Case 71 G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995 NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. petitioner, vs. CO RT OF A!!EALS a"# C.F.

SHAR! $ CO%!AN& INC., respondents.

!A'ILLA, (R., J.: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint to enforce the judgment of a Japanese court. The principal issue here is whether a Japanese court can acquire jurisdiction over a Philippine corporation doing usiness in Japan ! serving summons through diplomatic channels on the Philippine corporation at its principal office in "anila after prior attempts to serve summons in Japan had failed. Petitioner #orthwest $rient Airlines, %nc. &hereinafter NORTHWEST', a corporation organi(ed under the laws of the )tate of "innesota, *.).A., sought to enforce in Civil Case #o. +,-./0,/ of the 1egional Trial Court &1TC', 2ranch 34, "anila, a judgment rendered in its favor ! a Japanese court against private respondent C.5. )harp 6 Compan!, %nc., &hereinafter )7A1P', a corporation incorporated under Philippine laws. As found ! the Court of Appeals in the challenged decision of .8 #ovem er .99,, 1 the following are the factual and procedural antecedents of this controvers!: $n "a! 9, .9/4, plaintiff #orthwest Airlines and defendant C.5. )harp 6 Compan!, through its Japan ranch, entered into an %nternational Passenger )ales Agenc! Agreement, where ! the former authori(ed the latter to sell its air transportation tickets. *na le to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales made ! defendant on ehalf of the plaintiff under the said agreement, plaintiff on "arch ;3, .9+8 sued defendant in Tok!o, Japan, for collection of the unremitted proceeds of the ticket sales, with claim for damages. $n April .., .9+8, a writ of summons was issued ! the ,0th Civil <epartment, Tok!o <istrict Court of Japan against defendant at its office at the Taihei!o 2uilding, ,rd floor, .,;, =amashita-cho, #aka-ku, =okohoma, >anagawa Prefecture. The attempt to serve the summons was unsuccessful ecause the ailiff was advised ! a person in the office that "r. <ino(o, the person elieved to e authori(ed to receive court processes was in "anila and would e ack on April ;4, .9+8. $n April ;4, .9+8, ailiff returned to the defendant's office to serve the summons. "r. <ino(o refused to accept the same claiming that he was no longer an emplo!ee of the defendant. After the two attempts of service were unsuccessful, the judge of the Tok!o <istrict Court decided to have the complaint and the writs of summons served at the head office of the defendant in "anila. $n Jul! .., .9+8, the <irector of the Tok!o <istrict Court requested the )upreme Court of Japan to serve the summons through diplomatic channels upon the defendant's head office in "anila. $n August ;+, .9+8, defendant received from <eput! )heriff 1olando 2alingit the writ of summons &p. ;/0, 1ecords'. <espite receipt of the same, defendant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. Thus, the Tok!o Court proceeded to hear the plaintiff's complaint and on ?Januar! ;9, .9+.@, rendered judgment ordering the defendant to pa! the plaintiff the sum of +,,.3+,.93 =en and damages for dela! at the rate of 0A per annum from August ;+, .9+8 up to and until pa!ment is completed &pp. .;-.4, 1ecords'.

$n "arch ;4, .9+., defendant received from <eput! )heriff 2alingit cop! of the judgment. <efendant not having appealed the judgment, the same ecame final and eBecutor!. Plaintiff was una le to eBecute the decision in Japan, hence, on "a! ;8, .9+,, a suit for enforcement of the judgment was filed ! plaintiff efore the 1egional Trial Court of "anila 2ranch 34. 2 $n Jul! .0, .9+,, defendant filed its answer averring that the judgment of the Japanese Court sought to e enforced is null and void and unenforcea le in this jurisdiction having een rendered without due and proper notice to the defendant andCor with collusion or fraud andCor upon a clear mistake of law and fact &pp. 4.-43, 1ec.'. *na le to settle the case amica l!, the case was tried on the merits. After the plaintiff rested its case, defendant on April ;., .9+9, filed a "otion for Judgment on a <emurrer to Dvidence ased on two grounds: &.' the foreign judgment sought to e enforced is null and void for want of jurisdiction and &;' the said judgment is contrar! to Philippine law and pu lic polic! and rendered without due process of law. Plaintiff filed its opposition after which the court a quo rendered the now assailed decision dated June ;., .9+9 granting the demurrer motion and dismissing the complaint &<ecision, pp. ,/0-,/+, 1ecords'. %n granting the demurrer motion, the trial court held that: The foreign judgment in the Japanese Court sought in this action is null and void for want of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant considering that this is an action in personamE the Japanese Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant ecause jurisprudence requires that the defendant e served with summons in Japan in order for the Japanese Court to acquire jurisdiction over it, the process of the Court in Japan sent to the Philippines which is outside Japanese jurisdiction cannot confer jurisdiction over the defendant in the case efore the Japanese Court of the case at ar. Boudard versus Tait 0/ Phil. ./8. The plaintiff contends that the Japanese Court acquired jurisdiction ecause the defendant is a resident of Japan, having four &4' ranches doing usiness therein and in fact had a permit from the Japanese government to conduct usiness in Japan &citing the eBhi its presented ! the plaintiff'E if this is so then service of summons should have een made upon the defendant in Japan in an! of these alleged four ranchesE as admitted ! the plaintiff the service of the summons issued ! the Japanese Court was made in the Philippines thru a Philippine )heriff. This Court agrees that if the defendant in a foreign court is a resident in the court of that foreign court such court could acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant ut it must e served upon the defendant in the territorial jurisdiction of the foreign court. )uch is not the case here ecause the defendant was served with summons in the Philippines and not in Japan. *na le to accept the said decision, plaintiff on Jul! .., .9+9 moved for reconsideration of the decision, filing at the same time a conditional #otice of Appeal, asking the court to treat the said notice of appeal Fas in effect after and upon issuance of the court's denial of the motion for reconsideration.F <efendant opposed the motion for reconsideration to which a 1epl! dated August ;+, .9+9 was filed ! the plaintiff. $n $cto er .0, .9+9, the lower court disregarded the "otion for 1econsideration and gave due course to the plaintiff's #otice of Appeal. 3 %n its decision, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court. %t agreed with the latter in its reliance upon Boudard vs. Tait ) wherein it was held that Fthe process of the court has no eBtraterritorial effect and no

jurisdiction is acquired over the person of the defendant ! serving him e!ond the oundaries of the state.F To support its position, the Court of Appeals further stated: %n an action strictl! in personam, such as the instant case, personal service of summons within the forum is required for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant &"agdalena Dstate %nc. vs. #ieto, .;3 )C1A ;,8'. To confer jurisdiction on the court, personal or su stituted service of summons on the defendant not eBtraterritorial service is necessar! &<ial Corp vs. )oriano, .0. )C1A /,9'. 2ut while plaintiff-appellant concedes that the collection suit filed is an action in personam, it is its theor! that a distinction must e made etween an action in personam against a resident defendant and an action in personam against a non-resident defendant. Jurisdiction is acquired over a non-resident defendant onl! if he is served personall! within the jurisdiction of the court and over a resident defendant if ! personal, su stituted or constructive service conforma l! to statutor! authori(ation. Plaintiff-appellant argues that since the defendant-appellee maintains ranches in Japan it is considered a resident defendant. Corollaril!, personal, su stituted or constructive service of summons when made in compliance with the procedural rules is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction to render judgment in personam. )uch an argument does not persuade. %t is a general rule that processes of the court cannot lawfull! e served outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the court from which it issues &Carter vs. CarterE 4. ).D. ;d 3,;, ;8.' and this isregardless of the residence or citizenship of the part! thus served &%owa-1ahr vs. 1ahr, .;9 #G 494, .38 %owa 3.., ,3 H1C, #), ;9;, Am. Case .9.; <0+8'. There must e actual service within the proper territorial limits on defendant or someone authori(ed to accept service for him. Thus, a defendant, whether a resident or not in the forum where the action is filed, must e served with summons within that forum. 2ut even assuming a distinction etween a resident defendant and non-resident defendant were to e adopted, such distinction applies onl! to natural persons and not in the corporations. This finds support in the concept that Fa corporation has no home or residence in the sense in which those terms are applied to natural personsF &Claude #eon Hights vs. Phil. Advertising Corp., 3/ Phil. 08/'. Thus, as cited ! the defendant-appellee in its rief: 1esidence is said to e an attri ute of a natural person, and can e predicated on an artificial eing onl! ! more or less imperfect analog!. )trictl! speaking, therefore, a corporation can have no local residence or ha itation. %t has een said that a corporation is a mere ideal eBistence, su sisting onl! in contemplation of law I an invisi le eing which can have, in fact, no localit! and can occup! no space, and therefore cannot have a dwelling place. &.+ Am. Jur. ;d, p. 09, citing >immerle v. Topeka, ++ ,/8, .;+ p. ,0/E Good v. 7artfold 5. %ns. Co., ., Conn ;8;' Jurisprudence so holds that the foreign or domestic character of a corporation is to e determined ! the place of its origin where its charter was granted and not ! the location of its usiness activities &Jennings v. %daho 1ail Hight 6 P. Co., ;0 %daho /8,, .40 p. .8.', A corporation is a FresidentF and an inha itant of the state in which it is incorporated and no other &,0 Am. Jur. ;d, p. 49'. <efendant-appellee is a Philippine Corporation dul! organi(ed under the Philippine laws. Clearl!, its residence is the Philippines, the place of its incorporation, and not Japan. Ghile defendant-appellee maintains ranches in Japan, this will not make it a resident of Japan. A corporation does not ecome a resident of another ! engaging in usiness there even though licensed ! that state and in terms given all the rights and privileges of a domestic corporation &Jalveston 7. 6 ).A.1. Co. vs. Jon(ales, .3. *) 490, ,+ H ed. ;4+, 4 ) Ct. 48.'.

$n this premise, defendant appellee is a non-resident corporation. As such, court processes must e served upon it at a place within the state in which the action is rought and not elsewhere &)t. Clair vs. CoB, .80 *) ,38, ;/ H ed. ;;;, . ). Ct. ,34'. 5 %t then concluded that the service of summons effected in "anila or e!ond the territorial oundaries of Japan was null and did not confer jurisdiction upon the Tok!o <istrict Court over the person of )7A1PE hence, its decision was void. *na le to o tain a reconsideration of the decision, #$1T7GD)T elevated the case to this Court contending that the respondent court erred in holding that )7A1P was not a resident of Japan and that summons on )7A1P could onl! e validl! served within that countr!. A foreign judgment is presumed to e valid and inding in the countr! from which it comes, until the contrar! is shown. %t is also proper to presume the regularit! of the proceedings and the giving of due notice therein. * *nder )ection 38, 1ule ,9 of the 1ules of Court, a judgment in an action in personam of a tri unal of a foreign countr! having jurisdiction to pronounce the same is presumptive evidence of a right as etween the parties and their successors-in-interest ! a su sequent title. The judgment ma!, however, e assailed ! evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the part!, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Also, under )ection , of 1ule .,., a court, whether of the Philippines or elsewhere, enjo!s the presumption that it was acting in the lawful eBercise of jurisdiction and has regularl! performed its official dut!. Consequentl!, the part! attacking a foreign judgment has the urden of overcoming the presumption of its validit!.7 2eing the part! challenging the judgment rendered ! the Japanese court, )7A1P had the dut! to demonstrate the invalidit! of such judgment. %n an attempt to discharge that urden, it contends that the eBtraterritorial service of summons effected at its home office in the Philippines was not onl! ineffectual ut also void, and the Japanese Court did not, therefore acquire jurisdiction over it. %t is settled that matters of remed! and procedure such as those relating to the service of process upon a defendant are governed ! the lex fori or the internal law of the forum. + %n this case, it is the procedural law of Japan where the judgment was rendered that determines the validit! of the eBtraterritorial service of process on )7A1P. As to what this law is is a question of fact, not of law. %t ma! not e taken judicial notice of and must e pleaded and proved like an! other fact. 9 )ections ;4 and ;3, 1ule .,; of the 1ules of Court provide that it ma! e evidenced ! an official pu lication or ! a dul! attested or authenticated cop! thereof. %t was then incum ent upon )7A1P to present evidence as to what that Japanese procedural law is and to show that under it, the assailed eBtraterritorial service is invalid. %t did not. Accordingl!, the presumption of validit! and regularit! of the service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered ! the Japanese court must stand. Alternativel! in the light of the a sence of proof regarding Japanese law, the presumption of identit! or similarit! or the so-called processual presumption 1, ma! e invoked. Appl!ing it, the Japanese law on the matter is presumed to e similar with the Philippine law on service of summons on a private foreign corporation doing usiness in the Philippines. )ection .4, 1ule .4 of the 1ules of Court provides that if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing usiness in the Philippines, service ma! e made: &.' on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, &;' if there is no such resident agent, on the government official designated ! law to that effectE or &,' on an! of its officers or agents within the Philippines. %f the foreign corporation has designated an agent to receive summons, the designation is eBclusive, and service of summons is without force and gives the court no jurisdiction unless made upon him. 11 Ghere the corporation has no such agent, service shall e made on the government official designated ! law, to wit: &a' the %nsurance Commissioner in the case of a foreign insurance compan!E & ' the )uperintendent of 2anks, in the case of a foreign anking corporationE and &c' the )ecurities and DBchange Commission, in the case of other foreign corporations dul! licensed to do usiness in the Philippines. Ghenever service of process is so made, the government office or official served shall transmit ! mail a cop! of the summons or other legal

