did other persons 4ho! you ha&e !entioned" &i)" 'essrs. *alderon" Berrera" Do!ingo" De %sis and >egarda greet To!as Rodrigue)  %R%N1T% I o+u) >ope).

(. =hat did >u) >ope) tell To!as Rodrigue) in order that he should sign the 4ill M %. She told hi! to sign the docu!ent@ the deceased To!as Rodrigue) +efore signing the docu!ent as?ed 4hat that 4as 4hich he 4as to sign. (. =hat did any+ody ans4er to that uestion of D. To!as M %. >u) >ope) told hi! to sign it +ecause it concerned a co!plaint against *astito. D. To!as said" J=hat is thisK %nd >u) >ope) ans4ered" Jou sign this docu!ent" uncle To!as" +ecause this is a+out the co!plaint against *astito. (. Then To!as Rodrigue) signed the 4ill M %. es" sir. (. =ho had the 4ill =ho 4as holding it M %. 'r. Vicente >egarda had it his o4n hands. (. =as the 4ill signed +y To!as Rodrigue) lying do4n" on his feet or seated M %. >ying do4n. (. =as the 4ill read +y To!as Rodrigue) or any person present at the ti!e of signing the 4ill" did they read it to hi! M %. No+ody read the 4ill to hi!. (. Did not D. To!as read the 4ill M %. I ha&e not seen it. (. =ere you present M %. es" sir. C S. R. p. 9  %s it 4ould +e uite i!practica+le to transcri+e the testi!ony of all the others 4ho attended the !a?ing of the 4ill" 4e 4ill let Vicente >. >egarda" 4ho appears to ha&e assu!ed the leading role" tell 4hat transpired. Be testified in part  %R%N1T%  (. =ho e8hi+ited to you those docu!ents" 18hi+its %" %7#" and %72 >1%RD% %. Santiago >ope). (. Did he sho4 you the sa!e docu!ent M %. First that is to say the first docu!ent he presented to !e 4as a rough draft" a tentati&e 4ill" and it 4as dated Dece!+er -#st" and I called his attention to the fact that the date 4as not Dece!+er -#" #$2-" and that it 4as necessary to change the date to 3anuary -" #$2" and it 4as done. (. %nd it 4as then" 4as it not 4hen 18hi+its %" %7#" and %72 4ere 4ritten M %. es" sir. (. Do you any ?no4 4here it 4as 4ritten M %. In the eneral Bospital. (. Did any ti!e elapse fro! your !a?ing the suggestion that the docu!ent 4hich you deli&ered to Santiago >ope) +e 4ritten until those three 18hi+its %" %7#" and %72 4ere presented to you M %. %+out nine or ten !inutes appro8i!ately. (. The ti!e to !a?e it clean M %. es" sir. (. =here 4ere you during that ti!e M %. In the roo! of D. To!as Rodrigue). (. =ere you tal?ing 4ith hi! during that ti!e. M %. es" sir.

(. %+out 4hat things 4ere you tal?ing 4ith hi! M %. Be 4as as?ing !e a+out !y health" that of !y fa!ily ho4 !y fa!ily 4as !y girl" 4hether 4e 4ere li&ing in asay" he as?ed !e a+out the stea!er Ildefonso" he said that it 4as a pity that it had +een lost +ecause he ?ne4 that !y father7in7la4 4as the o4ner of the stea!er Ildefonso. 888

888

888

(. =hen those docu!ents" 18hi+it %" %7#" and %72" that is the original and t4o copies of the 4ill signed +y D. To!as Rodrigue) 4ere 4ritten clean" 4ill you please tell 4hat happened M %. =hen Santiago >ope) ga&e the! to !e clean" I approached D. To!as Rodrigue) and told hi! Don To!as" here is this 4ill 4hich is ready for your signature. (. =hat did D. To!as do 4hen you said that his 4ill you 4ere sho4ing to hi! 4as ready M  %. The first thing he as?ed 4as the 4itnesses Then I called the 4itnesses M entle!en" please co!e for4ard" and they ca!e for4ard" and I handed the docu!ents to D. To!as. D. To!as got up and then too? his eyeglasses" put the! on and as he sa4 that the electric la!p at the center 4as not sufficiently clear" he said JThere is no !ore light@J then so!e+ody ca!e for4ard +ringing an electric la!p. (. =hat did D. To!as do 4hen that electric la!p 4as put in place M %. The eyeglasses 4ere adu) >ope) told hi! JIt is in connection 4ith the co!plaint against *astitoJ M %. It is not true" no" sir. (. During the signing of the 4ill" did you hear >u) >ope) say anything to To!as Rodrigue) M %. No" Sir" she said nothing. (. %ccording to you" To!as Rodrigue) signed of his o4n accord M %. es" sir. (. Did no+ody tell hi! to sign M %. No+ody. (. =hat happened after the signing of the 4ill +y To!as Rodrigue) M %. I called the 4itnesses and 4e signed in the presence of each other and of To!as Rodrigue). (. %fter the signing of the 4ill" did you ha&e any con&ersation 4ith To!as Rodrigue) M %. Doctor *alderon as?ed D. To!as Rodrigue) so!e uestions. (. Do you re!e!+er the uestions and the con&ersation held +et4een Doctor *alderon and D. To!as after the signing of the 4ill M %. I re!e!+er that after4ards Doctor *alderon tal?ed to hi! a+out +usiness. Be as?ed hi! ho4 the +usiness of !a?ing loans at #9 per  cent. It see!s that To!as Rodrigue) ans4ered That loan at #9 per cent is illegal" it is usury. CS. R." p. -9.

In addition to the state!ents under oath !ade +y 'r. >egarda" an architect and engineer in the 6ureau of u+lic =or?s and professor of engineering and architecture in the Eni&ersity of Santo To!as" suffice it to say that >u) >ope) de 6ueno denied categorically the state!ents attri+uted to her +y Doctor 6onoan CS. R." p. 5/9. In this stand" she is corro+orated +y Doctor *alderon" Do!ingo" and Berrera" the attending physicians. On this point" Doctor *alderon the Director of the hilippine eneral Bospital and Dean of the *ollege of 'edicine in the Eni&ersity of the hilippines" testified 'r. %R%N1T% (. =hat ha&e you seen or heard 4ith regard to the e8ecution of the 4ill Dr. *%>D1RON %. 'r. >egarda handled the 4ill to D. To!as Rodrigue). D. To!as as?ed for  his eyeglass" 4anted to read and it 4as e8tre!ely hard for hi! to do so. 'r. >egarda offered to read the 4ill" it 4as read to hi! and he heard that in that 4ill Vicente >ope) and >u) >ope) 4ere appointed heirs@ 4e also sa4 hi! sign that 4ill" and he signed not only the original +ut also the other copies of the 4ill and 4e also sa4 ho4 the 4itnesses signed the 4ill@ 4e heard that D. To!as as?ed for light at that !o!ent@ he heard that D. To!as as?ed for light at that !o!ent@ he 4as at that ti!e in a perfect !ental state. %nd 4e re!ained there after the 4ill 4as e8ecuted. I as?ed hi!" JBo4 do you feel" ho4 are you =ell I a! 4ell" J he ans4ered. J Bo4 is the +usiness There is a crisis at there is one good +usiness" na!ely" that of !a?ing loans at the rate of #9 per cent" Jand he ans4ered" JThat is usury.@ =hen a !an ans4ers in that 4ay" J That is usury it sho4s that he is all right. (. =ere you present 4hen 'r. >egarda handed the 4ill to hi! M %. es" sir. (. Did any person there tell Don To!as that 4as a co!plaint to +e filed against one *astito M %. No" sir" I ha&e not heard anything of the ?ind. (. It 4as said here that 4hen the 4ill 4as handed to hi!" D. To!as Rodrigue) as?ed 4hat that 4as 4hich he 4as to sign and that >u) >ope) ans4ered" JThat is +ut a co!plaint in connection 4ith *astito.J Is that true M %. I ha&e not heard anything of the ?ind. (. Bad any+ody told that to the deceased" 4ould you ha&e heard it %. es" sir. (. =as >u) >ope) there M %. I donJt re!e!+er ha&ing seen her@ I a ! not sure@ D. Santiago >ope) and the three 4itnesses 4ere there@ I donJt re!e!+er that >u) >ope) 4as there. (. Bad any+ody told that to the deceased" 4ould you ha&e heard it M %. es" sir. (. Do you re!e!+er 4hether he 4as gi&en a pen or he hi!self as?ed for it M %. I donJt ?no4@ it is a detail 4hich I donJt re!e!+er 4ell@ so that 4hether or not he 4as gi&en a pen or  he hi!self as?ed for it" I do not re!e!+er. (. 6ut did he sign 4ithout hesitation  M %. =ith no hesitation. (. Did he sign 4ithout any+ody ha&ing indicated to hi! 4here he 4as to sign M %. es" 4ithout any+ody ha&ing indicated it to hi!. (. Do you ?no4 4hether D. To!as Rodrigue) as?ed for !ore light +efore signing M %. Be as?ed for !ore lights" as I ha&e said +efore.

