Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > January 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24434 January 17, 1968 - PEDRO REGANON, ET AL. v. RUFINO IMPERIAL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24434. January 17, 1968.]

HEIRS OF PEDRO REGANON, JOVENCIA REGANON, MENCIAS REGANON, JOSEFA REGANON, VIOLETA REGANON and FLORA REGANON, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. RUFINO IMPERIAL, Defendant-Appellant.

Torcuato L. Galon for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

V. Lacaya, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. ATTACHMENT; PROPERTY IN CUSTODIA LEGIS; NEW RULES OF COURT, EFFECT. — Under the old Rules it was held that property under custodial legis cannot be attached. The New Rules, however, specifically provides for the procedure to be followed in case the property to be attached is in custodia legis. The clear import of this new provisions is that property under custodia legis is now attachable, subject to the mode set forth in said rule. (Rule 57, Section 7)

2. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF DEATH UPON GUARDIANSHIP OF DECEASED WARD. — The death of the ward necessarily terminates the guardianship and thereupon all powers and duties of the guardian cease, except the duty which remains to make a proper accounting and settlement in the probate court. Upon the death of the ward, Eulogio Imperial on September 13, 1962, the rights to his succession from the moment of his death were transmitted to his heirs.

3. SUCCESSION; AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION OF RIGHTS TO HEIRS, UPON MOMENT OF DEATH. — The rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of death and, where, as in this case, the heir is of legal age and the estate is not burdened with any debts, said heir immediately succeeds, by force of law to the dominion, ownership and possession of the properties of his predecessor, and consequently stands legally in shoes of the latter.

4. JUDGMENT; EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT; INTERESTS OF AN HEIR, IN ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSON, SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENT FOR PURPOSES OF EXECUTION. — The interest of an heir, in the estate of a deceased person may be attached for purpose of execution even if the estate is in the process of settlement before the courts. This is a settled matter in this jurisdiction.

5. SUCCESSION; EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION; EFFECT. — The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition executed by the heirs on May 25, 1964, provided all the requisites of its validity were fulfilled — settled the entire estate of the decedent and the heirs were at full liberty to withdraw the residuary estate from the Philippine National Bank — Dipolog Branch, and divide it among themselves.

6. ID.; EXEMPTION FROM EXECUTION OF MONTHLY USVA ALLOWANCES, A RIGHT PERSONALISSIMA, NOT TRANSMISSIBLE TO HEIRS OF THE DECEASED VETERAN. — Any pension, annuity or gratuity granted by the Government in recognition of past services rendered is primordially aimed at tiding its beneficiaries during their old age and/or disability. This right is personalissima, purely personal, because founded on necessity. Where the recipient dies, however, the motivating necessity underlying the grant ceases to exist. With more reason in this case where the law (Rep. Act 360) providing for exemption from execution is intended to benefit US veterans residing here and is merely a manifestation of comity.

7. CIVIL LAW; PARTITION, EXTRAJUDICIAL; EFFECT THEREOF. — Where the heirs have divided the estate among themselves through a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, as in this case, the end result is that the property is no longer that of the estate but of the individual heirs. Thus, one of the heirs cannot thereafter secure the appointment of an administrator to take charge of and administer the estate or a part thereof, which no longer pertains to the estate but to the individual heirs, whether it remains undivided or not.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


This is an appeal from the orders dated June 9, 1964, July 14, 1964 and August 11, 1964, respectively, of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte (Dipolog, Branch II).

The facts of the case are admitted by both parties.

On February 22, 1963, the heirs of Pedro Reganon filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of about one- hectare portion of a parcel of land (Lot No. 1 or Lot No. 4952, situated at Miasi, Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte, covered by O.T.C. No. 1447, with an area of 7,9954 hectares), with damages, against Rufino Imperial.

Defendant not having filed an answer within the reglementary period, the plaintiffs on April 8, 1963 filed a motion to declare the former in default. The trial court granted the motion in its order dated April 10, 1963.

On April 23, 1963, the plaintiffs presented their evidence ex parte before the Clerk of Court acting as Commissioner.