proccess to the corporation at its home or principal office. The sending of such cop! is a necessar! part of the service. 12 )7A1P contends that the laws authori(ing service of process upon the )ecurities and DBchange Commission, the )uperintendent of 2anks, and the %nsurance Commissioner, as the case ma! e, presuppose a situation wherein the foreign corporation doing usiness in the countr! no longer has an! ranches or offices within the Philippines. )uch contention is elied ! the pertinent provisions of the said laws. Thus, )ection .;+ of the Corporation Code13 and )ection .98 of the %nsurance Code 1) clearl! contemplate two situations: &.' if the corporation had left the Philippines or had ceased to transact usiness therein, and &;' if the corporation has no designated agent. )ection ./ of the Jeneral 2anking Act 15 does not even speak a corporation which had ceased to transact usiness in the Philippines. #owhere in its pleadings did )7A1P profess to having had a resident agent authori(ed to receive court processes in Japan. This silence could onl! mean, or least create an impression, that it had none. 7ence, service on the designated government official or on an! of )7A1P's officers or agents in Japan could e availed of. The respondent, however, insists that onl! service of an! of its officers or emplo!ees in its ranches in Japan could e resorted to. Ge do not agree. As found ! the respondent court, two attempts at service were made at )7A1P's =okohama ranch. 2oth were unsuccessful. $n the first attempt, "r. <ino(o, who was elieved to e the person authori(ed to accept court process, was in "anila. $n the second, "r. <ino(o was present, ut to accept the summons ecause, according to him, he was no longer an emplo!ee of )7A1P. Ghile it ma! e true that service could have een made upon an! of the officers or agents of )7A1P at its three other ranches in Japan, the availa ilit! of such a recourse would not preclude service upon the proper government official, as stated a ove. As found ! the Court of Appeals, it was the Tok!o <istrict Court which ordered that summons for )7A1P e served at its head office in the Philippine's after the two attempts of service had failed. 1* The Tok!o <istrict Court requested the )upreme Court of Japan to cause the deliver! of the summons and other legal documents to the Philippines. Acting on that request, the )upreme Court of Japan sent the summons together with the other legal documents to the "inistr! of 5oreign Affairs of Japan which, in turn, forwarded the same to the Japanese Dm ass! in "anila . Thereafter, the court processes were delivered to the "inistr! &now <epartment' of 5oreign Affairs of the Philippines, then to the DBecutive Judge of the Court of 5irst %nstance &now 1egional Trial Court' of "anila, who forthwith ordered <eput! )heriff 1olando 2alingit to serve the same on )7A1P at its principal office in "anila. This service is equivalent to service on the proper government official under )ection .4, 1ule .4 of the 1ules of Court, in relation to )ection .;+ of the Corporation Code. 7ence, )7A1P's contention that such manner of service is not valid under Philippine laws holds no water. 17 %n deciding against the petitioner, the respondent court sustained the trial court's reliance on Boudard vs. Tait 1+where this Court held: The fundamental rule is that jurisdiction in personam over nonresidents, so as to sustain a mone! judgment, must e ased upon personal service within the state which renders the judgment. BBB BBB BBB The process of a court, has no eBtraterritorial effect, and no jurisdiction is acquired over the person of the defendant ! serving him e!ond the oundaries of the state. #or has a judgment of a court of a foreign countr! against a resident of this countr! having no propert! in such foreign countr! ased on process served here, an! effect here against either the defendant personall! or his propert! situated here. Process issuing from the courts of one state or countr! cannot run into another, and although a nonresident defendant ma! have een personall! served with such process in the state or countr! of his domicile, it will not give such jurisdiction as to authori(e a personal judgment against him.

%t further availed of the ruling in agdalena Estate! "nc. vs. Nieto 19 and #ial $orp. vs. Soriano, 2, as well as the principle laid down ! the %owa )upreme Court in the .9.. case of Raher vs. Raher. 21 The first three cases are, however, inapplica le. Boudard involved the enforcement of a judgment of the civil division of the Court of 5irst %nstance of 7anoi, 5rench %ndo-China. The trial court dismissed the case ecause the 7anoi court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant considering that F?t@he, evidence adduced at the trial conclusivel! proves that neither the appellee ?the defendant@ nor his agent or emplo!ees were ever in 7anoi, 5rench %ndo-ChinaE and that the deceased "arie Theodore Jerome 2oudard had never, at an! time, een his emplo!ee.F %n agdalena Estate, what was declared invalid resulting in the failure of the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendants in an action in personam was the service of summons through pu lication against non-appearing resident defendants. %t was claimed that the latter concealed themselves to avoid personal service of summons upon them. %n #ial, the defendants were foreign corporations which were not, domiciled and licensed to engage in usiness in the Philippines and which did not have officers or agents, places of usiness, or properties here. $n the other hand, in the instant case, )7A1P was doing usiness in Japan and was maintaining four ranches therein. %nsofar as to the Philippines is concerned, Raher is a thing of the past. %n that case, a divided )upreme Court of %owa declared that the principle that there can e no jurisdiction in a court of a territor! to render a personal judgment against an!one upon service made outside its limits was applica le alike to cases of residents and non-residents. The principle was put at rest ! the *nited )tates )upreme Court when it ruled in the .948 case of illi%en vs. e&er 22 that domicile in the state is alone sufficient to ring an a sent defendant within the reach of the state's jurisdiction for purposes of a personal judgment ! means of appropriate su stituted service or personal service without the state. This principle is em odied in section .+, 1ule .4 of the 1ules of Court which allows service of summons on residents temporaril! out of the Philippines to e made out of the countr!. The rationale for this rule was eBplained in illi%en as follows: ?T@he authorit! of a state over one of its citi(ens is not terminated ! the mere fact of his a sence from the state. The state which accords him privileges and affords protection to him and his propert! ! virtue of his domicile ma! also eBact reciprocal duties. FDnjo!ment of the privileges of residence within the state, and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws, are insepara leF from the various incidences of state citi(enship. The responsi ilities of that citi(enship arise out of the relationship to the state which domicile creates. That relationship is not dissolved ! mere a sence from the state. The attendant duties, like the rights and privileges incident to domicile, are not dependent on continuous presence in the state. $ne such incident of domicile is amena ilit! to suit within the state even during sojourns without the state, where the state has provided and emplo!ed a reasona le method for apprising such an a sent part! of the proceedings against him. 23 The domicile of a corporation elongs to the state where it was incorporated. 2) %n a strict technical sense, such domicile as a corporation ma! have is single in its essence and a corporation can have onl! one domicile which is the state of its creation. 25 #onetheless, a corporation formed in one-state ma!, for certain purposes, e regarded a resident in another state in which it has offices and transacts usiness. This is the rule in our jurisdiction and apropos thereto, it ma! e necesser! to quote what we stated in State "nvestment House! "nc, vs. $iti'an%! N.(., 2* to wit: The issue is whether these Philippine ranches or units ma! e considered Fresidents of the Philippine %slandsF as that term is used in )ection ;8 of the %nsolvenc! Haw . . . or residents of the state under the laws of which the! were respectivel! incorporated. The answer cannot e found in the %nsolvenc! Haw itself, which contains no definition of the term, resident, or an! clear indication of its meaning. There are however other statutes, al eit of su sequent enactment and effectivit!, from which enlightening notions of the term ma! e derived. The #ational %nternal 1evenue Code declares that the term F'resident foreign corporation' applies to a foreign corporation engaged in trade or usiness within the Philippines,F as

distinguished from a F'non-resident foreign corporation' . . . &which is one' not engaged in trade or ussiness within the Philippines.F ?)ec. ;8, pars. &h' and &i'@. The $ffshore 2anking Haw, Presidential <ecree #o. .8,4, states Fthat ranches, su sidiaries, affiliation, eBtension offices or an! other units of corporation or juridical person organi(ed under the laws of an! foreign countr! operating in the Philippines shall e considered residents of the Philippines. ?)ec. .&e'@. The Jeneral 2anking Act, 1epu lic Act #o. ,,/, places F ranches and agencies in the Philippines of foreign anks . . . &which are' called Philippine ranches,F in the same categor! as Fcommercial anks, savings associations, mortgage anks, development anks, rural anks, stock savings and loan associationsF &which have een formed and organi(ed under Philippine laws', making no distinction etween the former and the latter in so far as the terms F anking institutionsF and F ankF are used in the Act ?)ec. ;@, declaring on the contrar! that in Fall matters not specificall! covered ! special provisions applica le onl! to foreign anks, or their ranches and agencies in the Philippines, said foreign anks or their ranches and agencies lawfull! doing usiness in the Philippines Fshall e ound ! all laws, rules, and regulations applica le to domestic anking corporations of the same class, eBcept such laws, rules and regulations as provided for the creation, formation, organi(ation, or dissolution of corporations or as fiB the relation, lia ilities, responsi ilities, or duties of mem ers, stockholders or officers of corporation. ?)ec. .+@. This court itself has alread! had occasion to hold ?Claude #eon Hights, 5ed. %nc. vs. Philippine Advertising Corp., 3/ Phil. 08/@ that a foreign corporation licitl! doing usiness in the Philippines, which is a defendant in a civil suit, ma! not e considered a non)resident within the scope of the legal provision authori(ing attachment against a defendant not residing in the *hilippine "slandsE ?)ec. 4;4, in relation to )ec. 4.; of Act #o. .98, the Code of Civil ProcedureE )ec. .&f', 1ule 39 of the 1ules of .948, )ec. .&f', 1ule 3/, 1ules of .904@ in other words, a preliminar! attachment ma! not e applied for and granted solel! on the asserted fact that the defendant is a foreign corporation authori(ed to do usiness in the Philippines I and is consequentl! and necessaril!, Fa part! who resides out of the Philippines.F Parentheticall!, if it ma! not e considered as a part! not residing in the Philippines, or as a part! who resides out of the countr!, then, logicall!, it must e considered a part! who does reside in the Philippines, who is a resident of the countr!. 2e this as it ma!, this Court pointed out that: . . . $ur laws and jurisprudence indicate a purpose to assimilate foreign corporations, dul! licensed to do usiness here, to the status of domestic corporations. &Cf. )ection /,, Act #o. .439, and "arshall Gells Co. vs. 7enr! G. Dlser 6 Co., 40 Phil. /8, /0E =u Cong Dng vs. Trinidad, 4/ Phil. ,+3, 4..' Ge think it would e entirel! out of line with this polic! should we make a discrimination against a foreign corporation, like the petitioner, and su ject its propert! to the harsh writ of sei(ure ! attachment when it has complied not onl! with ever! requirement of law made speciall! of foreign corporations, ut in addition with ever! requirement of law made of domestic corporations. . . . $ viousl!, the assimilation of foreign corporations authori(ed to do usiness in the Philippines Fto the status of domestic corporations, su sumes their eing found and operating as corporations, hence,residing, in the countr!. The same principle is recogni(ed in American law: that the residence of a corporation, if it can e said to have a residence, is necessaril! where it eBercises corporate functions . . .EF that it is considered as dwelling Fin the place where its usiness is done . . .,F as eing Flocated where its franchises are eBercised . . .,F and as eing Fpresent where it is engaged in the prosecution of the corporate enterpriseEF that a Fforeign corporation licensed to do usiness in a state is a resident of an! countr! where it maintains an office or agent for transaction of its usual and

customar! usiness for venue purposesEF and that the Fnecessar! element in its signification is localit! of eBistence.F ?Gords and Phrases, Permanent Dd., vol. ,/, pp. ,94, 4.;, 49,@. %n as much as )7A1P was admittedl! doing usiness in Japan through its four dul! registered ranches at the time the collection suit against it was filed, then in the light of the processual presumption, )7A1P ma! e deemed a resident of Japan, and, as such, was amena le to the jurisdiction of the courts therein and ma! e deemed to have assented to the said courts' lawful methods of serving process. 27 Accordingl!, the eBtraterritorial service of summons on it ! the Japanese Court was valid not onl! under the processual presumption ut also ecause of the presumption of regularit! of performance of official dut!. Ge find #$1T7GD)T's claim for attorne!'s fees, litigation eBpenses, and eBemplar! damages to e without merit. Ge find no evidence that would justif! an award for attorne!'s fees and litigation eBpenses under Article ;;8+ of the Civil Code of the Philippines. #or is an award for eBemplar! damages warranted. *nder Article ;;,4 of the Civil Code, efore the court ma! consider the question of whether or not eBemplar! damages should e awarded, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate, or compensator! damaged. There eing no such proof presented ! #$1T7GD)T, no eBemplar! damages ma! e adjudged in its favor. G7D1D5$1D, the instant petition is partl! J1A#TD<, and the challenged decision is A55%1"D< insofar as it denied #$1T7GD)T's claims for attorne!s fees, litigation eBpenses, and eBemplar! damages ut 1DKD1)D< insofar as in sustained the trial court's dismissal of #$1T7GD)T's complaint in Civil Case #o. +,-./0,/ of 2ranch 34 of the 1egional Trial Court of "anila, and another in its stead is here ! rendered $1<D1%#J private respondent C.5. )7A1P H C$"PA#=, %#C. to pa! to #$1T7GD)T the amounts adjudged in the foreign judgment su ject of said case, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint therein until the said foreign judgment is full! satisfied. Costs against the private respondent. )$ $1<D1D<.