(. Do you re!e!+er that detail M %. es" sir. They first lighted the la!ps" +ut as the light 4as not sufficient" he as?ed for !ore light. (. Do you re!e!+er &ery 4ell that he as?ed for light M %. es" sir. CS. R. p.$$-.  % clear preponderance of the e&idence e8ists in fa&or of the testi!ony of Vicente >egarda" corro+orated as it is +y other 4itnesses of the highest standing in the co!!unity. The only e8planation 4e can offer relati&e to the testi!ony of Doctor 6onoan is that possi+ly he !ay ha&e arri&ed earlier than the others 4ith the e8ception of >u) >ope) de 6ueno" and that >u) >ope) de 6ueno !ay ha&e !ade so!e sort of an effort to influence To!as Rodrigue). There is ho4e&er no possi+le e8planation of the state!ent of Doctor 6onoan to the effect that no one read the 4ill to Rodrigue) 4hen at least fi&e other persons recollect that Vicente >egarda read it to hi! and recall the details connected 4ith the reading. There is one curious occurrence 4hich transpired shortly after the !a?ing of the 4ill 4hich should here +e !entioned. It is that on 3anuary ," #$2- C#$2" >u) >ope) de 6ueno signed a docu!ent in fa&or of Doctor 6onoan in the a!ount of one thousand pesos C#"000. This paper reads as follo4 )e it 2no0 b* these present>

That I" >u) >ope) de 6ueno in consideration of the ser&ices 4hich at !y instance 4ere and 4ill 4hen necessary +e rendered +y Dr. 1lias 6onoan in connection 4ith the e8ecution of the 4ill of !y uncle" Don To!as Rodrigue) and the due pro+ate thereof" do here+y agree to pay said doctor" +y 4ay of re!uneratory donation" the su! of one thousand pesos C#"000" hilippine currency" as soon as said ser&ices shall ha&e +een fully rendered and I shall +e in possession of the inheritance 4hich in said 4ill is gi&en to !e. In 4itness 4hereof" I sign this docu!ent 4hich 4as freely and spontaneously e8ecuted +y !e in 'anila" this 3anuary ," #$2-. CSgd. C18hi+it #

>EL

>O1L

D1

6E1NO

There is a sharp conflict of testi!ony" as is natural +et4een Doctor 6onoan and >u) >ope) de 6ueno relati&e to the e8ecution of the a+o&e docu!ent. =e shall not atte!pt to settle these differences as in the final analysis it 4ill not affect the decision one 4ay or the other. The !ost reasona+le supposition is that >u) >ope) de 6ueno i!prudently endea&ored to +ring o&er Doctor  6onoan to her side of the race +y signing and gi&ing to hi! 18hi+it #. 6ut the e&ent cannot easily +e e8plained a4ay. To!as Rodrigue) passed a4ay in the hilippine  eneral Bospital" as 4e said on Fe+ruary 25" #$2. Not e&en prior to his de!ise the t4o actions in the >ope) fa!ily had prepared the!sel&es for a fight o&er the estate. The >u) >ope) faction had secured the ser&ices of Doctor Do!ingo" the physician in charge of the Depart!ent of Insane of San >a)aro Bospital an %ssistant rofessor of Ner&ous and 'ental Diseases in the Eni&ersity of the hilippines" as attending physician@ as associated 4ith hi! for purposes of in&estigation Dr. Fernando *alderon the Director of the hilippine eneral Bospital and Dr. Florentino Berrera" a physician in acti&e practice in the *ity of 'anila@ and had arranged to ha&e t4o !e!+ers of the !edical fraternity" Doctors De %sis and 6onoan as attesting 4itnesses. The 'argarita >ope) faction had ta?en eual precautions +y calling a 4itnesses in the guardship proceedings Dr. Si8to de los %ngeles rofessor and *hief of the Depart!ent of >egal 'edicine in the Eni&ersity of the hilippines" and Dr. Sa!uel Tiet)e" 4ith long e8perience in !ental diseases@

thereafter +y continuing Doctors de >os %ngeles and Tiet)e to e8a!ine To!as Rodrigue) and +y associating 4ith the! Dr. =illia! 6ur?e" a 4ell7?no4n physician of the *ity of 'anila. S?illed la4yers 4ere a&aila+le to aid and a+et the !edical e8perts. Out of such situations" do 4ill contests arise.  %n e8a!ination of the certificates !ade +y the t4o sets of physicians and of their testi!ony sho4s that on !ost facts they concur. Their deductions fro! these facts disclose a su+stantial di&ergence of opinion. It is a hopeless tas? to try to reconcile the &ie4s of these distinguished gentle!en 4ho honestly arri&ed at definite +ut contradictory conclusions. The +est that 4e can do under the circu!stances is to set forth the findings of the *alderon co!!itted on the hand and of the De >os  %ngeles co!!ittee on the other. Doctors *alderon" Do!ingo and Berrera e8a!ined To!as Rodrigue) indi&idually and
F>OR1NTINO

CSgd. eneral 'anila CSgd. /#'alate

Dr.

Dr.

C18hi+it 1 in relation 4ith 18hi+its * and D.

B1RR1R% #2/ F1RN%NDO

1>I%S

*%>D1RON Bospital DO'INO Re!edios

Doctor *alderon 4hile on the 4itness7stand e8pressed a definite opinion as to the !entality of To!as To!as Rodrigue) =hat follo4s is possi+ly the !ost significant of the doctorJs state!ents Dr. *%>D1RON testifying after interruption  %. I 4as naturally interested in finding find ing out the true !ental state of To!as To!as Rodrigue) and that 4as the chief reason 4hy I accepted and ga&e !y cooperation to 'essrs. 1lias Do!ingo and Florentino Florentino Berrera +ecause had I found that To!as Rodrigue) and Florentino Florentino Berrera Berrera +ecause had I found that To!as Rodrigue) 4as really insane" I should ha&e ordered his transfer to the San >a)aro Bospital or to other places" and 4ould not ha&e left hi! in the eneral Bospital. ursuant to !y desire" I sa4 To!as Rodrigue) in his roo! alone t4ice to ha&e inter&ie4s 4ith his" he +egging a person 4ho! I ?ne4 since se&eral years ago@ at the end of the inter&ie4s inter&ie4s I +eca!e con&inced con&inced that there 4as nothing 4rong 4ith hi!@ I had not seen anything indicating that he 4as insane and for this reason I accepted the reuest of !y co!panions and
(. Did you notice any loss of !e!ory" or that his !e!ory 4as 4ea?ening a+out things of the past M %. %+out things of the past" I !ean that you tal? to hi! no4 a+out specific !atters" and after a+out fi&e or ten !inutes he no longer re!e!+ers 4hat had +een tal?ed of. 888