The court a quo on May 6, 1963, rendered a decision declaring the plaintiffs lawful owners of the land in question and entitled to its peaceful possession and enjoyment; ordering defendant immediately to vacate the portion occupied by him and to restore the peaceful possession thereof to plaintiffs; and sentencing defendant to pay plaintiffs to amount of P1,929.20 and the costs.

On November 29, 1963, the plaintiffs filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution. This was granted by the trial court in its order of December 9, 1963.

The Deputy Provincial Sheriff submitted on February 8, 1964 a sheriff’s return of proceedings reporting the garnishment and sale of a carabao and goat belonging to defendant for P153.00, and the attachment and sale of defendant’s parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 4694, situated in Sicet, Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte, for P500.00 — both sales having been made to the only bidder, plaintiffs’ counsel Atty. Vic T. Lacaya.

On March 13, 1964, the Philippine National Bank deposited in the Philippine National Bank-Dipolog Branch the residuary estate of its former ward, Eulogio Imperial, in the sum of P10,303.80, pursuant to an order of Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte in Sp. Proc. No. R-145.

On May 25, 1964, the heirs of said Eulogio Imperial, one of whom is defendant, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition of the residuary estate, wherein was apportioned — P1,471.97 as defendant Rufino Imperial’s share.

Informed of this development, the plaintiffs filed on June 5, 1964 an ex parte motion for issuance of an alias writ of execution and of an order directing the manager, or the representative, of the Philippine National Bank — Dipolog Branch, to hold the share of defendant and deliver the same to the provincial sheriff of the province to be applied to the satisfaction of the balance of the money judgment. This was granted by the trial court (Branch II) in its order dated June 9, 1964.

On June 17, 1964, the Deputy Provincial Sheriff issued a sheriff’s notification for levy addressed to defendant, giving notice of the garnishment of the rights, interests, shares and participation that defendant may have over the residuary estate of the late Eulogio Imperial, consisting of the money deposited in the Philippine National Bank — Dipolog Branch.

Defendant, through counsel, appearing for the first time before the trial court, on June 24, 1964 filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dated June 9, 1964, and to quash the alias writ of execution issued pursuant to it, to which plaintiffs filed their opposition on July 6, 1964. On July 14, 1964, the trial court denied defendant’s aforesaid motion.

Defendant’s second motion for reconsideration likewise having been denied by the trial court in its order of August 11, 1964, defendant appealed to Us, raising the following issues:clubjuris

(1) Upon the death of a ward, is the money accumulated in his guardianship proceedings and deposited in a bank, still considered in custodia legis and therefore not subject to attachment?

(2) Is the residuary estate of a U.S. veteran, which consists in the aggregate accumulated sum from the monthly allowances given him by the United States Veterans Administration (USVA) during his lifetime, exempt from execution?

Defendant-appellant argues that the property of an incompetent under guardianship is in custodia legis and therefore can not be attached.

It is true that in a former case 1 it was held that property under custodia legis can not be attached. But this was under the old Rules of Court. The new Rules of Court 2 now specifically provides for the procedure to be followed in case what is attached is in custodia legis. 3 The clear import of this new provision is that property under custodia legis is now attachable, subject to the mode set forth in said rule.

Besides, the ward having died, the guardianship proceedings no longer subsist:ClubJuris

"The death of the ward necessarily terminates the guardianship, and thereupon all powers and duties of the guardian cease, except the duty, which remains, to make a proper accounting and settlement in the probate court." 4

As a matter of fact, the guardianship proceedings was ordered conditionally closed by Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte in which it was pending, in its order of February 8, 1964, where it stated —

"In the meantime, the guardian Philippine National Bank is hereby directed to deposit the residuary estate of said ward with its bank agency in Dipolog, this province, in the name of the estate of the deceased ward Eulogio Imperial, preparatory to the eventual distribution of the same to the heirs when the latter shall be known, and upon proof of deposit of said residuary estate, the guardian Philippine National Bank shall forthwith be relieved from any responsibility as such, and this proceedings shall be considered closed and terminated." 5

And the condition has long been fulfilled, because on March 13, 1964 the Philippine National Bank — Manila deposited the residuary estate of the ward with the Philippine National Bank-Dipolog Branch, evidenced by a receipt attached to the records in Sp. Proc. No. R- 145. 6