Case /;
G.R. No. 11)77* February 2, 2,,,

%ENAN'RO -. LA REANO, petitioner, vs. CO RT OF A!!EALS AN' SINGA!ORE AIRLINES LI%ITE', respondents. . IS %-ING, J.: This petition for review on certiorari under 1ule 43 of the 1ules of Court seeks to reverse the <ecision of theCourt of Appeals, dated $cto er ;9, .99,, in C.A. J.1. #o. CK ,44/0, as well as its 1esolution dated 5e ruar! ;+, .994, which denied the motion for reconsideration. The facts of the case as summari(ed ! the respondent appellate court are as follows: )ometime in .9/+, plaintiff ?"enandro 2. Haureano, herein petitioner@, then <irector of 5light $perations and Chief Pilot of Air "anila, applied for emplo!ment with defendant compan! ?herein private respondent@ through its Area "anager in "anila. $n )eptem er ,8, .9/+, after the usual personal interview, defendant wrote to plaintiff, offering a contract of emplo!ment as an eBpatriate 2-/8/ captain for an original period of two &;' !ears commencing on Januar! ;., .9/+. Plaintiff accepted the offer and commenced working on Januar! ;8, .9/9. After passing the siBmonth pro ation period, plaintiffs appointment was confirmed effective Jul! ;., .9/9. &AnneB F2F, p. ,8, Rollo'. $n Jul! ;., .9/9, defendant offered plaintiff an eBtension of his two-!ear contract to five &3' !ears effective Januar! ;., .9/9 to Januar! ;8, .9+4 su ject to the terms and conditions set forth in the contract of emplo!ment, which the latter accepted &AnneB FCF p. ,., 1ec.'. <uring his service as 2-/8/ captain, plaintiff on August ;4, .9+8, while in command of a flight, committed a noise violation offense at the Lurich Airport, for which plaintiff apologi(ed.&DBh. F,F, p. ,8/, 1ec.'. )ometime in .9+8, plaintiff featured in a tail scraping incident wherein the tail of the aircraft scraped or touched the runwa! during landing. 7e was suspended for a few da!s until he was investigated ! oard headed ! Capt. Cho!. 7e was reprimanded. $n )eptem er ;3, .9+., plaintiff was invited to take a course of A-,88 conversion training at Aeroformacion, Toulouse, 5rance at dependant's eBpense. 7aving successfull! completed and passed thetraining course, plaintiff was cleared on April /, .9+., for solo dut! as captain of the Air us A-,88 and su sequentl! appointed as captain of the A-,88 fleet commanding an Air us A-,88 in flights over )outheast Asia. &AnneBes F<F, FDF and F5F, pp. ,4-,+, 1ec.'. )ometime in .9+;, defendant, hit ! a recession, initiated cost-cutting measures. )eventeen &./' eBpatriate captains in the Air us fleet were found in eBcess of the defendant's requirement &t.s.n., Jul! 0, .9++. p. ..'. Consequentl!, defendant informed its eBpatriate pilots including plaintiff of the situation and advised them to take advance leaves. &DBh. F.3F, p. 400, 1ec.' 1eali(ing that the recession would not e for a short time, defendant decided to terminate its eBcess personnel &t.s.n., Jul! 0, .9++, p. ./'. %t did not, however, immediatel! terminate it's A-,88 pilots. %t reviewed their qualifications for possi le promotion to the 2-/4/ fleet. Among the ./ eBcess Air us pilots reviewed, twelve were found qualified. *nfortunatel!, plaintiff was not one of the twelve. $n $cto er 3, .9+;, defendant informed plaintiff of his termination effective #ovem er ., .9+; and that he will e paid three &,' months salar! in lieu of three months notice &AnneB F%F, pp. 4.-4;, 1ec.'. 2ecause he could not uproot his famil! on such short notice, plaintiff requested a three-month notice to afford him time to

eBhaust all possi le avenues for reconsideration and retention. <efendant gave onl! two &;' months notice and one &.' month salar!. &t.s.n., #ov. .;, .9+/. p. ;3'. Aggrieved, plaintiff on June ;9, .9+,, instituted a case for illegal dismissal efore the Ha or Ar iter. <efendant moved to dismiss on jurisdiction grounds. 2efore said motion was resolved, the complaint was withdrawn. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant case for damages due to illegal termination of contract of services efore the court a quo &Complaint, pp. .-.8, 1ec.'. Again, defendant on 5e ruar! .., .9+/ filed a motion to dismiss alleging inter alia: &.' that the court has no jurisdiction over the su ject matter of the case, and &;' that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over the instant case. <efendant contends that the complaint is for illegal dismissal together with a mone! claim arising out of and in the course of plaintiffs emplo!ment Fthus it is the Ha or Ar iter and the #H1C who have the jurisdiction pursuant to Article ;./ of the Ha or CodeF and that, since plaintiff was emplo!ed in )ingapore, all other aspects of his emplo!ment contract andCor documents eBecuted in )ingapore. Thus, defendant postulates that )ingapore laws should appl! and courts thereat shall have jurisdiction. &pp. 38-09, 1ec.'. %n traversing defendant's arguments, plaintiff claimed that: &.' where the items demanded in a complaint are the natural consequences flowing from a reach of an o ligation and not la or enefits, the case is intrinsicall! a civil disputeE &;' the case involves a question that is e!ond the field of speciali(ation of la or ar itersE and &,' if the complaint is grounded not on the emplo!ee's dismissal per se ut on the manner of said dismissal and the consequence thereof, the case falls under the jurisdiction of the civil courts. &pp. /8/,, 1ec.' $n "arch ;,, .9+/, the court a quo denied defendant's motion to dismiss &pp. +;-+4, "'id'. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. &p. 93 i'id.' $n )eptem er .0, .9+/, defendant filed its answer reiterating the grounds relied upon in its motion to dismiss and further arguing that plaintiff is arred ! laches, waiver, and estoppel from instituting the complaint and that he has no cause of action . &pp. .8;-..3' . $n April .8, .99., the trial court handed down its decision in favor of plaintiff. The dispositive portion of which reads: G7D1D5$1D, judgment is here ! rendered in favor of plaintiff "enandro Haureano and against defendant)ingapore Airlines Himited, ordering defendant to pa! plaintiff the amounts of I )%#M,90,.84.88, or its equivalent in Philippine currenc! at the current rate of eBchange at the time of pa!ment, as and for unearned compensation with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until full! paidE )%#M.34,/4;.88, or its equivalent in Philippine currenc! at the current rate of eBchange at the time of pa!mentE and the further amounts of P0/,388.88 as consequential damages with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until full! paidE P.,888,888.88 as and for moral damagesE P.,888,888.88 as and for eBemplar! damagesE and P.88,888.88 as and for attorne!'s fees. Costs against defendant. )$ $1<D1D<.; )ingapore Airlines timel! appealed efore the respondent court and raised the issues of jurisdiction, validit! of termination, estoppel, and damages. $n $cto er ;9, .99,, the appellate court set aside the decision of the trial court, thus,

. . . %n the instant case, the action for damages due to illegal termination was filed ! plaintiff-appellee onl! on Januar! +, .9+/ or more than four &4' !ears after the effectivit! date of his dismissal on #ovem er ., .9+;. Clearl!, plaintiff-appellee's action has alread! prescri ed. G7D1D5$1D, the appealed decision is here ! 1DKD1)D< and )DT A)%<D. The complaint is here ! dismissed. )$ $1<D1D<., Petitioner's and )ingapore Airlines' respective motions for reconsideration were denied. #ow, efore the Court, petitioner poses the following queries: .. %) T7D P1D)D#T ACT%$# $#D 2A)D< $# C$#T1ACT G7%C7 P1D)C1%2D) %# TD# =DA1) *#<D1 A1T%CHD ..44 $5 T7D #DG C%K%H C$<D $1 $#D 5$1 <A"AJD) A1%)%#J 51$" A# %#J*1= T$ T7D 1%J7T) $5 T7D PHA%#T%55 G7%C7 P1D)C1%2D) %# 5$*1 =DA1) *#<D1 A1T%CHD ..40 $5 T7D #DG C%K%H C$<DN ;. CA# A# D"PH$=DD G%T7 A 5%OD< PD1%$< $5 D"PH$="D#T 2D 1DT1D#C7D< 2= 7%) D"PH$=D1N ,. CA# T7D1D 2D KAH%< 1DT1D#C7"D#T %5 A# D"PH$=D1 "D1DH= 5A%H) T$ 1DAH%LD T7D DOPDCTD< P1$5%T) DKD# %5 %T GD1D #$T, %# 5ACT, %#C*11%#J H$))D)N At the outset, we find it necessar! to state our concurrence on the assumption of jurisdiction ! the 1egional Trial Court of "anila, 2ranch 9. The trial court rightl! ruled on the application of Philippine law, thus: #either can the Court determine whether the termination of the plaintiff is legal under the )ingapore Haws ecause of the defendant's failure to show which specific laws of )ingapore Haws appl! to this case. As su stantiall! discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of )ingapore. The defendant that claims the applica ilit! of the )ingapore Haws to this case has the urden of proof. The defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, the Philippine law should e applied. 4 1espondent Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction when defendant filed its appeal efore said court. 3 $n this matter, respondent court was correct when it arred defendant-appellant elow from raising further the issue of jurisdiction. 0 Petitioner now raises the issue of whether his action is one ased on Article ..44 or on Article ..40 of the Civil Code. According to him, his termination of emplo!ment effective #ovem er ., .9+;, was ased on an emplo!ment contract which is under Article ..44, so his action should prescri e in .8 !ears as provided for in said article. Thus he claims the ruling of the appellate court ased on Article ..40 where prescription is onl! four &4' !ears, is an error. The appellate court concluded that the action for illegal dismissal originall! filed efore the Ha or Ar iter on June ;9, .9+,, ut which was withdrawn, then filed again in .9+/ efore the 1egional Trial Court, had alread! prescri ed. %n our view, neither Article ..44/ nor Article ..40+ of the Civil Code is here pertinent. Ghat is applica le is Article ;9. of the Ha or Code, viz: Art. ;9.. one& claims. I All mone! claims arising from emplo!ee-emplo!er relations accruing during the effectivit! of this Code shall e filed within three &,' !ears from the time the cause of action accruedE otherwise the! shall e forever arred. BBB BBB BBB

Ghat rules on prescription should appl! in cases like this one has long een decided ! this Court. %n illegal dismissal, it is settled, that the ten-!ear prescriptive period fiBed in Article ..44 of the Civil Code ma& not e invoked ! petitioners, for the Civil Code is a law of general application, while the prescriptive period fiBed in Article ;9; of the Ha or Code ?now Article ;9.@ is a )PDC%AH HAG applica le to claims arising from emplo!ee-emplo!er relations.9

"ore recentl! in #e +uzman vs. $ourt of (ppeals,.8 where the mone! claim was ased on a written contract, the Collective 2argaining Agreement, the Court held: . . . The language of Art. ;9. of the Ha or Code does not limit its application onl! to Fmone! claims specificall! recovera le under said CodeF ut covers all mone! claims arising from an emplo!ee-emplo!er relationsF &Citing Cadalin v. P$DA Administrator, ;,+ )C1A /;., /04 ?.994@E and *! v. #ational Ha or 1elations Commission, ;0. )C1A 383, 3.3 ?.990@'. . . . %t should e noted further that Article ;9. of the Ha or Code is a special law applica le to mone! claims arising from emplo!er-emplo!ee relationsE thus, it necessaril! prevails over Article ..44 of the Civil Code, a general law. 2asic is the rule in statutor! construction that Fwhere two statutes are of equal theoretical application to a particular case, the one designed therefore should prevail.F &Citing Heveri(a v. %ntermediate Appellate Court, .3/ )C1A ;+;, ;94.' +eneralia speciali'us non derogant... %n the light of Article ;9., aforecited, we agree with the appellate court's conclusion that petitioner's action fordamages due to illegal termination filed again on Januar! +, .9+/ or more than four &4' !ears after the effective date of his dismissal on #ovem er ., .9+; has alread! prescri ed. %n the instant case, the action for damages due to illegal termination was filed ! plaintiff-appelle onl! on Januar! +, .9+/ or more than four &4' !ears after the effectivit! date of his dismissal on #ovem er ., .9+;. Clearl!, plaintiff-appellee's action has alread! prescri ed. Ge ase our conclusion not on Article ..44 of the Civil Code ut on which sets the prescription period at three &,' !ears and which governs under this jurisdiction. Petitioner claims that the running of the prescriptive period was tolled when he filed his complaint for illegal dismissal efore the Ha or Ar iter of the #ational Ha or 1elations Commission. 7owever, this claim deserves scant considerationE it has no legal leg to stand on. %n Ol&mpia "nternational! "nc., vs., $ourt of (ppeals, we held that Falthough the commencement of a civil action stops the running of the statute of prescription or limitations, its dismissal or voluntar! a andonment ! the plaintiff leaves in eBactl! the same position as though no action had een commenced at all.F.; #ow, as to whether petitioner's separation from the compan! due to retrenchment was valid, the appellate court found that the emplo!ment contract of petitioner allowed for pre-termination of emplo!ment. Ge agree with the Court of Appeals when it said, %t is a settled rule that contracts have the force of law etween the parties. 5rom the moment the same is perfected, the parties are ound not onl! to the fulfillment of what has een eBpressl! stipulated ut also to all consequences which, according to their nature, ma! e in keeping with good faith, usage and law. Thus, when plaintiff-appellee accepted the offer of emplo!ment, he was ound ! the terms and conditions set forth in the contract, among others, the right of mutual termination ! giving three months written notice or ! pa!ment of three months salar!. )uch provision is clear and readil! understanda le, hence, there is no room for interpretation. BBB BBB BBB