888

888

(. Do you re!e!+er the con&ersation you had 4ith hi! for the first ti!e 4hen the three of  you paid a &isit to the patient M %. I donJt re!e!+er the details" +ut I do re!e!+er the uestions I put to hi!. I as?ed D. To!as Rodrigue) ou are an old !an aged" sic? es" I a! thin?ing to !a?e a 4ill. 6ut 4hy donJt you decide There is no hurry there is ti!e to !a?e a 4ill" Jhe said. Then in case you decide to !a?e a 4ill" to 4ho! are you going to lea&e your  property DonJt you ha&e any relati&es I ha&e a relati&e" Vicente >ope)" !y first cousin" and 'argarita >ope) !y first cousin they are +rothers.J In that case" to 4ho!" do you 4ant to lea&e your property =hy" I donJt ha&e !uch" &ery little" +ut I a! decided to lea&e it to !y cousin" Vicente >ope) and his daughter >u) >ope). =hy 4ould you not gi&e anything to 'argarita >ope) No +ecause her hus+and is &ery +ad" Jto use his e8act language is &ery +ad.J (. Did you tal? 4ith hi! on that occasion a+out his estate M %. es" sir" he told !e that he had three estates" M one on *alle 'agallanes" another on *alle *a+ildo and the third on *alle 3uan >una and +esides he had !oney in the 'onte de iedad and Bogar Filipino. 888

888

888

(. Fro! the uestion !ade +y you and the ans4ers gi&en +y 'r. To!as Rodrigue) on that occasion" 4hat is your opinion as to his !ental capacity M %. The follo4ing That the !e!ory of To!as Rodrigue) so!e4hat failed as to things of the present" +ut is all right 4ith regard to !atters or facts of the past@ that his ideas 4ere incoherent@ that the thought 4ith logic" argued argued e&en 4ith po4er and generally in so!e of the inter&ie4s inter&ie4s I ha&e arri&ed at the conclusion that To!as Rodrigue) had an initiati&e of his o4n" did not need that any+ody should !a?e hi! any suggestion +ecause he ans4ered in such a 4ay that if you per!it !e no4 to sho4 you !y stenographic notes" they 4ill pro&e to you conclusi&ely that he had an initiati&e of his o4n and had no need of any+ody !a?ing hi! any uestion. CS. R. p. ,2. Doctor 1lias Do!ingo" 4ho 4as the attending physician for To!as To!as Rodrigue) throughout all the ti!e that Rodrigue) in the hospital had e8a!ined hi!" 4as li?e4ise certain that Rodrigue) possessed sufficient !entality to !a?e a 4ill. %!ong other things" Doctor Do!ingo testified  %R%N1T%  %R%N1T% (. Ba&e you ?no4n D. To!as To!as Rodrigue) Dr. DO'INO %. es" sir. (. Did you attend D. To!as Rodrigue) as physician M %. es" sir. (. =hen did you +egin to attend hi! as physician ph ysician M %. On No&e!+er 29" until his death. (. On No&e!+er 29 or Octo+er 29" #$2-" do you re!e!+er M %. I had +een attending hi! as physician fro! No&e!+er 29th although it true that I had opportunities to see and e8a!ine hi! during the !onths of Octo+er and No&e!+er.

(. =hat 4as the o+
888

888

(. lease tell us the result of your e8a!ination during those !onths of Octo+er and No&e!+er M %. I e8a!ined hi! physically and !entally@ I a! not going to tell here the physically physically result +ut the result of the !ental e8a!ination" e8a!ination" and that is eneral eneral *onduct *onduct In !ost of the ti!es that I ha&e seen hi! I found hi! lying on his +ed" s!o?ing a cigarette and as?ed for a +ottle of le!onade fro! ti!e to ti!e@ I also o+ser&ed that he 4as &ery careful 4hen thro4ing the ash of the cigarette" seeing to it that it did not fall on the +lan?ets@ he also 4as careful not to thro4 the stu+ of the cigarette in any place to a&oid fire@ I !ade !ore o+ser&ations as to his general conduct and I found that so!eti!es Don To!as could !o&e 4ithin the place although 4ith certain difficulty. On t4o occasions I found hi! seated" once seated at the ta+le" seated in the chair" and other on a roc?ing chair. I also e8a!ined his !anner of tal?ing and to all uestions that I put to hi! he ans4ered 4ith a coherence and in a rele&ant !anner" although so!eti!es he sho4ed eagerness and certain delay. I +ased these points of !y declaration on the uestions 4hich are usually as?ed 4hen !a?ing a !ental e8a!ination for instance I as?ed hi!" = hat is your na!e" Jand he correctly ans4ered To!as Rodrigue)@ I as?ed hi! if he 4as !arried and he ans4ered JNo@J I as?ed hi! his profession and he ans4ered that for!erly he 4as an attorney +ut that at the ti!e I 4as !a?ing the e8a!ination he 4as not practising the profession@ I as?ed hi! 4ith 4hat he supported hi!self and he said that he li&ed upon his inco!e" he said &er+ati!" JI li&e on !y inco!e.J I also as?ed hi! 4hat the a!ount of hi! inco!e 4as and he ans4ered that it 4as a+out $00@ I as?ed hi! 4hat the source of this inco!e 4as and he said that it ca!e fro! his property. (. Did you as? hi! a+out his property M %. No" at that ti!e. (. roceed. M %. I also o+ser&ed his e!otional status and effecti&ity. I found it rather  superficial" and he oftenti!es got angry due to his physical disease@ I as?ed hi! if he had any relati&es and he ans4ered correctly saying that he had. Be !entioned Vicente >ope)" 'argarita >ope)" and >u) >ope). %s to his !e!ory. Bis !e!ory of the past. Be &ery easily re!e!+ered past e&ents and 4hen he descri+ed the! he did it 4ith such pleasure the he used to s!ile after4ards M if it 4as a fact upon 4hich one !ust s!ile" Bis !e!ory of recent facts 4as &ery !uch lessened. I say this +ecause on &arious occasions and not ha&ing ?no4n !e 4hen he had a +etter !e!ory" after I had seen hi! thrice he re!e!+ered !y na!e and he recogni)ed !e. Insight and
so 4as his physical decrepit condition. The conclusion is that his !e!ory is lost for recent e&ents tho not totally and di!inution of his intellectual &igor. This is in fe4 4ords the result of  !y e8a!ination. To!as Rodrigue) 4as li?e4ise e8a!ined thoroughly +y Doctors De los %ngeles" Tiet)e" and 6ur?e. Doctor De los %ngeles had +een a 4itness in the gurardianship proceedings and had seen the patient of No&e!+er / and ," #$2-. Doctor Tiet)e had also +een a 4itness in the guardianship case and had &isited the patient on No&e!+er $ and #2" #$2-" and on 3anuary #5" #$2. Doctors Tiet)e and 6ur?e together e8a!ined Rodrigue) on 3anuary #," 20" and 2" #$2. The three physicians conducted a *1RTIFI*%T1 In the 'atter of To!as Rodrigue) y >ope)" !ale" ,/ years of age" single and residing or  +eing confined in the hilippine eneral Bospital. =e" the undersigned Doctors" Si8to de los %ngeles" =. 6. 6ur?e" and Sa!uel Tiet)e" do here+y certify as follo4s #. That 4e are physicians" duly registered under the 'edical %ct" and are in the actual practice of the !edical profession in the hilippines. 2. That on 3anuary 2,th and 29th" and Fe+ruary #0th" #$2" at the hilippine eneral Bospital" 4e three ha&e 4ith care the diligence ope)@ and pre&ious to these dated" 4e ha&e separately and partly  
-. =e ha&e diagnosed this case as senile demential of the si!ple type" approaching the deteriorated stage upon the follo4ing detailed !ental e8a!ination Ca Disorder of memor* . M There 4as al!ost an a+solute loss of !e!ory of recent e&ents" to the e8tent that things and occurrences seen or o+ser&ed only a fe4 !inutes pre&iously 4ere co!pletely forgotten. Faces and na!es of person introduced to hi! 4ere not re!e!+ered after a short !o!ent e&en 4ithout lea&ing his +edside . Be sho4ed no co!prehension of the ele!ental routine reuired in the !anage!ent of his properties" i.e. 4ho 4ere the lessees of his houses" 4hat rents they 4ere paying" 4ho 4as the ad!inistrator  of his properties" in 4hat +an?s he deposited his !oney or the a!ount of !oney deposited in such +an?s. Regarding his personal relation" he forgot that 'r. %ntonio Ventura is the hus+and of his nearest 4o!an cousin@ the 'rs. 'argarita >ope) 4as !arried" saying that the latter 4as single or spinster" in spite of the fact that for!erly" during the past t4enty7fi&e years" he 4as a4are of their !arriage life" Be did not ?no4 the na!es of the sons and daughters of 'r. Vicente >ope)" one of his nearest relati&es" e&en failing to na!e 'rs. >u) >ope) de 6ueno" a daughter of said Vicente >ope)" and 4ho no4 appears to +e the only li&ing +eneficiary of his 4ill. Be also stated that 'r. Vicente >ope) freuently &isited hi! in the hospital" though the latter died on 3anuary ,th" #$2. Be did not recogni)ed and re!e!+er the na!e and face of Doctor Do!ingo" his o4n physician. Bo4e&er" the !e!ory for re!ote e&ents 4as generally good" 4hich is a characteristic sy!pto! of senile dementia. C+ Disorientation of time, place and persons. M Be could not na!e the date 4hen as?ed Cday or !onth@ could not na!e the hospital 4herein he 4as confined@ and failed to recogni)e the fact that Doctor Do!ingo 4as his physician. Cc Disorders of perception . M Be 4as al!ost co!pletely indifferent to 4hat 4as going on a+out hi!. Be also failed to recogni)e the true &alue of o+
Bis i!pair!ent of the intellectual field 4as further sho4n +y his ina+ility" despite his ?no4ledge of 4orld affairs" to appreciate the relati&e &alue of the state!ent !ade +y Doctor  Tiet)e as follo4s J=e ha&e here a cheue of 2"000 fro! the Ging of %frica paya+le to you so that you !ay deposit it in the +an?. Do you 4ant to accept the cheueJ Bis ans4er 4as as follo4s JNo4 I cannot gi&e !y ans4er. It !ay +e a surprise.J Such ans4er gi&en +y a !an after long e8perience in +usiness life" 4ho had handled real estate property" 4ell &ersed in the transaction of cheues" certainly sho4s a +rea?ing do4n of the a+o&e field. No proper  uestion 4ere as?ed 4hy the cheue 4as gi&en +y the Ging" 4ho the Ging 4as" 4hy he 4as selected +y the Ging of %frica" or if there is a Ging of %frica at present. Be further sho4s dou+t in his !ental capa+ility +y the follo4ing uestions and ans4ers K'%R*%ID% . Tiene usted actual!ente algn asunto en los tri+unales de 1S . 'e conoce usted" D. To!s77R. >e cono)co de &ista. C. /" sten. N." 3an. 29" #$2. K. Nos &a!os a despedir ya" Don To!s" de usted. o soy el Doctor Wngeles" !e conoce usted77R. De no!+re. K. 1ste es el Doctor 6ur?e" le conoce usted77R. De no!+re. K. 1ste es el Doctor Do!ingo" le conoce usted77R. De &ista. K. 1ste es el Doctor 6ur?e" recuerda usted su no!+re77R. No. C. #0" sten. N." 3an. 29" #$2. K.Ested conoce a este Doctor CSePalando al Doctor 6ur?e.77R. De &ista@ su no!+re ya lo he ol&idado" ya no !e acuerdo. K.Ested nos &e a los tres CDoctores Wngeles" 6ur?e y Tiet)e.77R. a lo creo.