When Eulogio Imperial died on September 13, 1962, the rights to his succession — from the moment of his death — were transmitted to his heirs, one of whom is his son and heir, Defendant-Appellant herein. 7 This automatic transmission can not but proceed with greater ease and certainty than in this case where the parties agree that the residuary estate is not burdened with any debt. For,

"The rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of death, and where, as in this case, the heir is of legal age and the estate is not burdened with any debts, said heir immediately succeeds, by force of law, to the dominion, ownership, and possession of the properties of his predecessor, and consequently stands legally in the shoes of the latter." 8

That the interest of an heir in the estate of a deceased person may be attached for purposes of execution, even if the estate is in the process of settlement before the courts, is already a settled matter in this jurisdiction. 9 It is admitted that the heirs of Eulogio Imperial, including herein defendant-appellant, have on May 25, 1964 executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition. This instrument suffices to settle the entire estate of the decedent — provided all the requisites for its validity are fulfilled 10 even without the approval of the court. Therefore, the estate for all practical purposes has been settled. The heirs are at full liberty to withdraw the residuary estate from the Philippine National Bank-Dipolog Branch and divide it among themselves. The only reason they have not done so is because of the alleged illegal withdrawal from said estate of the amount of P1,080.00 by one Gloria Gomez by authority of Branch I of the Court of first Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, which incident is now on appeal before the Court of Appeals. This appeal, however, does not detract any from the fact that the guardianship proceedings is closed and terminated and the residuary estate no longer under custodia legis.

Finally, it is defendant-appellant’s position that the residuary estate of Eulogio Imperial, a former U.S. veteran, having been set aside from the monthly allowances given him by the United States Veterans Administration (USVA) during his lifetime, is exempt from execution.

Any pension, annuity. or gratuity granted by a Government to its officers or employees in recognition of past services rendered, is primordially aimed at tiding them over during their old age and/or disability. This is therefore a right personalissima, purely personal because founded on necessity. It requires no argument to show that where the recipient dies, the necessity motivating or underlying its grant necessarily ceases to be. Even more so in this case where the law 11 providing for the exemption is calculated to benefit U.S. veterans residing here, and is therefore merely a manifestation of comity.

Besides, as earlier stated, the heirs of Eulogio Imperial, one of whom is appellant, have already executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition — the end result of which is that the property is no longer the property of the estate but of the individual heirs. And it is settled that:ClubJuris

"When the heirs by mutual agreement have divided the estate among themselves, one of the heirs can not thereafter secure the appointment of an administrator to take charge of and administer the estate or a part thereof. The property is no longer the property of the estate, but of the individual heirs, whether it remains undivided or not." 12

WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against defendant-appellant. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., J.B.L., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Asia Banking Corp. v. Elser, 54 Phil. 994.

2. Effective January 1, 1964.

3. "If the property sought to be attached is in custodia legis, copy of the order of attachment shall be filed with the proper court and notice of the attachment served upon the custodian of such property." (Rule 57, Sec. 7, last par., new Rules of Court).

4. 39 C.J.S. pp. 61-62; citing Armon v. Craig, 214 N.W. 556, 203 Iowa 1388, and Greever Et. Al. v. Barker, Et Al., 289, S.W. 586, 316 Mo. 308.

5. Pp. 82-83, Record on Appeal; underscoring Ours.

6. Pp. 42-43, Record on Appeal.

7. See Art. 777, New Civil Code; Butte v. Uy & Sons, L-15499, Feb. 28, 1962.

8. Cuevas v. Abesamis, 71 Phil. 147.

9. De Borja, Et. Al. v. De Borja, Et Al., L-14851, Aug. 31, 1961.

10. See Sec. 1, Rule 74, new Rules of Court.

11. Republic Act No. 360, approved June 9, 1949.

12. Alcala v. Palanan, Et Al., 19 Phil., 520; Emphasis supplied.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



January-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23542 January 2, 1968 - JUANA T. VDA. DE RACHO v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILAGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23988 January 7, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LEONARDO S. VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24922 January 2, 1968 - MELECIO DOREGO, ET AL. v. ARISTON PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-24108 January 3, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24190 January 8, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO GALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24432 January 12, 1968 - NAZARIO EQUIZABAL v. APOLONIO G. MALENIZA