5urther, plaintiff-appellee's contention that he is not ound ! the provisions of the Agreement, as he is not a signator! thereto, deserves no merit. %t must e noted that when plaintiff-appellee's emplo!ment was confirmed, he applied for mem ership with the )ingapore Airlines Himited &Pilots' Association, the signator! to the aforementioned Agreement. As such, plaintiff-appellee is estopped from questioning the legalit! of the said agreement or an! proviso contained therein. ., "oreover, the records of the present case clearl! show that respondent court's decision is ampl! supported ! evidence and it did not err in its findings, including the reason for the retrenchment: Ghen defendant-appellant was faced with the world-wide recession of the airline industr! resulting in a slow down in the compan!'s growth particularl! in the regional operation &Asian Area' where the Air us ,88

operates. %t had no choice ut to adopt cost cutting measures, such as cutting down services, num er of frequencies of flights, and reduction of the num er of fl!ing points for the A-,88 fleet &t.s.n., Jul! 0, .9++, pp. ./-.+'. As a result, defendant-appellant had to la! off A-,88 pilots, including plaintiff-appellee, which it found to e in eBcess of what is reasona l! needed..4 All these considered, we find sufficient factual and legal asis to conclude that petitioner's termination from emplo!ment was for an authori(ed cause, for which he was given ample notice and opportunit! to e heard, ! respondent compan!. #o error nor grave a use of discretion, therefore, could e attri uted to respondent appellate court.
,-.phi,/n0t

ACC$1<%#JH=, the instant petition is <%)"%))D<. The decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. CK #o. ,44/0 is A55%1"D<. )$ $1<D1D<.

Case /,
G.R. Nos. L/27+*, a"# L/27+9* %ar01 29, 197) !HILI!!INE CO%%ERCIAL AN' IN' STRIAL -AN2, A#34"4s5ra5or o6 51e Tes5a5e Es5a5e o6 C1ar7es Ne85o" Ho#9es :S;. !ro0. No. 1*72 o6 51e Cour5 o6 F4rs5 I"s5a"0e o6 I7o47o<, petitioner, vs. THE HONORA-LE =ENICIO ESCOLIN, !res4#4"9 (u#9e o6 51e Cour5 o6 F4rs5 I"s5a"0e o6 I7o47o, -ra"01 II, a"# A=ELINA A. %AGNO, respondents. G.R. Nos. L/2793* $ L/27937 %ar01 29, 197) TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE LINNIE (ANE HO'GES :S;. !ro0. No. 13,7<. TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE CHARLES NEWTON HO'GES :S;. !ro0. No. 1*72<. !HILI!!INE CO%%ERCIAL AN' IN' STRIAL -AN2,administrator-appellant, vs. LOREN>O CARLES, (OSE !A-LICO, ALFRE'O CATE'RAL, SAL=A'OR G >%AN, -ELCESAR CA SING, FLORENIA -ARRI'O, ! RIFICACION CORONA'O, GRACIANO L CERO, ARITEO THO%AS (A%IR, %EL. IA'ES -ATISANAN, !E!ITO I& LORES, ES!ERI'ION !ARTISALA, WINIFRE'O ES!A'A, ROSARIO ALINGASA, A'ELFA !RE%A&LON, SANTIAGO !ACAONSIS, a"# A=ELINA A. %AGNO, 51e 7as5 as A#34"4s5ra5r4? 4" S;. !ro0. No. 13,7, a;;e77ees, WESTERN INSTIT TE OF TECHNOLOG&, INC., movantappellee. San 1uan! (frica! +onzales and San (gustin for *hilippine $ommercial and "ndustrial Ban%/ anglapus 2a. Office! (ntonio 2a. Office and Rizal R/ 3uimpo for private respondents and appellees (velina (/ agno! etc/! et al/

-ARRE'O, J.:p $ertiorari and prohi ition with preliminar! injunctionE certiorari to Fdeclare all acts of the respondent court in the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges &)p. Proc. #o. .,8/ of the Court of 5irst %nstance of %loilo' su sequent to the order of <ecem er .4, .93/ as null and void for having een issued without jurisdictionFE prohi ition to enjoin the respondent court from allowing, tolerating, sanctioning, or a etting private respondent Avelina A. "agno to perform or do an! acts of administration, such as those enumerated in the petition, and from eBercising an! authorit! or power as 1egular AdministratriB of a ove-named Testate Dstate, ! entertaining manifestations, motion and pleadings filed ! her and acting on them, and also to enjoin said court from allowing said private respondent to interfere, meddle or take part in an! manner in the administration of the Testate Dstate of Charles #ewton 7odges &)p. Proc. #o. .0/; of the same court and ranch'E with pra!er for preliminar! injunction, which was issued ! this Court on August +, .90/ upon a ond of P3,888E the petition eing particularl! directed against the orders of the respondent court of $cto er .;, .900 den!ing petitioner's motion of April ;;, .900 and its order of Jul! .+, .90/ den!ing the motion for reconsideration of said order. 1elated to and involving asicall! the same main issue as the foregoing petition, thirt!-three &,,' appeals from different orders of the same respondent court approving or otherwise sanctioning the acts of administration of the respondent "agno on ehalf of the testate Dstate of "rs. 7odges. THE 4($TS $n "a! ;,, .93/, Hinnie Jane 7odges died in %loilo Cit! leaving a will eBecuted on #ovem er ;;, .93; pertinentl! providing as follows: 5%1)T: % direct that all m! just de ts and funeral eBpenses e first paid out of m! estate.

)DC$#<: % give, devise and equeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m! estate, oth personal and real, wherever situated, or located, to m! eloved hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, to have and to hold unto him, m! said hus and, during his natural lifetime. T7%1<: % desire, direct and provide that m! hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, shall have the right to manage, control, use and enjo! said estate during his lifetime, and he is here ! given the right to make an! changes in the ph!sical properties of said estate, ! sale or an! part thereof which he ma! think est, and the purchase of an! other or additional propert! as he ma! think estE to eBecute conve!ances with or without general or special warrant!, conve!ing in fee simple or for an! other term or time, an! propert! which he ma! deem proper to dispose ofE to lease an! of the real propert! for oil, gas andCor other minerals, and all such deeds or leases shall pass the a solute fee simple title to the interest so conve!ed in such propert! as he ma! elect to sell. All rents, emoluments and income from said estate shall elong to him, and he is further authori(ed to use an! part of the principal of said estate as he ma! need or desire. %t is provided herein, however, that he shall not sell or otherwise dispose of an! of the improved propert! now owned ! us located at, in or near the Cit! of Hu ock, TeBas, ut he shall have the full right to lease, manage and enjo! the same during his lifetime, a ove provided. 7e shall have the right to su divide an! farm land and sell lots therein. and ma! sell unimproved town lots. 5$*1T7: At the death of m! said hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, % give, devise and equeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m! estate, oth real and personal, wherever situated or located, to e equall! divided among m! rothers and sisters, share and share alike, namel!: Dsta 7igdon, Dmma 7owell, Heonard 7igdon, 1o! 7igdon, )addie 1ascoe, Dra 1oman and #imro! 7igdon. 5%5T7: %n case of the death of an! of m! rothers andCor sisters named in item 5ourth, a ove, prior to the death of m! hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, then it is m! will and equest that the heirs of such deceased rother or sister shall take jointl! the share which would have gone to such rother or sister had she or he survived. )%OT7: % nominate and appoint m! said hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, to e eBecutor of this, m! last will and testament, and direct that no ond or other securit! e required of him as such eBecutor. )DKD#T7: %t is m! will and equest that no action e had in the pro ate court, in the administration of m! estate, other than that necessar! to prove and record this will and to return an inventor! and appraisement of m! estate and list of claims. &Pp. ;-4, Petition.' This will was su sequentl! pro ated in aforementioned )pecial Proceedings #o. .,8/ of respondent court on June ;+, .93/, with the widower Charles #ewton 7odges eing appointed as DBecutor, pursuant to the provisions thereof. Previousl!, on "a! ;/, .93/, the said widower &hereafter to e referred to as 7odges' had een appointed )pecial Administrator, in which capacit! he filed a motion on the same date as follows: 5R+ENT E6)*(RTE OT"ON TO (22OW OR (5THOR"7E *ET"T"ONER TO $ONT"N5E THE B5S"NESS "N WH"$H HE W(S EN+(+E# (N# TO *ER4OR ($TS WH"$H HE H(# BEEN #O"N+ WH"2E #E$E(SE# W(S 2"8"N+ Come petitioner in the a ove-entitled special proceedings, thru his undersigned attorne!s, to the 7on. Court, most respectfull! states: .. I That Hinnie Jane 7odges died leaving her last will and testament, a cop! of which is attached to the petition for pro ate of the same.

;. I That in said last will and testament herein petitioner Charles #ewton 7odges is directed to have the right to manage, control use and enjo! the estate of deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges, in the same wa!, a provision was placed in paragraph two, the following: F% give, devise and equeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m! estate, to m! eloved hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, to have and &to' hold unto him, m! said hus and, during his natural lifetime.F ,. I That during the lifetime of Hinnie Jane 7odges, herein petitioner was engaged in the usiness of u!ing and selling personal and real properties, and do such acts which petitioner ma! think est. 4. I That deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges died leaving no descendants or ascendants, eBcept rothers and sisters and herein petitioner as eBecutor surviving spouse, to inherit the properties of the decedent. 3. I That the present motion is su mitted in order not to paral!(e the usiness of petitioner and the deceased, especiall! in the purchase and sale of properties. That proper accounting will e had also in all these transactions. G7D1D5$1D, it is most respectfull! pra!ed that, petitioner C. #. 7odges &Charles #ewton 7odges' e allowed or authori(ed to continue the usiness in which he was engaged and to perform acts which he had een doing while deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges was living. Cit! of %loilo, "a! ;/, .93/. &AnneB F<F, Petition.' which the respondent court immediatel! granted in the following order: %t appearing in the urgent ex)parte motion filed ! petitioner C. #. 7odges, that the usiness in which said petitioner and the deceased were engaged will e paral!(ed, unless and until the DBecutor is named and appointed ! the Court, the said petitioner is allowed or authori(ed to continue the usiness in which he was engaged and to perform acts which he had een doing while the deceased was living. )$ $1<D1D<. Cit! of %loilo "a! ;/, .93/. &AnneB FDF, Petition.' *nder date of <ecem er .., .93/, 7odges filed as such DBecutor another motion thus: "$T%$# T$ APP1$KD AHH )AHD), C$#KD=A#CD), HDA)D), "$1TJAJD) T7AT T7D DODC*T$1 7A< "A<D 5*1T7D1 A#< )*2)DP*D#T T1A#)ACT%$#) G7%C7 T7D DODC*T$1 "A= <$ %# ACC$1<A#CD G%T7 T7D HA)T G%)7 $5 T7D <DCDA)D< H%##%D JA#D 7$<JD). Comes the DBecutor in the a ove-entitled proceedings, thru his undersigned attorne!, to the 7on. Court, most respectfull! states: .. I That according to the last will and testament of the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges, the eBecutor as the surviving spouse and legatee named in the will of the deceasedE has the right to dispose of all the properties left ! the deceased, portion of which is quoted as follows: )econd: % give, devise and equeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m! estate, oth personal and real, wherever situated, or located, to m! eloved hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, to have and to hold unto him, m! said hus and, during his natural lifetime. Third: % desire, direct and provide that m! hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, shall have the right to manage, control, use and enjo! said estate during his lifetime, and he is here ! given the right to make an! changes in the ph!sical properties of said estate, '& sale or an! part thereof which he ma! think est, and the purchase of an! other or additional propert! as he ma! think estE to execute

conve&ances with or without general or special warrant!, conve!ing in fee simple or for an! other term or time, an! propert! which he ma! deem proper to dispose ofE to lease an! of the real propert! for oil, gas andCor other minerals, and all such deeds or leases shall pass the a solute fee simple title to the interest so conve!ed in such propert! as he ma! elect to sell. All rents, emoluments and income from said estate shall 'elong to him, and he is further authori(ed to use an! part of the principal of said estate as he ma! need or desire. ... ;. I That herein DBecutor, is not onl! part owner of the properties left as conjugal, ut also, the successor to all the properties left ! the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges. That during the lifetime of herein DBecutor, as Hegatee has the right to sell, conve!, lease or dispose of the properties in the Philippines. That inasmuch as C.#. 7odges was and is engaged in the u! and sell of real and personal properties, even efore the death of Hinnie Jane 7odges, a motion to authori(e said C.#. 7odges was filed in Court, to allow him to continue in the usiness of u! and sell, which motion was favora l! granted ! the 7onora le Court. ,. I That since the death of Hinnie Jane 7odges, "r. C.#. 7odges had een u!ing and selling real and personal properties, in accordance with the wishes of the late Hinnie Jane 7odges. 4. I That the 1egister of <eeds for %loilo, had required of late the herein DBecutor to have all the sales, leases, conve!ances or mortgages made ! him, approved ! the 7on. Court. 3. I That it is respectfull! requested, all the sales, conve!ances leases and mortgages eBecuted ! the DBecutor, e approved ! the 7on. Court. and su sequent sales conve!ances, leases and mortgages in compliances with the wishes of the late Hinnie Jane 7odges, and within the scope of the terms of the last will and testament, also e approvedE 0. I That the DBecutor is under o ligation to su mit his !earl! accounts, and the properties conve!ed can also e accounted for, especiall! the amounts received. G7D1D5$1D, it is most respectfull! pra!ed that, all the sales, conve!ances, leases, and mortgages eBecuted ! the DBecutor, e approved ! the 7on. Court, and also the su sequent sales, conve!ances, leases, and mortgages in consonance with the wishes of the deceased contained in her last will and testament, e with authori(ation and approval of the 7on. Court. Cit! of %loilo, <ecem er .., .90/. &AnneB FJF, Petition.' which again was promptl! granted ! the respondent court on <ecem er .4, .93/ as follows: OR#ER
As pra!ed for ! Attorne! Jellada, counsel for the DBecutor for the reasons stated in his motion dated <ecem er .., .93/, which the Court considers well taken all the sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of all properties left ! the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges eBecuted ! the DBecutor Charles #. 7odges are here ! APP1$KD<. The said DBecutor is further authori(ed to eBecute su sequent sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of the properties left ! the said deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges in consonance with the wishes conve!ed in the last will and testament of the latter.