KDr. 6ERG1 . (u profesiXn tene!os CSePalando a los Sres. Wngeles" 6ur?e y Tiet)e.77R. O creo ue son doctores. K.  lso dos CSePalando a los Doctores Wngeles y Tiet)e.77R. No. s. K.  este sePor CSePalando al Doctor Wngeles.77R. No !e acuerdo en este !o!ento. C. . %nd 5" sten. N." Fe+. #0" #$2. Cf 9ther facts bearing upon the histor* of the case obtained b* investigation of Doctor   Angeles>

I. 6amil* istor*. M Bis parents 4ere noted to +e of ner&ous te!per and irrita+le. II. Personal histor* . M Be 4as a la4yer" +ut did not pursue his practice" de&oting the greater  part of his life to collecting antiuities" Be 4as generally regarded +y his neigh+ors as !iserly and erratic in the ordinary ha+its of life. Be lead a &ery unhygienic life" !a?ing no atte!pt to clean the filth of dirt that 4as around hi!. Be 4as neglectful in personal ha+its. On  %pril" #$2#" he suffered an in TI1TL1

D1 6ERG1"

>OS

%N1>1S '.D.

C18hi+it -- in relation 4ith 18hi+its 29 and 2$.  %nother angle to the condition of the patient on or a+out 3anuary -" #$2" is disclosed +y the treat!ent record ?ept daily +y the nurses" in 4hich appear the nurseJs re!ar?s. C18hi+its 97%" 976" and 97*. In this connection" the testi!ony of the nurses is that Rodrigue) 4as in the ha+it for no reason at all of calling K'aria" 4here are !y 50 centa&os" 4here is !y ?ey.K In e8planation of the o+ser&ation !ade +y the nurses" the nurse %polonio Flore)a testified. Direct uestions of %ttorney O*%'O (. %!ong your o+ser&ations on the #st of 3anuary" #$2" you say J4ith pains all o&er the +ody" and uttered so!e incoherent 4ords of the sa!e topics 4hene&er is a4a?ened.J Bo4 could you o+ser&e that he had pains all o&er the +ody  %O>ONIO F>OR1L%" nurse %. I o+ser&ed that +y the fact that 4hene&er I touched the +ody of the patient he co!plained of so!e pain.

(. On 4hat part of the +ody did you touch hi! M %. On all the parts of his +ody. 888