  • G.R. No. L-22294 January 12, 1968 - DIONISIA PARAMI VDA. DE CABASAG v. AMADOR P. SU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22991 January 16, 1968 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23293 January 16, 1968 - LUIS R. AYO, JR. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24480 January 16, 1968 - LUCRECIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22794 January 16, 1968 - RUFO QUEMUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22018 January 17, 1968 - APOLONIO GALOFA v. NEE BON SING

  • G.R. No. L-22081 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS M. CABANERO

  • G.R. No. L-22605 January 17, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23690 January 17, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-24230 January 17, 1968 - EUGENIA TORNILLA v. TEODORICA FUENTESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24434 January 17, 1968 - PEDRO REGANON, ET AL. v. RUFINO IMPERIAL

  • G.R. No. L-28459 January 17, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. MACARIO ASISTIO

  • G.R. No. L-22518 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ATENCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23707 January 17, 1968 - JOSE A.V. CORPUS v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA

  • G.R. No. L-26103 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. L-19255 January 18, 1968 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24707 January 18, 1968 - JOSE S. CAPISTRANO v. JUAN BOGAR

  • G.R. No. L-24946 January 18, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-23116 January 24, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO JAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24287 January 24, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-22985 January 24, 1968 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. GREGORIO CAGUIMBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18546 & L-18547 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO OPINIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19752 January 29, 1968 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AGUSTIN CARLOS

  • G.R. No. L-23555 January 29, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22468 January 29, 1968 - PUAHAY LAO v. DIMTOY SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24607 January 29, 1968 - TOMAS TRIA TIRONA v. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-24795 January 29, 1968 - PEDRO JIMENEA v. ROMEO G. GUANZON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20449 January 29, 1968 - ESPERANZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. SILBINA FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28415 January 29, 1968 - ESTRELLO T. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23012 January 29, 1968 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. GENERO M. TEOTICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28518 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO G. PADERNA

  • G.R. No. L-18971 January 29, 1968 - IN RE: ABUNDIO ROTAQUIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21718 January 29, 1968 - MILAGROS F. VDA. DE FORTEZA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28392 January 29, 1968 - JOSE C. AQUINO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27268 January 29, 1968 - JUANITA JUAN-MARCELO, ET AL. v. GO KIM PAH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22145 January 30, 1968 - A. M. RAYMUNDO & CO. v. BENITO SYMACO

  • G.R. No. L-22686 January 30, 1968 - BERNARDO JOCSON, ET AL. v. REDENCION GLORIOSO

  • G.R. No. L-24073 January 30, 1968 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. REGINA GALANG VDA. DE ESPELETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27583 January 30, 1968 - MARGARITO J. LOFRANCO v. JESUS JIMENEZ, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-19565 January 30, 1968 - ESTRELLA DE LA CRUZ v. SEVERINO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-20316 January 30, 1968 - LEONCIA CABRERA DE CHUATOCO v. GREGORIO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21855 January 30, 1968 - IN RE: ANDRES SINGSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22973 January 30, 1968 - MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22215 January 30, 1968 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. PEDRO LABAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23702 January 30, 1968 - MARIA VILLAFLOR v. ARTURO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23965 January 30, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. JOSE PERLAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-21423 January 31, 1968 - GO KIONG OCHURA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23424 January 31, 1968 - LOURDES ARCUINO, ET AL. v. RUFINA APARIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22968 January 31, 1968 - BENEDICTO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. EULOGIO E. VENEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-24859 January 31, 1968 - PABLO R. AQUINO v. GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-25083 January 31, 1968 - JUSTINO QUETULIO, ET AL. v. NENA Q. DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20387 January 31, 1968 - JESUS P. MORFE v. AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23170 January 31, 1968 - ALBINA DE LOS SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23279 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRA CUARTO v. ESTELITA DE LUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23980 January 31, 1968 - JULIA SAN BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25472 January 31, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ANGELA PURUGANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24528 January 31, 1968 - DOMINGO T. LAO v. JOSE MOYA

  • G.R. No. L-22061 January 31, 1968 - DALMACIO URTULA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27776 January 31, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-28476 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. ANATALIO REYES, ET AL.