)o ordered. %loilo Cit!. <ecem er .4, .93/. &AnneB F7F, Petition.' $n April .4, .939, in su mitting his first statement of account as DBecutor for approval, 7odges alleged:

Pursuant to the provisions of the 1ules of Court, herein eBecutor of the deceased, renders the following account of his administration covering the period from Januar! ., .93+ to <ecem er ,., .93+, which account ma! e found in detail in the individual income taB return filed for the estate of deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges, to wit: That a certified pu lic accountant has eBamined the statement of net worth of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, the assets and lia ilities, as well as the income and eBpenses, cop! of which is hereto attached and made integral part of this statement of account as AnneB FAF. %# K%DG $5 T7D 5$1DJ$%#J, it is most respectfull! pra!ed that, the statement of net worth of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, the assets and lia ilities, income and eBpenses as shown in the individual income taB return for the estate of the deceased and marked as AnneB FAF, e approved ! the 7onora le Court, as su stantial compliance with the requirements of the 1ules of Court. That no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of eBamining the herein accounts e given notice, as herein eBecutor is the onl! devisee or legatee of the deceased, in accordance with the last will and testament alread! pro ated ! the 7onora le court. Cit! of %loilo April .4, .939. &AnneB F%F, Petition.' The respondent court approved this statement of account on April ;., .939 in its order worded thus: *pon petition of Att!. Jellada, in representation of the DBecutor, the statement of net worth of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, assets and lia ilities, income and eBpenses as shown in the individual income taB return for the estate of the deceased and marked as AnneB FAF is approved. )$ $1<D1D<. Cit! of %loilo April ;., .939. &AnneB FJF, Petition.' 7is accounts for the periods Januar! ., .939 to <ecem er ,., .939 and Januar! ., .908 to <ecem er ,., .908 were su mitted likewise accompanied ! allegations identical mutatis mutandis to those of April .4, .939, quoted a oveE and the respective orders approving the same, dated Jul! ,8, .908 and "a! ;, .90., were su stantiall! identical to the a ove-quoted order of April ;., .939. %n connection with the statements of account just mentioned, the following assertions related thereto made ! respondent-appellee "agno in her rief do not appear from all indications discerni le in the record to e disputa le: *nder date of April .4, .939, C.#. 7odges filed his first FAccount ! the DBecutorF of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. %n the F)tatement of #etworth of "r. C.#. 7odges and the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesF as of <ecem er ,., .93+ anneBed thereto, C.#. 7odges reported that the com ined conjugal estate earned a net income of P,;+,48;.0;, divided evenl! etween him and the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. Pursuant to this, he filed an Findividual income taB returnF for calendar !ear .93+ on the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges reporting, under oath, the said estate as having earned income of P.04,;8..,., eBactl! one-half of the net income of his com ined personal assets and that of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. &p. 9., Appellee's 2rief.' BBB BBB BBB *nder date of Jul! ;., .908, C.#. 7odges filed his second FAnnual )tatement of Account ! the DBecutorF of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. %n the F)tatement of #etworth of "r. C.#. 7odges and the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesF as of <ecem er ,., .939 anneBed thereto, C.#. 7odges reported that the com ined conjugal estate earned a net income of P;/8,0;,.,;, divided evenl! etween him and the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. Pursuant to this, he filed an Findividual income

taB returnF for calendar !ear .939 on the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges reporting, under oath, the said estate as having earned income of P.,3,,...00, eBactl! one-half of the net income of his com ined personal assets and that of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. &pp. 9.-9;. Appellee's 2rief.' BBB BBB BBB *nder date of April ;8, .90., C.#. 7odges filed his third FAnnual )tatement of Account ! the DBecutor for the =ear .908F of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. %n the F)tatement of #et Gorth of "r. C.#. 7odges and the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesF as of <ecem er ,., .908 anneBed thereto, C.#. 7odges reported that the com ined conjugal estate earned a net income of P,.4,+3/.94, divided evenl! etween him and the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. Pursuant to this, he filed an Findividual income taB returnF for calendar !ear .908 on the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges reporting, under oath, the said estate as having earned income of P.3/,4;+.9/, eBactl! one-half of the net income of his com ined personal assets and that of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. &Pp. 9;-9,, Appellee's 2rief.' Hikewise the following: %n the petition for pro ate that he &7odges' filed, he listed the seven rothers and sisters of Hinnie Jane as her FheirsF &see p. ;, Jreen 1$A'. The order of the court admitting the will to pro ate unfortunatel! omitted one of the heirs, 1o! 7igdon &see p. .4, Jreen 1$A'. %mmediatel!, C.#. 7odges filed a verified motion to have 1o! 7igdon's name included as an heir, stating that he wanted to straighten the records Fin order the heirs of deceased 1o! 7igdon ma! not think or elieve the! were omitted, and that the! were reall! and are interested in the estate of deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges. . As an eBecutor, he was ound to file taB returns for the estate he was administering under American law. 7e did file such as estate taB return on August +, .93+. %n )chedule F"F of such return, he answered F=esF to the question as to whether he was contemplating Frenouncing the willF. $n the question as to what propert! interests passed to him as the surviving spouse, he answered: F#one, eBcept for purposes of administering the Dstate, pa!ing de ts, taBes and other legal charges. %t is the intention of the surviving hus and of deceased to distri ute the remaining propert! and interests of the deceased in their Communit! estate to the devisees and legatees named in the will when the de ts, lia ilities, taBes and eBpenses of administration are finall! determined and paid.F
Again, on August 9, .90;, arel! four months efore his death, he eBecuted an FaffidavitF wherein he ratified and confirmed all that he stated in )chedule F"F of his estate taB returns as to his having renounced what was given him ! his wife's will. 1

As appointed eBecutor, C.#. 7odges filed an F%nventor!F dated "a! .;, .93+. 7e listed all the assets of his conjugal partnership with Hinnie Jane 7odges on a separate alance sheet and then stated eBpressl! that her estate which has come into his possession as eBecutor was Fone-half of all the itemsF listed in said alance sheet. &Pp. +9-98, Appellee's 2rief.' Parentheticall!, it ma! e stated, at this juncture, that Ge are taking pains to quote wholl! or at least, eBtensivel! from some of the pleadings and orders whenever Ge feel that it is necessar! to do so for a more comprehensive and clearer view of the important and decisive issues raised ! the parties and a more accurate appraisal of their respective positions in regard thereto. The records of these cases do not show that an!thing else was done in the a ove-mentioned )pecial Proceedings #o. .,8/ until <ecem er ;0, .90;, when on account of the death of 7odges the da! efore, the same law!er, Att!. Heon P. Jellada, who had een previousl! acting as counsel for 7odges in his capacit! as DBecutor of his wife's estate, and as such had filed the aforequoted motions and manifestations, filed the following:

*1JD#T E6)*(RTE "$T%$# 5$1 T7D APP$%#T"D#T $5 A )PDC%AH A<"%#%)T1AT1%O C$"D) the undersigned attorne! for the DBecutor in the a ove-entitled proceedings, to the 7onora le Court, most respectfull! states: .. That in accordance with the Hast Gill and Testament of Hinnie Jane 7odges &deceased', her hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges was to act as DBecutor, and in fact, in an order issued ! this 7on. Court dated June ;+, .93/, the said Charles #ewton 7odges was appointed DBecutor and had performed the duties as such. ;. That last <ecem er ;;, .90;, the said Charles #ewton 7odges was stricken ill, and rought to the %loilo "ission 7ospital for treatment, ut unfortunatel!, he died on <ecem er ;3, .90;, as shown ! a cop! of the death certificate hereto attached and marked as AnneB FAF. ,. That in accordance with the provisions of the last will and testament of Hinnie Jane 7odges, whatever real and personal properties that ma! remain at the death of her hus and Charles #ewton 7odges, the said properties shall e equall! divided among their heirs. That there are real and personal properties left ! Charles #ewton 7odges, which need to e administered and taken care of. 4. That the estate of deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges, as well as that of Charles #ewton 7odges, have not as !et een determined or ascertained, and there is necessit! for the appointment of a general administrator to liquidate and distri ute the residue of the estate to the heirs and legatees of oth spouses. That in accordance with the provisions of )ection ; of 1ule /3 of the 1ules of Court, the conjugal partnership of Hinnie Jane 7odges and Charles #ewton 7odges shall e liquidated in the testate proceedings of the wife. 3. That the undersigned counsel, has perfect personal knowledge of the eBistence of the last will and testament of Charles #ewton 7odges, with similar provisions as that contained in the last will and testament of Hinnie Jane 7odges. 7owever, said last will and testament of Charles #ewton 7odges is kept inside the vault or iron safe in his office, and will e presented in due time efore this honora le Court. 0. That in the meantime, it is imperative and indispensa le that, an AdministratriB e appointed for the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and a )pecial AdministratriB for the estate of Charles #ewton 7odges, to perform the duties required ! law, to administer, collect, and take charge of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of oth spouses, Charles #ewton 7odges and Hinnie Jane 7odges, as provided for in )ection . and ;, 1ule +. of the 1ules of Court. /. That there is dela! in granting letters testamentar! or of administration, ecause the last will and testament of deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, is still kept in his safe or vault, and in the meantime, unless an administratriB &and,' at the same time, a )pecial AdministratriB is appointed, the estate of oth spouses are in danger of eing lost, damaged or go to waste. +. That the most trusted emplo!ee of oth spouses Hinnie Jane 7odges and C.#. 7odges, who had een emplo!ed for around thirt! &,8' !ears, in the person of "iss Avelina "agno, &should' e appointed AdministratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and at the same time )pecial AdministratriB of the estate of Charles #ewton 7odges. That the said "iss Avelina "agno is of legal age, a resident of the Philippines, the most fit, competent, trustworth! and well-qualified person to serve the duties of AdministratriB and )pecial AdministratriB and is willing to act as such. 9. That "iss Avelina "agno is also willing to file ond in such sum which the 7on. Court elieves reasona le. G7D1D5$1D, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfull! pra!ed that, "iss AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$ e immediatel! appointed AdministratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and as