888

888

(. Bo4 did you touch hi!" strongly or not M %. Slightly. (. =hen you touched hi! slightly" 4hat did he do M %. Be said that it 4as aching. (. =hat 4ords did he say 4hen" according to your note" he uttered incoherent 4ords 4hene&er he a4a?es M %. %s for instance" J'aria"J repeating it J=here are !y 50 centa&os" 4here is !y ?eyJ (. Did you hear hi! tal? of 'aria M %. Only the 4ord 'aria. (. Bo4 long appro8i!ately 4as he tal?ing uttering the na!e of J'aria" =here are !y 50 centa&os"J and 4here is !y ?ey M %. For t4o or three !inutes. (. *an you tell the court 4hether on those occasions 4hen he said the na!e of 'aria he said other 4ords and 4as tal?ing 4ith so!e+ody M %. Be 4as tal?ing to hi!self. (. This re!ar? on 18hi+it 976 4hen 4as it 4ritten +y you %. 3anuary 2" #$2. (. In the o+ser&ation correspondingly to 3anuary 2" #$2 you say" J=ith pains o&er the +ody"J and later on tal?ed too !uch 4hene&er patient is a4a?ened.J Bo4 did you happen to ?no4 the pain 4hich you ha&e noted here %. The pains all o&er the +ody" I ha&e o+ser&ed the! 4hen gi&ing hi! +aths. (. 6esides saying that it ached 4hen you touched the +ody" do you ?no4 4hether he did any e8traordinary thing %. ou !ean to say acts (. %cts or 4ords %. es" sir" li?e those 4ords 4hich I ha&e already said 4hich he used to say M 'aria" the ?ey" 50 centa&os. (. ou say that he called 'aria. =hat did he say a+out 'aria on that date 3anuary 2" #$2 M %. Be used to say 'aria 4here is 'aria (. On that date 3anuary 2" #$2" did you ans4er hi! 4hen he said 'aria M %. No sir. (. In this o+ser&ation of yours appearing on page 97* you say a!ong other things 4ith pain all o&er the +ody and shouted 4hene&er he is gi&en in
 %. In a loud &oice. (. 6esides shouting do you re!e!+er 4hether he said anything M % . Be repeated the sa!e 4ords I ha&e said +efore M 'aria the 50 centa&os the ?ey. (. =hen did this o+ser&ation o+ser&ation occur occur 4hich appear on page 97* M %. On 3anuary 3anuary -" #$2. CS. R. p. 55$5. On certain facts pertaining to the condition of To!as Rodrigue) there is no dispute. On 3anuary -" #$2" Rodrigue) had reached the ad&anced age of ,/ years. Be 4as suffering fro! ane!ia" hernia inguinal" chronic dypsia" and senility. hysically he 4as a 4rec?.  %s to the !ental state of To!as To!as Rodrigue) on 3anuary -" #$2" Doctors *alderon" Do!ingo and Berrera Berrera ad!it that he 4as senile. They" together together 4ith Doctors Doctors De los %ngeles" %ngeles" Tiet)e" Tiet)e" and 6ur?e" further declare that his !e!ory ho4e&er for re!ote e&ents 4as generally good. Be 4as gi&en to irrational e8cla!ations sy!pto!atic of a deceased !ind. =hile" ho4e&er" Doctors *alderon Do!ingo" and Berrera certify that the intellectual faculties of the patient are Ksound" e8cept that his !e!ory is 4ea?"K and that in e8ecuting the 4ill the testator had full understanding of the act he 4as perfor!ing and full ?no4ledge of the contents thereof" Doctors De >os %ngeles" Tiet)e and 6ur?e certify that To!as Rodrigue) 4as of unsound !ind and that they dementia of the si!ple type approaching the deteriorated stage. diagnosed his case as senile dementia =ithout atte!pting at this stage to pass in a4. M The *ode of *i&il rocedure prescri+es as a reuisite to the allo4ance of a 4ill that the testator +e of Ksound !indK C*ode of *i&il rocedure" sec. /#. % Ksound !indK is a Kdisposing !ind.K !ind.K One of the grounds grounds for disallo4ing disallo4ing a 4ill is KIf the testator 4as insane or other4ise other4ise !entally incapa+le incapa+le of the e8ecution.K e8ecution.K C*ode of *i&il rocedure" rocedure" sec. /- :2;. :2;. redicated redicated on these statutory statutory pro&isions" this court has adopted the follo4ing definition of testa!entary capacity KJTesta!entary capacity is the capacity to co!prehend the nature of the transaction in 4hich the testator is engaged at the ti!e" to recollect the property to +e disposed of and the persons 4ho 4ould naturally +e supposed to ha&e clai!s upon the testator" and to co!prehend the !anner in 4hich the instru!ent 4ill distri+ute his property a!ong the o+
On the issue of testa!entary capacity" the e&idence should +e per!itted to ta?e a 4ide range in order that all facts !ay +e +rought out 4hich 4ill assist in deter!ining the uestion. The testi!ony of  su+scri+ing 4itnesses to a 4ill concerning the testatorJs !ental condition is entitled to great 4eight 4here they are truthful and intelligent. The e&idence of those present at the e8ecution of the 4ill and of the attending physician is also to +e relied upon. C%le8ander on =illis" &ol. I" pp. --" 9@ =harton  StilleJs 'edical 3urisprudence" &ol. I pp. #0 0 et se. The presu!ption is that e&ery adult is sane. It is only 4hen those see?ing to o&erthro4 the 4ill ha&e clearly esta+lished the charge of !ental incapacity that the courts 4ill inter&ene to set aside a testa!entary docu!ent. CBernae) &s. Bernae) :#$0-;" # hil." /9$@ 6agtas &s. aguio" supra. *ounsel for the appellee !a?e capital of the testator +eing under guardianship at the ti!e he !ade his 4ill. *iting section -0/ of the *ode of *i&il rocedure and certain authorities" they insist that the effect of the ear !ade a 4ill" 4ithout any uestion it 4ould ha&e in&ited litigation and dou+t. Senile Senile dement dementia ia usua usuallllyy call called ed chil childi dish shne ness ss has has &ari &ariou ouss for! for!ss and and stag stages es.. To cons constititu tute te dementiathere !ust +e such failure of the !ind as to depri&e the testator of  co!plete senile dementia intelligent action". In the first stages of the diseases" a person !ay possess reason and ha&e 4ill po4er. C2, >. R. %." N. S. :#$#0;" p. 9$@ =harton  StilleJs 'edical 3urisprudence" &ol. I. pp. ,$# et se.@ Schouler on =ills" &ol. I" pp. #5 # 5 et se.

It is a rather re!ar?a+le coincidence that of all the leading cases 4hich ha&e gone forth fro! this court" relating to the testator ha&ing a sound and disposing !ind" and 4hich ha&e +een +rought to our notice +y counsel" e&ery one of the! has allo4ed the 4ill" e&en 4hen it 4as necessary to re&erse the
testatri8. She 4as o&er 90 years of age" so ill that three days e8tre!e unction" and t4o days after4ards she died. rior thereto she 4al?ed in a stooping attitude and ga&e contradictory orders"K as a result of her senile de+ility.K The chief 3ustice reached the conclusion that neither fro! the facts elicited +y the interrogatories nor the docu!ents presented Kcan the conclusion +e reached that the testatri8 4as depri&ed of her !ental faculties.K The 4ill 4as held &alid and efficacious. In the case of In the !atter of the 4ill of 6utalid" supra" the 4ill 4as contested for the reason that Do!inga 6utalid at the date of the e8ecution of the docu!ent 4as not in the date of the e8ecution of  the docu!ent 4as not in the free use of her intellectual po4ers" she +eing o&er $0 years of age" lying in +ed seriously ill" senseless and una+le to utter a single 4ord so that she did not ?no4 4hat she 4as doing 4hen she e8ecuted the 4ill 4hile the docu!ent 4as clai!ed to ha&e +een e8ecuted under the influence and +y the direction of one of the heirs designated in the 4ill. et after an e8a!ination of the e&idence in the 4ill. et et after an e8a!ination of the e&idence in the 4ill. The *hief  3ustice 3ustice rendered rendered odge &s. >odge" 2 Boust. :Del.; #9@ that" KTo constitute a sound +e un+ro?en or uni!paired" unshattered +y disease or other4ise CSloan &s. 'a84ell" Y N. 3. 1." 5/-@ that it has not +een understood that a testator !ust possess these ualities Cof sound and disposing !ind and !e!ory in the highest degree. . . .Fe4 indeed 4ould +e the 4ills confir!ed it this is correct. ain" sic?ness" de+ility of +ody fro! age or infir!ity" 4ould according to its &iolence or duration in a greater or less degree" +rea? in upon" 4ea?en" or derange the !ind" +ut the derange!ent !ust +e such as depri&es hi! of  the rational faculties co!!on to !anJ CDen. &s. Vancle&e" 5 N. 3. >." /90@ and that Sound !ind does not !ean a perfectly +alanced !ind. The uestion of soundness is one of degreeJ C6oughton &s. Gnight. >. R." - .  D." /@ 2 >. . ." 25@ on the other hand" it has +een held that testa!entary incapacity does not necessarily reuire that a person shall actually +e insane or of an unsound !ind. =ea?ness of intellect" 4hether it arises fro! e8tre!e old age" fro! disease" or great +odily infir!ities of suffering" or fro! all these co!+ined" !ay render  the testator in capa+le of !a?ing a &alid 4ill" pro&iding such 4ea?ness really disualifies for  fro! ?no4ing or appreciating the nature" effects" or conseuences of the act she is engaged in C'anatt &s. Scott" #0/ Io4a" 20-@ /9 %!. St. Rep." 2$-" -02. In the case of Nagtas &s. auio" supra" the record sho4s that the testator for so!e fourteen or  fifteen years prior to the ti!e of his death suffered fro! a paralysis of the left side of his +ody" that a fe4 years prior to his death his hearing +eca!e i!paired and that he had lost the po4er of speech. Bo4e&er" he retained the use of his hand and could 4rite fairly 4ell. Through the !ediu! of signs" he 4as a+le to indicate his 4ishes to his fa!ily. The 4ill 4as attac?ed n the ground that the testator  lac?ed lac?ed !ental !ental capacity capacity at the ti!e of its e8ecution. e8ecution. The 4ill 4as ne&ertheless ne&ertheless ad!itted ad!itted to pro+ate" pro+ate" 'r. 3ustice Trent" Trent" spea?ing for the court" announce!ent the follo4ing f ollo4ing pertinent legal doctrines

Z Z Z There are !any cases and authorities 4hich 4e !ight cite to sho4 that the courts ha&e repeatedly held that !ere 4ea?ness of !ind and +ody" induced +y age and disease do not render a person incapa+le of !a?ing a 4ill. The la4 does not reuire that a person shall continue in the full ena4 that M J*ontrary to the &ery pre&alent lay i!pression perfect soundness of !ind is not essential to testa!entary capacity. % testator !ay +e afflicted 4ith a &ariety of !ental 4ea?ness" disorders or peculiarities and still +e capa+le in la4 of e8ecuting a &alid 4ill.J CSee the nu!erous cases there cited in support of this state!ent. The rule relating to testa!entary capacity is stated in 6us4el on Insanity" section -/5 and uoted 4ith appro&al in *a!p+ell &s. *a!p+ell C#-0 Ill. // as follo4s To constitute a sound and disposing !ind" it is not necessary that the !ind shall +e 4holly un+ro?en uni!paired or unshattered +y disease or other4ise or that the testator should +e in the full possession of his reasoning faculties. In note" # 3arnan on =ills" -9" the rule is thus stated The uestion is not so !uch" 4hat 4as the degree of !e!ory possessed +y the testator as had" he a disposing !e!ory =as he a+le to re!e!+er the property he 4as a+out to +eueth the !anner of distri+uting it and the o+
888

888

Dougal Cthe testator had li&ed o&er one hundred years +efore he !ade the 4ill and his physical and !ental 4ea?ness and defecti&e !e!ory 4ere in stri?ing contrast 4ith their  strength in the !eridian of his life. Be 4as +lind@ not deaf" +ut hearing i!paired@ his !ind acted slo4ly" he 4as forgetful of recent e&ents" especially of na!es and repeated uestions in con&ersation@ and so!eti!es" 4hen aroused fro! sleep or slu!+er" 4ould see! +e4ildered. It is not singular that so!e of those 4ho had ?no4n hi! 4hen he 4as re!ar?a+le for &igor and intelligence are of the opinion that his reason 4as so far gone that he 4as incapa+le of !a?ing a 4ill" although they ne&er heard hi! utter an irrational e8pression. In the a+o&e case the 4ill 4as sustained. In the case at +ar 4e !ight dra4 the sa!e contract as 4as pictured +y the court in the case o4ell 4as declared inco!petent +y a court 4hich had
+ounty" he possess sufficient testa!entary capacity" not4ithstanding his old age" sic?ness de+ility of +ody" or e8tre!e distress. 888

888

888

It is contented +y contestantJs counsel that if >o4ell at the ti!e he e8ecuted the pretended 4ill" 4as not 4holly lac?ing in testa!entary capacity" he 4as" in conseuence of age ill health" de+ility of +ody and infir!ity of 4ill po4er" %ndre4 and 3oseph ha&ing ?no4ledge thereof too? ad&antage of his physical and !ental condition and unduly influenced hi! to de&ice and +eueth his property in the !anner indicated" atte!pting there+y to depri&e the contestant of all interest therein e8cept such as 4as gi&en her +y statute. . . . %ssu!ing that he 4as easily persuaded and that his +rothers and the persons e!ployed +y the! to care for  hi! too? ad&antage of his enfee+led condition and preE1N*1  %. 6acts. M The 4ill 4as attac?ed on the further ground of undue influence e8ercised +y the persons +enefited in the 4ill in colla+oration 4ith others. The trial ope) as his ad!inistrator. The latter su+seuently +eca!e his guardian. There is e&ery indication that of all his relati&es To!as Rodrigue) reposed the !ost confidence in Vicente F. >ope) and his daughter >u) >ope) de 6ueno. %gain" it 4as Vicente F. >ope)" 4ho" on the suggestion of Rodrigue) secured 'a8i!ino 'ina to prepare the 4ill" and it 4as >u) >ope) de 6ueno 4ho appears to ha&e gathered the 4itnesses and physicians for the e8ecution of the 4ill. This faction of the >ope) fa!ily 4as also a fa&or through the orders of Doctor Do!ingo as to 4ho could +e ad!itted to see the patient. The trial egarda 4ould so de!ean the!sel&es and so fully their characters and reputation as to participate in a sche!e ha&ing for its purpose to delude and to +etray an old !an in his age" rather na!ed 4as acting according to the +est of his a+ility to assist in a legiti!ate act in a legiti!ate !anner. 'oreo&er" considering the attitude of To!as Rodrigue) to4ard 'argarita >ope) and her hus+and and his apparent en!ity

to4ard the!" it see!s fairly e&ident that e&en if the 4ill had +een !ade in pre&ious years 4hen Rodrigue) 4as !ore nearly in his pri!e" he 4ould ha&e prepared so!e4hat a si!ilar docu!ent. 6. A . M One of the grounds for disallo4ing a 4ill is that it 4as procured +y undue and i!proper  pressure and influence on the art of the +eneficiary or so!e other person for his +enefit C*ode of  *i&il rocedure" sec." /-:;. Endue influence" as here !entioned in connection 4ith the la4 of 4ills and as further !entioned in the *i&il *ode Cart. #2/5" !ay +e defined as that 4hich co!pelled the testator to do that 4hich is against the 4ill fro! fear the desire of peace or fro! other feeling 4hich is una+le to resist. The theory of undue influence is totally reope). =ith special reference of the definition of testa!entary capacity" 4e !ay say this On 3anuary -" #$2" To!as Rodrigue)" in our opinion co!prehended the nature of the transaction in 4hich he 4as engaged. Be had t4o conferences 4ith his la4yer" 3udge 'ina" and ?ne4 4hat the 4ill 4as to contain. The 4ill 4as read to hi! +y 'r. >egarda. Be signed the 4ill and its t4o copies in the proper  places at the +otto! and on the left !argin. %t that ti!e the testator recollected the property to +e disposed of and the persons 4ho 4ould naturally +e supposed to ha&e clai!s upon hi! =hile for  so!e !onths prior to the !a?ing of the 4ill he had not !anage his property he see! to ha&e retained a distinct recollection of 4hat it consisted and of his inco!e. Occasionally his !e!ory failed hi! 4ith reference to the na!es of his relati&es. Ordinarily" he ?ne4 4ho they 4ere" he see!ed to entertain a prediliction to4ards Vicente F. >ope) as 4ould +e natural since >ope) 4as nearest in 4hich the instru!ent distri+uted the property na!ing the o+
the e&idence for the oppositors" and after gi&ing to the case the serious consideration 4hich it deser&es. The
')ara) O*n*on+ '#REE# ND O'#RND, JJ., dissenting

=e are of the opinion that the
Doroteo v CA G.R. No. 108581 D):)/@)r 8, 1999 LO$RDE'

L.

DORO#(EO, petitioner"

&s. !O$R# OF ""EL', NILD D. A$IN#N, or ()r+) an& a+ orn)y*nFa: o 3I!EN#E DORO#(EO an& JO'E DORO#(EO, respondents.