)pecial AdministratriB of the estate of Charles #ewton 7odges, with powers and duties provided for ! law. That the 7onora le Court fiB the reasona le ond of P.,888.88 to e filed ! Avelina A. "agno. &AnneB F$F, Petition.' which respondent court readil! acted on in its order of even date thus: . 5or the reasons alleged in the *rgent Ex)parte "otion filed ! counsel for the DBecutor dated <ecem er ;3, .90;, which the Court finds meritorious, "iss AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$, is here ! appointed AdministratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and as )pecial AdministratriB of the estate of Charles #ewton 7odges, in the latter case, ecause the last will of said Charles #ewton 7odges is still kept in his vault or iron safe and that the real and personal properties of oth spouses ma! e lost, damaged or go to waste, unless a )pecial AdministratriB is appointed. "iss Avelina A. "agno is required to file ond in the sum of 5%KD T7$*)A#< PD)$) &P3,888.88', and after having done so, let letters of Administration e issued to her.F &AnneB FPF, Petition.' $n <ecem er ;9, .90;, however, upon urgent ex)parte petition of respondent "agno herself, thru Att!. Jellada, 7arold, 1. <avies, Fa representative of the heirs of deceased Charles #ewton 7odges &who had' arrived from the *nited )tates of America to help in the administration of the estate of said deceasedF was appointed as Co-)pecial Administrator of the estate of 7odges, &pp. ;9-,,, =ellow - 1ecord on Appeal' onl! to e replaced as such co-special administrator on Januar! ;;, .90, ! Joe 7odges, who, according to the motion of the same attorne!, is Fthe nephew of the deceased &who had' arrived from the *nited )tates with instructions from the other heirs of the deceased to administer the properties or estate of Charles #ewton 7odges in the Philippines, &Pp. 4/-38, id/' "eanwhile, under date of Januar! 9, .90,, the same Att!. Jellada filed in )pecial Proceedings .0/; a petition for the pro ate of the will of 7odges, 2 with a pra!er for the issuance of letters of administration to the same Joe 7odges, al eit the motion was followed on 5e ruar! ;;, .90, ! a separate one asking that Att!. 5ernando "irasol e appointed as his co-administrator. $n the same date this latter motion was filed, the court issued the corresponding order of pro ate and letters of administration to Joe 7odges and Att!. "irasol, as pra!ed for. At this juncture, again, it ma! also e eBplained that just as, in her will, "rs. 7odges equeathed her whole estate to her hus and Fto have and to hold unto him, m! said hus and, during his natural lifetimeF, she, at the same time or in like manner, provided that Fat the death of m! said hus and I % give devise and equeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m! estate, oth real and personal, wherever situated or located, to e equall! divided among m! rothers and sisters, share and share alike IF. Accordingl!, it ecame incum ent upon 7odges, as eBecutor of his wife's will, to dul! liquidate the conjugal partnership, half of which constituted her estate, in order that upon the eventualit! of his death, Fthe rest, residue and remainderF thereof could e determined and correspondingl! distri uted or divided among her rothers and sisters. And it was precisel! ecause no such liquidation was done, furthermore, there is the issue of whether the distri ution of her estate should e governed ! the laws of the Philippines or those of TeBas, of which )tate she was a national, and, what is more, as alread! stated, 7odges made official and sworn statements or manifestations indicating that as far as he was concerned no Fpropert! interests passed to him as surviving spouse I FeBcept for purposes of administering the estate, pa!ing de ts, taBes and other legal chargesF and it was the intention of the surviving hus and of the deceased to distri ute the remaining propert! and interests of the deceased in their Communit! Dstate to the devisees and legatees named in the will when the de ts, lia ilities, taBes and eBpenses of administration are finall! determined and paidF, that the incidents and controversies now efore *s for resolution arose. As ma! e o served, the situation that ensued upon the death of 7odges ecame rather unusual and so, quite understanda l!, the lower court's actuations presentl! under review are apparentl! wanting in consistenc! and seemingl! lack proper orientation. Thus, Ge cannot discern clearl! from the record efore *s the precise perspective from which the trial court proceeded in issuing its questioned orders. And, regreta l!, none of the length! riefs su mitted ! the parties is of valua le assistance in clearing up the matter.

To egin with, Ge gather from the two records on appeal filed ! petitioner, as appellant in the appealed cases, one with green cover and the other with a !ellow cover, that at the outset, a sort of modus operandi had een agreed upon ! the parties under which the respective administrators of the two estates were supposed to act conjointl!, ut since no cop! of the said agreement can e found in the record efore *s, Ge have no wa! of knowing when eBactl! such agreement was entered into and under what specific terms. And while reference is made to said modus operandi in the order of )eptem er .., .904, on pages ;83-;80 of the Jreen 1ecord on Appeal, reading thus: The present incident is to hear the side of administratriB, "iss Avelina A. "agno, in answer to the charges contained in the motion filed ! Att!. Cesar Tirol on )eptem er ,, .904. %n answer to the said charges, "iss Avelina A. "agno, through her counsel, Att!. 1i(al Puimpo, filed a written manifestation. After reading the manifestation here of Att!. Puimpo, for and in ehalf of the administratriB, "iss Avelina A. "agno, the Court finds that ever!thing that happened efore )eptem er ,, .904, which was resolved on )eptem er +, .904, to the satisfaction of parties, was simpl! due to a misunderstanding etween the representative of the Philippine Commercial and %ndustrial 2ank and "iss "agno and in order to restore the harmonious relations etween the parties, the Court ordered the parties to remain in status quo as to their modus operandi efore )eptem er ., .904, until after the Court can have a meeting with all the parties and their counsels on $cto er ,, as formerl! agreed upon etween counsels, Att!s. $(aeta, Ji s and $(aeta, Att!s. Tirol and Tirol and Att!. 1i(al Puimpo. %n the meantime, the pra!ers of Att!. Puimpo as stated in his manifestation shall not e resolved ! this Court until $cto er ,, .904. )$ $1<D1D<. there is nothing in the record indicating whatever happened to it afterwards, eBcept that again, reference thereto was made in the appealed order of $cto er ;/, .903, on pages ;9;-;93 of the Jreen 1ecord on Appeal, as follows: $n record is an urgent motion to allow PC%2 to open all doors and locks in the 7odges $ffice at ;80;8+ Juanco )treet, %loilo Cit!, to take immediate and eBclusive possession thereof and to place its own locks and ke!s for securit! purposes of the PC%2 dated $cto er ;/, .903 thru Att!. Cesar Tirol. %t is alleged in said urgent motion that AdministratriB "agno of the testate estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges refused to open the 7odges $ffice at ;80-;8+ Juanco )treet, %loilo Cit! where PC%2 holds office and therefore PC%2 is suffering great moral damage and prejudice as a result of said act. %t is pra!ed that an order e issued authori(ing it &PC%2' to open all doors and locks in the said office, to take immediate and eBclusive possession thereof and place thereon its own locks and ke!s for securit! purposesE instructing the clerk of court or an! availa le deput! to witness and supervise the opening of all doors and locks and taking possession of the PC%2. A written opposition has een filed ! AdministratriB "agno of even date &$ct. ;/' thru counsel 1i(al Puimpo stating therein that she was compelled to close the office for the reason that the PC%2 failed to compl! with the order of this Court signed ! Judge Anacleto %. 2ellosillo dated )eptem er .., .904 to the effect that oth estates should remain in status quo to their modus operandi as of )eptem er ., .904. To arrive at a happ! solution of the dispute and in order not to interrupt the operation of the office of oth estates, the Court aside from the reasons stated in the urgent motion and opposition heard the ver al arguments of Att!. Cesar Tirol for the PC%2 and Att!. 1i(al Puimpo for AdministratiB "agno. After due consideration, the Court here ! orders "agno to open all doors and locks in the 7odges $ffice at ;80-;8+ Juanco )treet, %loilo Cit! in the presence of the PC%2 or its dul! authori(ed representative and deput! clerk of court Al is of this ranch not later than /:,8 tomorrow morning $cto er ;+, .903 in order that the office of said estates could operate for usiness.

Pursuant to the order of this Court thru Judge 2ellosillo dated )eptem er .., .904, it is here ! ordered: &a' That all cash collections should e deposited in the joint account of the estates of Hinnie Jane 7odges and estates of C.#. 7odgesE & ' That whatever cash collections that had een deposited in the account of either of the estates should e withdrawn and since then deposited in the joint account of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and the estate of C.#. 7odgesE &c' That the PC%2 should countersign the check in the amount of P;38 in favor of AdministratriB Avelina A. "agno as her compensation as administratriB of the Hinnie Jane 7odges estate chargea le to the testate estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges onl!E &d' That AdministratriB "agno is here ! directed to allow the PC%2 to inspect whatever records, documents and papers she ma! have in her possession in the same manner that Administrator PC%2 is also directed to allow AdministratriB "agno to inspect whatever records, documents and papers it ma! have in its possessionE &e' That the accountant of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges shall have access to all records of the transactions of oth estates for the protection of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesE and in like manner the accountant or an! authori(ed representative of the estate of C.#. 7odges shall have access to the records of transactions of the Hinnie Jane 7odges estate for the protection of the estate of C.#. 7odges. $nce the estates' office shall have een opened ! AdministratriB "agno in the presence of the PC%2 or its dul! authori(ed representative and deput! clerk Al is or his dul! authori(ed representative, oth estates or an! of the estates should not close it without previous consent and authorit! from this court. )$ $1<D1D<. As ma! e noted, in this order, the respondent court required that all collections from the properties in the name of 7odges should e deposited in a joint account of the two estates, which indicates that seemingl! the socalledmodus operandi was no longer operative, ut again there is nothing to show when this situation started. Hikewise, in paragraph , of the petitioner's motion of )eptem er .4, .904, on pages .++-;8. of the Jreen 1ecord on Appeal, &also found on pp. +,-9. of the =ellow 1ecord on Appeal' it is alleged that: ,. $n Januar! ;4, .904 virtuall! all of the heirs of C.#. 7odges, Joe 7odges and 5ernando P. "irasol acting as the two co-administrators of the estate of C.#. 7odges, Avelina A. "agno acting as the administratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and "essrs. Gilliam 2rown and Ardell =oung acting for all of the 7igdon famil! who claim to e the sole eneficiaries of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and various legal counsel representing the aforementioned parties entered into an amica le agreement, which was approved ! this 7onora le Court, wherein the parties thereto agreed that certain sums of mone! were to e paid in settlement of different claims against the two estates and that the assets &to the eBtent the! eBisted' of oth estates would e administered jointl! ! the PC%2 as administrator of the estate of C.#. 7odges and Avelina A. "agno as administratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, su ject, however, to the aforesaid $cto er 3, .90, "otion, namel!, the PC%2's claim to eBclusive possession and ownership of one hundred percent &.88A' &or, in the alternative, sevent!-five percent &/3A' of all assets owned ! C.#. 7odges or Hinnie Jane 7odges situated in the Philippines. $n 5e ruar! ., .904 &pp. 9,4-9,3, C5% 1ec., ).P. #o. .0/;' this 7onora le Court amended its order of Januar! ;4, .904 ut in no wa! changed its recognition of the afore-descri ed asic demand ! the PC%2 as administrator of the estate of C.#. 7odges to one hundred percent &.88A' of the assets claimed ! oth estates.

ut no cop! of the mentioned agreement of joint administration of the two estates eBists in the record, and so, Ge are not informed as to what eBactl! are the terms of the same which could e relevant in the resolution of the issues herein. $n the other hand, the appealed order of #ovem er ,, .903, on pages ,.,-,;8 of the Jreen 1ecord on Appeal, authori(ed pa!ment ! respondent "agno of, inter alia, her own fees as administratriB, the attorne!'s fees of her law!ers, etc., as follows: AdministratriB "agno thru Att!s. 1aul ). "anglapus and 1i(al. 1. Puimpo filed a "anifestation and *rgent "otion dated June .8, .904 asking for the approval of the Agreement dated June 0, .904 which Agreement is for the purpose of retaining their services to protect and defend the interest of the said AdministratriB in these proceedings and the same has een signed ! and ears the eBpress conformit! of the attorne!-in-fact of the late Hinnie Jane 7odges, "r. James H. )ullivan. %t is further pra!ed that the AdministratriB of the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges e directed to pa! the retailers fee of said law!ers, said fees made chargea le as eBpenses for the administration of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges &pp. .04.-.04;, Kol. K, )p. .,8/'. An opposition has een filed ! the Administrator PC%2 thru Att!. 7erminio $(aeta dated Jul! .., .904, on the ground that pa!ment of the retainers fee of Att!s. "anglapus and Puimpo as pra!ed for in said "anifestation and *rgent "otion is prejudicial to the .88A claim of the estate of C. #. 7odgesE emplo!ment of Att!s. "anglapus and Puimpo is premature andCor unnecessar!E Att!s. Puimpo and "anglapus are representing conflicting interests and the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges should e closed and terminated &pp. .0/9-.0+4, Kol, K, )p. .,8/'. Att!. Heon P. Jellada filed a memorandum dated Jul! ;+, .904 asking that the "anifestation and *rgent "otion filed ! Att!s. "anglapus and Puimpo e denied ecause no evidence has een presented in support thereof. Att!. "anglapus filed a repl! to the opposition of counsel for the Administrator of the C. #. 7odges estate wherein it is claimed that eBpenses of administration include reasona le counsel or attorne!'s fees for services to the eBecutor or administrator. As a matter of fact the fee agreement dated 5e ruar! ;/, .904 etween the PC%2 and the law firm of $(aeta, Ji s 6 $(aeta as its counsel &Pp. .;+8-.;+4, Kol. K, )p. .,8/' which stipulates the fees for said law firm has een approved ! the Court in its order dated "arch ,., .904. %f pa!ment of the fees of the law!ers for the administratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges will cause prejudice to the estate of C. #. 7odges, in like manner the ver! agreement which provides for the pa!ment of attorne!'s fees to the counsel for the PC%2 will also e prejudicial to the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges &pp. .+8.-.+.4, Kol. K, )p. .,8/'. Att!. 7erminio $(aeta filed a rejoinder dated August .8, .904 to the repl! to the opposition to the "anifestation and *rgent "otion alleging principall! that the estates of Hinnie Jane 7odges and C. #. 7odges are not similarl! situated for the reason that C. #. 7odges is an heir of Hinnie Jane 7odges whereas the latter is not an heir of the former for the reason that Hinnie Jane 7odges predeceased C. #. 7odges &pp. .+,9-.+4+, Kol. K, )p. .,8/'E that Att!s. "anglapus and Puimpo formall! entered their appearance in ehalf of AdministratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges on June .8, .904 &pp. .0,9-.048, Kol. K, )p. .,8/'. Att!. "anglapus filed a manifestation dated <ecem er .+, .904 stating therein that Judge 2ellosillo issued an order requiring the parties to su mit memorandum in support of their respective contentions. %t is pra!ed in this manifestation that the "anifestation and *rgent "otion dated June .8, .904 e resolved &pp. 04,3-04,9, Kol. K%%, )p. .,8/'. Att!. 1oman "a anta, Jr. for the PC%2 filed a counter- manifestation dated Januar! 3, .903 asking that after the consideration ! the court of all allegations and arguments and pleadings of the PC%2 in connection therewith &.' said manifestation and urgent motion of Att!s. "anglapus and Puimpo e denied &pp. 044;-043,, Kol. K%%, )p. .,8/'. Judge Pueru in issued an order dated Januar! 4, .903 approving the motion dated June .8, .904 of the attorne!s for the administratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and agreement anneBed to said motion. The said order further states: FThe AdministratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges is authori(ed to issue or sign whatever check or

checks ma! e necessar! for the a ove purpose and the administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges is ordered to countersign the same. &pp. 03.+-03;,, Kol K%%, )p. .,8/'. Att!. 1oman "a anta, Jr. for the PC%2 filed a manifestation and motion dated Januar! .,, .903 asking that the order of Januar! 4, .903 which was issued ! Judge Pueru in e declared null and void and to enjoin the clerk of court and the administratriB and administrator in these special proceedings from all proceedings and action to enforce or compl! with the provision of the aforesaid order of Januar! 4, .903. %n support of said manifestation and motion it is alleged that the order of Januar! 4, .903 is null and void ecause the said order was never delivered to the deput! clerk Al is of 2ranch K &the sala of Judge Pueru in' and the alleged order was found in the drawer of the late Judge Pueru in in his office when said drawer was opened on Januar! .,, .903 after the death of Judge Pueru in ! Perfecto Pueru in, Jr., the son of the judge and in the presence of DBecutive Judge 1ovira and deput! clerk Al is &)ec. ., 1ule ,0, #ew Civil Code' &Pp. 0088-0080, Kol. K%%%, )p. .,8/'. Att!. 1oman "a anta, Jr. for the PC%2 filed a motion for reconsideration dated 5e ruar! ;,, .903 asking that the order dated Januar! 4, .904 e reversed on the ground that: .. Attorne!s retained must render services to the estate not to the personal heirE ;. %f services are rendered to oth, fees should e pro-rated etween themE ,. Attorne!s retained should not represent conflicting interestsE to the prejudice of the other heirs not represented ! said attorne!sE 4. 5ees must e commensurate to the actual services rendered to the estateE 3. There must e assets in the estate to pa! for said fees &Pp. 00;3-00,0, Kol. K%%%, )p. .,8/'. Att!. Puimpo for AdministratriB "agno of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges filed a motion to su mit dated Jul! .3, .903 asking that the manifestation and urgent motion dated June .8, .904 filed ! Att!s. "anglapus and Puimpo and other incidents directl! appertaining thereto e considered su mitted for consideration and approval &pp. 0/39-0/03, Kol. K%%%, )p. .,8/'. Considering the arguments and reasons in support to the pleadings of oth the AdministratriB and the PC%2, and of Att!. Jellada, herein efore mentioned, the Court elieves that the order of Januar! 4, .903 is null and void for the reason that the said order has not een filed with deput! clerk Al is of this court &2ranch K' during the lifetime of Judge Pueru in who signed the said order. 7owever, the said manifestation and urgent motion dated June .8, .904 is eing treated and considered in this instant order. %t is worth! to note that in the motion dated Januar! ;4, .904 &Pp. ..49- ..0,, Kol. K, )p. .,8/' which has een filed ! Att!. Jellada and his associates and Att!. Ji s and other law!ers in addition to the stipulated fees for actual services rendered. 7owever, the fee agreement dated 5e ruar! ;/, .904, etween the Administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges and Att!. Ji s which provides for retainer fee of P4,888 monthl! in addition to specific fees for actual appearances, reim ursement for eBpenditures and contingent fees has also een approved ! the Court and said law!ers have alread! een paid. &pp. .;/,-.;/9, Kol. K, )p. Proc. .,8/ pp. .,/;-.,/,, Kol. K, )p. Proc. .,8/'. G7D1D5$1D, the order dated Januar! 4, .903 is here ! declared null and void. The manifestation and motion dated June .8, .904 which was filed ! the attorne!s for the administratriB of the testate estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges is granted and the agreement anneBed thereto is here ! approved. The administratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges is here ! directed to e needed to implement the approval of the agreement anneBed to the motion and the administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges is directed to countersign the said check or checks as the case ma! e.

)$ $1<D1D<. there ! impl!ing somehow that the court assumed the eBistence of independent ut simultaneous administrations. 2e that as it ma!, again, it appears that on August 0, .903, the court, acting on a motion of petitioner for the approval of deeds of sale eBecuted ! it as administrator of the estate of 7odges, issued the following order, also on appeal herein: Acting upon the motion for approval of deeds of sale for registered land of the PC%2, Administrator of the Testate Dstate of C. #. 7odges in )p. Proc. .0/; &Kol. K%%, pp. ;;44-;;43', dated Jul! .0, .903, filed ! Att!. Cesar T. Tirol in representation of the law firms of $(aeta, Ji s and $(aeta and Tirol and Tirol and the opposition thereto of Att!. 1i(al 1. Puimpo &Kol. K%%%, pp. 0+..-0+.,' dated Jul! ;;, .903 and considering the allegations and reasons therein stated, the court elieves that the deeds of sale should e signed jointl! ! the PC%2, Administrator of the Testate Dstate of C. #. 7odges and Avelina A. "agno, AdministratriB of the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and to this effect the PC%2 should take the necessar! steps so that AdministratriB Avelina A. "agno could sign the deeds of sale. )$ $1<D1D<. &p. ;4+, Jreen 1ecord on Appeal.' #ota l! this order required that even the deeds eBecuted ! petitioner, as administrator of the Dstate of 7odges, involving properties registered in his name, should e co-signed ! respondent "agno. 3 And this was not an isolated instance. %n her rief as appellee, respondent "agno states: After the lower court had authori(ed appellee Avelina A. "agno to eBecute final deeds of sale pursuant to contracts to sell eBecuted ! C. #. 7odges on 5e ruar! ;8, .90, &pp. 43-40, Jreen 1$A', motions for the approval of final deeds of sale &signed ! appellee Avelina A. "agno and the administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges, first Joe 7odges, then Att!. 5ernando "irasol and later the appellant' were approved ! the lower court upon petition of appellee "agno's counsel, Att!. Heon P. Jellada, on the asis of section + of 1ule +9 of the 1evised 1ules of Court. )u sequentl!, the appellant, after it had taken over the ulk of the assets of the two estates, started presenting these motions itself. The first such attempt was a F"otion for Approval of <eeds of )ale for 1egistered Hand and Cancellations of "ortgagesF dated Jul! ;., .904 filed ! Att!. Cesar T. Tirol, counsel for the appellant, thereto anneBing two &;' final deeds of sale and two &;' cancellations of mortgages signed ! appellee Avelina A. "agno and <. 1. Paulino, Assistant Kice-President and "anager of the appellant &C5% 1ecord, )p. Proc. #o. .,8/, Kol. K, pp. .094-./8.'. This motion was approved ! the lower court on Jul! ;/, .904. %t was followed ! another motion dated August 4, .904 for the approval of one final deed of sale again signed ! appellee Avelina A. "agno and <. 1. Paulino &C5% 1ecord, )p. Proc. #o. .,8/. Kol. K, pp. .+;3-.+;+', which was again approved ! the lower court on August /, .904. The gates having een opened, a flood ensued: the appellant su sequentl! filed similar motions for the approval of a multitude of deeds of sales and cancellations of mortgages signed ! oth the appellee Avelina A. "agno and the appellant. A random check of the records of )pecial Proceeding #o. .,8/ alone will show Att!. Cesar T. Tirol as having presented for court approval deeds of sale of real properties signed ! oth appellee Avelina A. "agno and <. 1. Paulino in the following num ers: &a' motion dated )eptem er ;., .904 I 0 deeds of saleE & ' motion dated #ovem er 4, .904 I . deed of saleE &c' motion dated <ecem er ., .904 I 4 deeds of saleE &d' motion dated 5e ruar! ,, .903 I + deeds of saleE &f' motion dated "a! /, .903 I 9 deeds of sale. %n view of the ver! eBtensive landholdings of the 7odges spouses and the man! motions filed concerning deeds of sale of real properties eBecuted ! C. #. 7odges the lower court has had to constitute special separate eBpedientes in )pecial Proceedings #os. .,8/ and .0/; to include mere motions for the approval of deeds of sale of the conjugal properties of the 7odges spouses. As an eBample, from among the ver! man!, under date of 5e ruar! ,, .903, Att!. Cesar T. Tirol, as counsel for the appellant, filed F"otion for Approval of <eeds of )ale for 1egistered Hand and

Cancellations of "ortgagesF &C5% 1ecord, )p. Proc. #o. .,8/, Kol. K%%%, pp. 03/8-0390' the allegations of which read: F.. %n his lifetime, the late C. #. 7odges eBecuted FContracts to )ellF real propert!, and the prospective u!ers under said contracts have alread! paid the price and complied with the terms and conditions thereofE F;. %n the course of administration of oth estates, mortgage de tors have alread! paid their de ts secured ! chattel mortgages in favor of the late C. #. 7odges, and are now entitled to release therefromE F,. There are attached hereto documents eBecuted jointl! ! the AdministratriB in )p. Proc. #o. .,8/ and the Administrator in )p. Proc. #o. .0/;, consisting of deeds of sale in favor I 5ernando Cano, 2acolod Cit!, $cc. #egros 5e "ag anua, %loilo Cit! Policarpio ". Pareno, Ha Pa(, %loilo Cit! 1osario T. Hi re, Jaro, %loilo Cit! 5ederico 2. Torres, %loilo Cit! 1e!naldo T. Hataquin, Ha Pa(, %loilo Cit! Anatolio T. Kira!, %loilo Cit! 2enjamin 1olando, Jaro, %loilo Cit! and cancellations of mortgages in favor of I Pa lo "an(ano, $ton, %loilo 1icardo ". <iana, <ao, )an Jose, Antique )implicio Tingson, %loilo Cit! Amado "ag anua, Pototan, %loilo 1oselia ". 2aes, 2olo, 1oBas Cit! Gilliam 2a!ani, 1i(al Dstan(uela, %loilo Cit! Dlpidio Killarete, "olo, %loilo Cit! #orma T. 1ui(, Jaro, %loilo Cit! F4. That the approval of the aforesaid documents will not reduce the assets of the estates so as to prevent an! creditor from receiving his full de t or diminish his dividend.F And the pra!er of this motion is indeed ver! revealing: FG7D1D5$1D, it is respectfull! pra!ed that, under 1ule +9, )ection + of the 1ules of Court, this honora le court approve the aforesaid deeds of sale and cancellations of mortgages.F &Pp. ..,-../, Appellee's 2rief.' #one of these assertions is denied in Petitioner's repl! rief. 5urther indicating lack of concrete perspective or orientation on the part of the respondent court and its hesitanc! to clear up matters promptl!, in its other appealed order of #ovem er ;,, .903, on pages ,,4-,,3 of the Jreen 1ecord on Appeal, said respondent court allowed the movant 1icardo )alas, President of appellee Gestern %nstitute of Technolog! &successor of Pana! Dducational %nstitutions, %nc.', one of the parties with whom 7odges had contracts that are in question in the appeals herein, to pa! petitioner, as Administrator of the estate of 7odges andCor respondent "agno, as Administrator of the estate of "rs. 7odges, thus: Considering that in oth cases there is as !et no judicial declaration of heirs nor distri ution of properties to whomsoever are entitled thereto, the Court elieves that pa!ment to oth the administrator of the testate estate of C. #. 7odges and the administratriB of the testate estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges or to either one of the two estates is proper and legal.