 NRE''N#IGO, J.:

'ay a last 4ill and testa!ent ad!itted to pro+ate +ut declared intrinsically &oid in an order that has +eco!e final and e8ecutory still +e gi&en effect This is the issue that arose fro! the follo4ing antecedents ri&ate respondents 4ere the legiti!ate children of %leourdes >egaspi not the 4ife of the late %le
the late spouses %le
uestion" all
8

n and the due e8ecution of the last 4ill and testa!ent.  9

Ender the *i&il *ode" due e8ecution includes a deter!ination of 4hether the testator 4as of sound and disposing !ind at the ti!e of its e8ecution" that he had freely e8ecuted the 4ill and 4as not acting under duress" fraud" !enace or undue influence and that the 4ill is genuine and not a forgery" 10 that he 4as of the proper testa!entary age and that he is a person not e8pressly prohi+ited +y la4 fro! !a?ing a 4ill. 11 The intrinsic &alidity is another !atter and uestions regarding the sa!e !ay still +e raised e&en after the 4ill has +een authenticated. 12 Thus" it does not necessarily follo4 that an e8trinsically &alid last 4ill and testa!ent is al4ays intrinsically &alid. 1 &en if the 4ill 4as &alidly e8ecuted" if the testator pro&ides for dispositions that depri&es or i!pairs the la4ful heirs of their legiti!e or rightful inheritance according to the la4s on succession" 1? the unla4ful pro&isionsAdispositions thereof cannot +e gi&en effect. This is specially so 4hen the courts had already deter!ined in a final and e8ecutory decision that the 4ill is intrinsically &oid. Such deter!ination ha&ing attained that character of finality is +inding on this *ourt 4hich 4ill no longer +e distur+ed. Not that this *ourt finds the 4ill to +e intrinsically &alid" +ut that a final and e8ecutory decision of 4hich the party had the opportunity to challenge +efore the higher tri+unals !ust stand and should no longer +e ree&aluated. Failure to a&ail of the re!edies pro&ided +y la4 constitutes 4ai&er. %nd if the party does not a&ail of other re!edies despite its +elief that it 4as aggrie&ed +y a decision or court action" then it is dee!ed to ha&e fully agreed and is satisfied 4ith the decision or  order. %s early as #$#9" it has +een declared that pu+lic policy and sound practice de!and that" at the ris? of occasional errors"
already +een resol&ed ad&ersely +y so!e other court. 18 It is clear fro! the e8ecutory order that the estates of %le
Balus v Balus

#(IRD DI3I'ION

!ELE'#INO -L$',

G.R. No. 168970

etitioner" "r)+)n 

7 versus 7

'#$RNINO -L$' an&LEONRD -L$' 3D. DE !L$NOD,

*ORON%" J., Chairperson, V1>%S*O" 3R." N%*BER%" 1R%>T%" and '1NDOL%" JJ. "ro/ua)& 

Respondents. 3anuary #5" 20#0

877777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777778

DE!I'ION

"ERL#, J .

 %ssailed in the present petition for re&ie4 on certiorari  under Rule 5 of the Rules of *ourt is the Decision:#; of the *ourt of %ppeals C*% dated 'ay -#" 2005 in *%7.R. *V No. 590# 4hich set aside the Fe+ruary ," #$$, Decision of the Regional Trial *ourt CRT* of >anao del Norte" 6ranch  in *i&il *ase No. -2/-. The facts of the case are as follo4s Berein petitioner and respondents are the children of the spouses Rufo and Se+astiana 6alus. Se+astiana died on Septe!+er /" #$,9" 4hile Rufo died on 3uly /" #$9. On 3anuary -" #$,$" Rufo !ortgaged a parcel of land" 4hich he o4ns" as security for a loan he o+tained fro! the Rural 6an? of 'aigo" >anao del Norte C6an?. The said property 4as originally co&ered +y Original *ertificate of Title No. 7-$C,99 and !ore particularly descri+ed as follo4s  % parcel of land 4ith all the i!pro&e!ents thereon" containing an area of -.0,0 hectares" !ore or less" situated in the 6arrio of >agundang" 6una4an" Iligan *ity" and +ounded as follo4s 6ounded on the N1." along line #72" +y >ot 5#22" *sd7 2$2@ along line 27#2" +y Dodiongan Ri&er@ along line #27#- +y >ot /$" *sd72$2@ and along line #27#" +y >ot //#" *sd72$2. 8 8 8 :2;

Rufo failed to pay his loan. %s a result" the !ortgaged property 4as foreclosed and 4as su+seuently sold to the 6an? as the sole +idder at a pu+lic auction held for that purpose.On No&e!+er 20" #$9#" a *ertificate of Sale :-; 4as e8ecuted +y the sheriff in fa&or of  the 6an?. The property 4as not redee!ed 4ithin the period allo4ed +y la4. 'ore than t4o years after the auction" or on 3anuary 25" #$9" the sheriff e8ecuted a Definite Deed of Sale :; in the 6an?Js fa&or. Thereafter" a ne4 title 4as issued in the na!e of the 6an?. On Octo+er #0" #$9$" herein petitioner and respondents e8ecuted an 18traand :/; 4as e8ecuted +y the 6an? in fa&or of respondents. Su+seuently" Transfer *ertificate of Title CT*T No. T7-$"9Ca.f. :,; 4as issued in the na!e of respondents.'ean4hile" petitioner continued possession of the su+eonarda 6. Vda. de *alunod" situated at >agundang" 6una4an" Iligan *ity" +ounded on the North +y >ot 5#22@ 1ast +y shares of Saturnino 6alus and >eonarda 6alus7*alunod@ South +y >ot /$" Dodiongan Ri&er@ =est +y >ot //#" consisting of #0"2/ suare !eters" including i!pro&e!ents thereon. and dis!issing all other clai!s of the parties. The a!ount of /",--.-- consigned +y the defendant 4ith the *ler? of *ourt is here+y ordered deli&ered to the plaintiffs" as purchase price of the one7third portion of the land in uestion. laintiffs are ordered to pay the costs. SO ORD1R1D.:#0;

The RT* held that the right of petitioner to purchase fro! the respondents his share in the disputed property 4as recogni)ed +y the pro&isions of the 18tra1 TO TB1 6%NG 6 VIRTE1 OF TB1 %RTI1SJ %R11'1NT RIOR TO TB1 R1ER*B%S1 TB1R1OF 6 TB1 R1SOND1NTS@ TBES" =%RR%NTIN TB1 1TITION1RJS %*T OF 1NFOR*IN TB1 %R11'1NT 6 R1I'6ERSIN TB1 R1SOND1NTS OF BIS C1TITION1RJS 3EST SB%R1 OF TB1 R1ER*B%S1 RI*1. :##; The !ain issue raised +y petitioner is 4hether co7o4nership +y hi! and respondents o&er the su+
 %t the outset" it +ears to e!phasi)e that there is no dispute 4ith respect to the fact that the su+
For petitioner to clai! that the 18tra
DIO'DDO %. "ERL#

 %ssociate 3ustice

+nion!an v *anti!ane

S1*OND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 149926. F)@ruary 2?, 2005]

$NION -N OF #(E "(ILI""INE', petitioner, vs. ED%$ND 'N#I-EZ an& FLOREN!E 'N#I-EZ RIOL, respondents. DE!I'IO N !LLEJO, 'R., J .

6efore us is a petition for re&ie4 on certiorari under Rule 5 of the Re&ised Rules of *ourt 4hich see?s the re&ersal of the Decision :#; of the *ourt of %ppeals dated 'ay -0" 200# in *%7 .R. *V No. 99-# affir!ing the dis!issal :2; of the petitioners co!plaint in *i&il *ase No. #9$0$ +y the Regional Trial *ourt CRT* of 'a?ati *ity" 6ranch /-. The antecedent facts are as follo4s On 'ay -#" #$90" the First *ountryside *redit *orporation CF*** and 1frai! '. Santi+ae) entered into a loan agree!ent :-; in the a!ount of #29"000.00. The a!ount 4as intended for the pay!ent of the purchase price of one C# unit Ford //00 %gricultural %ll7 urpose Diesel Tractor. In &ie4 thereof" 1frai! and his son" 1d!und" e8ecuted a pro!issory note in fa&or of the F***" the principal su! paya+le in fi&e eual annual a!orti)ations of -",5.$/ due on 'ay -#" #$9# and e&ery 'ay -# st thereafter up to 'ay -#" #$95. On Dece!+er #-" #$90" the F*** and 1frai! entered into another loan agree!ent" :; this ti!e in the a!ount of #2-"#5/.00. It 4as intended to pay the +alance of the purchase price of  another unit of Ford //00 %gricultural %ll7urpose Diesel Tractor" 4ith accessories" and one C# unit Bo4ard Rota!otor 'odel %R /0G. %gain" 1frai! and his son" 1d!und" e8ecuted a pro!issory note for the said a!ount in fa&or of the F***. %side fro! such pro!issory note" they also signed a *ontinuing uaranty %gree!ent:5; for the loan dated Dece!+er #-" #$90. So!eti!e in Fe+ruary #$9#" 1frai! died" lea&ing a holographic 4ill. :/; Su+seuently in 'arch #$9#" testate proceedings co!!enced +efore the RT* of Iloilo *ity" 6ranch ," doc?eted as Special roceedings No. 2,0/. On %pril $" #$9#" 1d!und" as one of the heirs" 4as appointed as the special ad!inistrator of the estate of the decedent. :,; During the pendency of  the testate proceedings" the sur&i&ing heirs" 1d!und and his sister Florence Santi+ae) %riola" e8ecuted a 3oint %gree!ent :9; dated 3uly 22" #$9#" 4herein they agreed to di&ide +et4een the!sel&es and ta?e possession of the three C- tractors@ that is" t4o C2 tractors for 1d!und and one C# tractor for Florence. 1ach of the! 4as to assu!e the inde+tedness of their late father to F***" corresponding to the tractor respecti&ely ta?en +y the!. On %ugust 20" #$9#" a Deed of %ssign!ent 4ith %ssu!ption of >ia+ilities :$; 4as e8ecuted +y and +et4een F*** and Enion Sa&ings and 'ortgage 6an?" 4herein the F*** as the assignor" a!ong others" assigned all its assets and lia+ilities to Enion Sa&ings and 'ortgage 6an?. De!and letters:#0; for the settle!ent of his account 4ere sent +y petitioner Enion 6an? of  the hilippines CE6 to 1d!und" +ut the latter failed to heed the sa!e and refused to pay. Thus" on Fe+ruary 5" #$99" the petitioner filed a *o!plaint :##; for su! of !oney against the heirs of 1frai! Santi+ae)" 1d!und and Florence" +efore the RT* of 'a?ati *ity" 6ranch #50" doc?eted as *i&il *ase No. #9$0$. Su!!onses 4ere issued against +oth" +ut the one intended for 1d!und 4as not ser&ed since he 4as in the Enited States and there 4as no infor!ation on his address or the date of his return to the hilippines. :#2; %ccordingly" the co!plaint 4as narro4ed do4n to respondent Florence S. %riola.

On Dece!+er ," #$99" respondent Florence S. %riola filed her %ns4er :#-; and alleged that the loan docu!ents did not +ind her since she 4as not a party thereto. *onsidering that the D 61 %ROV1D 6 TB1 RO6%T1 *OERT. 2. TB1 *OERT A '=9 1RR1D IN FINDIN TB%T TB1R1 *%N 61 NO V%>ID %RTITION %'ON TB1 B1IRS ENTI> %FT1R TB1 =I>> B%S 611N RO6%T1D. -. TB1 *OERT  A '=9  1RR1D IN NOT FINDIN TB%T TB1 D1F1ND%NT B%D =%IV1D B1R RIBT TO B%V1 TB1 *>%I' R17>ITI%T1D IN TB1 1ST%T1 RO*11DIN.:#/; The petitioner asserted +efore the *% that the o+ligation of the deceased had passed to his legiti!ate children and heirs" in this case" 1d!und and Florence@ the unconditional signing of  the
The appellate court found that the appeal 4as not !eritorious and held that the petitioner  should ha&e filed its clai! 4ith the pro+ate court as pro&ided under Sections # and 5" Rule 9/ of  the Rules of *ourt. It further held that the partition !ade in the agree!ent 4as null and &oid" since no &alid partition !ay +e had until after the 4ill has +een pro+ated. %ccording to the *%" page 2" paragraph Ce of the holographic 4ill co&ered the su+
TB1 BONOR%6>1 *OERT OF %1%>S 1RR1D IN FINDIN TB%T TB1 3OINT  %R11'1NT SBOE>D 61 %ROV1D 6 TB1 RO6%T1 *OERT. II.

TB1 *OERT OF %1%>S 1RR1D IN FINDIN TB%T TB1R1 *%N 61 NO V%>ID %RTITION %'ON TB1 B1IRS OF TB1 >%T1 1FR%I' S%NTI6%1L ENTI> %FT1R TB1 =I>> B%S 611N RO6%T1D. III.

TB1 *OERT OF %1%>S 1RR1D IN NOT FINDIN TB%T TB1 R1SOND1NT B%D =%IV1D B1R RIBT TO B%V1 TB1 *>%I' R17>ITI%T1D IN TB1 1ST%T1 RO*11DIN. I3.

R1SOND1NTS *%N" IN F%*T" 61 B1>D 3OINT> %ND S1V1R%>> >I%6>1 =ITB TB1 RIN*I%> D16TOR TB1 >%T1 1FR%I' S%NTI6%1L ON TB1 STR1NTB OF TB1 *ONTINEIN E%R%NT %R11'1NT 1H1*ET1D IN F%VOR OF 1TITION1R7  %1>>%NT ENION 6%NG. 3.

TB1 RO'ISSOR NOT1S D%T1D '% -#" #$90 IN TB1 SE' OF #29"000.00 %ND D1*1'61R #-" #$90 IN TB1 %'OENT OF #2-"000.00 *%T1ORI*%>> 1ST%6>ISB1D TB1 F%*T TB%T TB1 R1SOND1NTS 6OEND TB1'S1>V1S 3OINT> %ND S1V1R%>> >I%6>1 =ITB TB1 >%T1 D16TOR 1FR%I' S%NTI6%1L IN F%VOR OF 1TITION1R ENION 6%NG.:#$; The petitioner clai!s that the o+ligations of the deceased 4ere trans!itted to the heirs as pro&ided in %rticle ,, of the *i&il *ode@ there 4as thus no need for the pro+ate court to appro&e the
and assu!ed the o+ligations related thereto. Since respondent Florence S. %riola signed the  
In our
is" that each heir shall ta?e possession and use of their respecti&e share under the agree!ent. It 4as !ade dependent on the &alidity of the partition" and that they 4ere to assu!e the

inde+tedness corresponding to the chattel that they 4ere each to recei&e. The partition +eing in&alid as earlier discussed" the heirs in effect did not recei&e any such tractor. It follo4s then that the assu!ption of lia+ility cannot +e gi&en any force and effect. The *ourt notes that the loan 4as contracted +y the decedent. The petitioner" purportedly a creditor of the late 1frai! Santi+ae)" should ha&e thus filed its !oney clai! 4ith the pro+ate court in accordance 4ith Section 5" Rule 9/ of the Re&ised Rules of *ourt" 4hich pro&ides Section 5. Claims 0hich must be filed under the notice. 8f not filed barredH e-ceptions . %ll clai!s for !oney against the decedent" arising fro! contract" e8press or i!plied" 4hether the sa!e +e due" not due" or contingent" all clai!s for funeral e8penses for the last sic?ness of the decedent" and
The filing of a !oney clai! against the decedents estate in the pro+ate court is !andatory.  %s 4e held in the &intage case of P* 5ng Chong v. errera :-#;

This reuire!ent is for the purpose of protecting the estate of the deceased +y infor!ing the e8ecutor or ad!inistrator of the clai!s against it" thus ena+ling hi! to e8a!ine each clai! and to deter!ine 4hether it is a proper one 4hich should +e allo4ed. The plain and o+&ious design of the rule is the speedy settle!ent of the affairs of the deceased and the early deli&ery of the property to the distri+utees" legatees" or heirs. The la4 strictly reuires the pro!pt presentation and disposition of the clai!s against the decedentJs estate in order to settle the affairs of the estate as soon as possi+le" pay off its de+ts and distri+ute the residue. :-2; erusing the records of the case" nothing therein could hold pri&ate respondent Florence S.  %riola accounta+le for any lia+ility incurred +y her late father. The docu!entary e&idence presented" particularly the pro!issory notes and the continuing guaranty agree!ent" 4ere e8ecuted and signed only +y the late 1frai! Santi+ae) and his son 1d!und. %s the petitioner  failed to file its !oney clai! 4ith the pro+ate court" at !ost" it !ay only go after 1d!und as co7 !a?er of the decedent under the said pro!issory notes and continuing guaranty" of course" su+
reflects that the parties in the deed of assign!ent 4ith assu!ption of lia+ilities 4ere the F***" and the Enion Sa&ings and 'ortgage 6an?" 4ith the confor!ity of 6anco! hilippine Boldings"