G7D1D5$1D, movant 1icardo T. )alas can pa! to oth estates or either of them. )$ $1<D1D<. &Pp. ,,4-,,3, Jreen 1ecord on Appeal.' $n the other hand, as stated earlier, there were instances when respondent "agno was given authorit! to act alone. 5or instance, in the other appealed order of <ecem er .9, .904, on page ;;. of the Jreen 1ecord on Appeal, the respondent court approved pa!ments made ! her of overtime pa! to some emplo!ees of the court who had helped in gathering and preparing copies of parts of the records in oth estates as follows: Considering that the eBpenses su ject of the motion to approve pa!ment of overtime pa! dated <ecem er .8, .904, are reasona le and are elieved ! this Court to e a proper charge of administration chargea le to the testate estate of the late Hinnie Jane 7odges, the said eBpenses are here ! APP1$KD< and to e charged against the testate estate of the late Hinnie Jane 7odges. The administrator of the testate estate of the late Charles #ewton 7odges is here ! ordered to countersign the check or checks necessar! to pa! the said overtime pa! as shown ! the ills marked AnneB FAF, F2F and FCF of the motion. )$ $1<D1D<. &Pp. ;;.-;;;, Jreen 1ecord on Appeal.' Hikewise, the respondent court approved deeds of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno alone, as AdministratriB of the estate of "rs. 7odges, covering properties in the name of 7odges, pursuant to Fcontracts to sellF eBecuted ! 7odges, irrespective of whether the! were eBecuted ! him efore or after the death of his wife. The orders of this nature which are also on appeal herein are the following: .. $rder of "arch ,8, .900, on p. .,/ of the Jreen 1ecord on Appeal, approving the deed of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno in favor of appellee Horen(o Carles on 5e ruar! ;4, .900, pursuant to a Fcontract to sellF signed ! 7odges on June ./, .93+, after the death of his wife, which contract petitioner claims was cancelled ! it for failure of Carles to pa! the installments due on Januar! /, .903. ;. $rder of April 3, .900, on pp. .,9-.48, id/, approving the deed of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno in favor of appellee )alvador Ju(man on 5e ruar! ;+, .900 pursuant to a Fcontract to sellF signed ! 7odges on )eptem er .,, .908, after the death of his wife, which contract petitioner claims it cancelled on "arch ,, .903 in view of failure of said appellee to pa! the installments on time. ,. $rder of April ;8, .900, on pp. .0/-.0+, id/, approving the deed of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno in favor of appellee Purificacion Coronado on "arch ;+, .900 pursuant to a Fcontract to sellF signed ! 7odges on August .4, .90., after the death of his wife. 4. $rder of April ;8, .900, on pp. .0+-.09, id/, approving the deed of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno in favor of appellee 5lorenia 2arrido on "arch ;+, .900, pursuant to a Fcontract to sellF signed ! 7odges on 5e ruar! ;., .93+, after the death of his wife. 3. $rder of June /, .900, on pp. .+4-.+3, id/, approving the deed of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno in favor of appellee 2elce(ar Causing on "a! ;, .900, pursuant to a Fcontract to sellF signed ! 7odges on 5e ruar! .8, .939, after the death of his wife. 0. $rder of June ;., .900, on pp. ;..-;.;, id/, approving the deed of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno in favor of appellee Artheo Thomas Jamir on June ,, .900, pursuant to a Fcontract to sellF signed ! 7odges on "a! ;0, .90., after the death of his wife. /. $rder of June ;., .900, on pp. ;.;-;.,, id/, approving the deed of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno in favor of appellees Jraciano Hucero and "elquiades 2atisanan on June 0 and June ,, .900, respectivel!, pursuant to

Fcontracts to sellF signed ! 7odges on June 9, .939 and #ovem er ;/, .90., respectivel!, after the death of his wife. +. $rder of <ecem er ;, .900, on pp. ,8,-,84, id/, approving the deed of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno in favor of appellees Dspiridion Partisala, Ginifredo Dspada and 1osario Alingasa on )eptem er 0, .900, August ./, .900 and August ,, .900, respectivel!, pursuant to Fcontracts to sellF signed ! 7odges on April ;8, .908, April .+, .908 and August ;3, .93+, respectivel!, that is, after the death of his wife. 9. $rder of April 3, .900, on pp. .,/-.,+, id/, approving the deed of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno in favor of appellee Alfredo Catedral on "arch ;, .900, pursuant to a Fcontract to sellF signed ! 7odges on "a! ;9, .934, efore the death of his wife, which contract petitioner claims it had cancelled on 5e ruar! .0, .900 for failure of appellee Catedral to pa! the installments due on time. .8. $rder of April 3, .900, on pp. .,+-.,9, id/, approving the deed of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno in favor of appellee Jose Pa lico on "arch /, .900, pursuant to a Fcontract to sellF signed ! 7odges on "arch /, .938, after the death of his wife, which contract petitioner claims it had cancelled on June ;9, .908, for failure of appellee Pa lico to pa! the installments due on time. ... $rder of <ecem er ;, .900, on pp. ,8,-,84, id/, insofar as it approved the deed of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno in favor of appellee Pepito %!ulores on )eptem er 0, .900, pursuant to a Fcontract to sellF signed ! 7odges on 5e ruar! 3, .93., efore the death of his wife. .;. $rder of Januar! ,, .90/, on pp. ,,3-,,0, id/, approving three deeds of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno, one in favor of appellees )antiago Pacaonsis and two in favor of appellee Adelfa Prema!lon on <ecem er 3, .900 and #ovem er ,, .900, respectivel!, pursuant to separate Fpromises to sellF signed respectivel! ! 7odges on "a! ;0, .933 and Januar! ,8, .934, efore the death of his wife, and $cto er ,., .939, after her death. %n like manner, there were also instances when respondent court approved deeds of sale eBecuted ! petitioner alone and without the concurrence of respondent "agno, and such approvals have not een the su ject of an! appeal. #o less than petitioner points this out on pages .49-.38 of its rief as appellant thus: The points of fact and law pertaining to the two a ovecited assignments of error have alread! een discussed previousl!. %n the first a ovecited error, the order alluded to was general, and as alread! eBplained efore, it was, as admitted ! the lower court itself, superseded ! the particular orders approving specific final deeds of sale eBecuted ! the appellee, Avelina A. "agno, which are su ject of this appeal, as well as the particular orders approving specific final deeds of sale eBecuted ! the appellant, Philippine Commercial and %ndustrial 2ank, which were never appealed ! the appellee, Avelina A. "agno, nor ! an! part! for that matter, and which are now therefore final. #ow, simultaneousl! with the foregoing incidents, others of more fundamental and all em racing significance developed. $n $cto er 3, .90,, over the signature of Att!. Allison J. Ji s in representation of the law firm of $(aeta, Ji s 6 $(aeta, as counsel for the co-administrators Joe 7odges and 5ernando P. "irasol, the following self-eBplanator! motion was filed: 5R+ENT OT"ON 4OR (N ($$O5NT"N+ (N# #E2"8ER9 TO (# "N"STR(T"ON O4 THE EST(TE O4 $/ N/ HO#+ES O4 (22 O4 THE (SSETS O4 THE $ON15+(2 *(RTNERSH"* O4 THE #E$E(SE# 2"NN"E 1(NE HO#+ES (N# $ N/ HO#+ES E6"ST"N+ (S O4 (9 :;! ,<=> *25S (22 THE RENTS! E O25 ENTS (N# "N$O E THERE4RO /
C$"D) #$G the co-administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges, Joe 7odges, through his undersigned attorne!s in the a ove-entitled proceedings, and to this 7onora le Court respectfull! alleges:

&.' $n "a! ;,, .93/ Hinnie Jane 7odges died in %loilo Cit!.

&;' $n June ;+, .93/ this 7onora le Court admitted to pro ate the Hast Gill and Testament of the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges eBecuted #ovem er ;;, .93; and appointed C. #. 7odges as DBecutor of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges &pp. ;4-;3, 1ec. )p. Proc. .,8/'. &,' $n Jul! ., .93/ this 7onora le Court issued Hetters Testamentar! to C. #. 7odges in the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges &p. ,8, 1ec. )p. Proc. .,8/'. &4' $n <ecem er .4, .93/ this 7onora le Court, on the asis of the following allegations in a "otion dated <ecem er .., .93/ filed ! Heon P. Jellada as attorne! for the eBecutor C. #. 7odges: FThat herein DBecutor, &is' not onl! part owner of the properties left as conjugal, ut also,the successor to all the properties left '& the deceased 2innie 1ane Hodges .F &p. 44, 1ec. )p. Proc. .,8/E emphasis supplied.' issued the following order: FAs pra!ed for ! Attorne! Jellada, counsel for the DBecutor!, for the reasons stated in his motion dated #ecem'er ,,! ,<=> .hich the court considers .ell ta%en , all the sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of all properties left ! the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges are here ! APP1$KD<. The said eBecutor is further authori(ed to eBecute su sequent sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of the properties left ! the said deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges in consonance .ith the .ishes contained in the last .ill and testament of the latter .F &p. 40, 1ec. )p. Proc. .,8/E emphasis supplied.' &3' $n April ;., .939 this 7onora le Court approved the inventor! and accounting su mitted ! C. #. 7odges through his counsel Heon P. Jellada on April .4, .939 wherein he alleged among other things FThat no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of eBamining the herein account, e given notice, as herein executor is the onl& devisee or legatee of the deceased! in accordance .ith the last .ill and testament alread& pro'ated '& the Honora'le $ourt.F &pp. //-/+, 1ec. )p. Proc. .,8/E emphasis supplied.'. &0' $n Jul! ,8, .908 this 7onora le Court approved the FAnnual )tatement of AccountF su mitted ! C. #. 7odges through his counsel Heon P. Jellada on Jul! ;., .908 wherein he alleged among other things: FThat no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of eBamining the herein account, e given notice as herein executor is the onl& devisee or legatee of the deceased 2innie 1ane Hodges, in accordance with the last will and testament of the deceased, alread! pro ated ! this 7onora le Court.F &pp. +.-+;. 1ec. )p. Proc. .,8/E emphasis supplied.' &/' $n "a! ;, .90. this 7onora le court approved the FAnnual )tatement of Account 2! The DBecutor for the =ear .908F su mitted through Heon P. Jellada on April ;8, .90. wherein he alleged: That no person interested in the Philippines e given notice, of the time and place of eBamining the herein account, as herein Executor is the onl& devisee or legatee of the deceased 2innie 1ane Hodges! in accordance .ith the last .ill and testament of the deceased! alread& pro'ated '& this Honora'le $ourt .

&pp. 98-9.. 1ec. )p. Proc. .,8/E emphasis supplied.' &+' $n <ecem er ;3, .90;, C.#. 7odges died. &9' $n <ecem er ;3, .90;, on the *rgent Ex)parte "otion of Heon P. Jellada filed onl! in )pecial Proceeding #o. .,8/, this 7onora le Court appointed Avelina A. "agno FAdministratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and as )pecial AdministratriB of the estate of Charles #ewton 7odges, in the latter case, ecause the last will of said Charles #ewton 7odges is still kept in his vault or iron safe and that the real and personal properties of oth spouses ma! e lost, damaged or go to waste, unless a )pecial AdministratriB is appointed.F &p. .88. 1ec. )p. Proc. .,8/' &.8' $n <ecem er ;0, .90; Hetters of Administration were issued to Avelina "agno pursuant to this 7onora le Court's aforesaid $rder of <ecem er ;3, .90; FGith full authorit! to take possession of all the propert! of said deceased in an! province or provinces in which it ma! e situated and to perform all other acts necessar! for the preservation of said propert!, said AdministratriB andCor )pecial AdministratriB having filed a ond satisfactor! to the Court.F &p. .8;, 1ec. )p. Proc. .,8/' &..' $n Januar! ;;, .90, this 7onora le Court on petition of Heon P. Jellada of Januar! ;., .90, issued Hetters of Administration to: &a' Avelina A. "agno as AdministratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesE & ' Avelina A. "agno as )pecial AdministratriB of the Dstate of Charles #ewton 7odgesE and &c' Joe 7odges as Co-)pecial Administrator of the Dstate of Charles #ewton 7odges. &p. 4,, 1ec. )p. Proc. .,8/' &.;' $n 5e ruar! ;8, .90, this 7onora le Court on the asis of a motion filed ! Heon P. Jellada as legal counsel on 5e ruar! .0, .90, for Avelina A. "agno acting as AdministratriB of the Dstate of Charles #ewton 7odges &pp. ..4-..0, )p. Proc. .,8/' issued the following order: F... se autori(a a aquella &Avelina A. "agno' a firmar escrituras de venta definitiva de propiedades cu iertas por contratos para vender, firmados, en vida, por el finado Charles #ewton 7odges, cada ve( que el precio estipulado en cada contrato este totalmente pagado. )e autori(a igualmente a la misma a firmar escrituras de cancelacion de hipoteca tanto de ienes reales como personales cada ve( que la consideracion de cada hipoteca este totalmente pagada. FCada una de dichas escrituras que se otorguen de e ser sometida para la apro acion de este Ju(gado.F &p. ../, )p. Proc. .,8/'. ?Par . &c', 1epl! to "otion 5or 1emoval of Joe 7odges@ &.,' $n )eptem er l0, .90, Heon P. Jellada, acting as attorne! for Avelina A. "agno as AdministratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, alleges:

,. I That since Januar!, .90,, oth estates of Hinnie Jane 7odges and Charles #ewton 7odges have een receiving in full, pa!ments for those Fcontracts to sellF entered into ! C. #. 7odges during his lifetime, and the purchasers have een demanding the eBecution of definite deeds of sale in their favor. 4. I That hereto attached are thirteen &.,' copies deeds of sale eBecuted ! the AdministratriB and ! the co-administrator &5ernando P. "irasol' of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and Charles #ewton 7odges respectivel!, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the respective Fcontracts to sellF eBecuted ! the parties thereto.F &.4' The properties involved in the aforesaid motion of )eptem er .0, .90, are all registered in the name of the deceased C. #. 7odges. &.3' Avelina A. "agno, it is alleged on information and elief, has een advertising in the newspaper in %loilo thusl!: 5or )ale Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and Charles #ewton 7odges. All 1eal Dstate or Personal Propert! will e sold on 5irst Come 5irst )erved 2asis. Avelina A. "agno AdministratriB &.0' Avelina A. "agno, it is alleged on information and elief, has paid and still is pa!ing sums of mone! to sundr! persons. &./' Joe 7odges through the undersigned attorne!s manifested during the hearings efore this 7onora le Court on )eptem er 3 and 0, .90, that the estate of C. #. 7odges was claiming all of the assets elonging to the deceased spouses Hinnie Jane 7odges and C. #. 7odges situated in Philippines ecause of the aforesaid election ! C. #. 7odges wherein he claimed and took possession as sole owner of all of said assets during the administration of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges on the ground that he was the sole devisee and legatee under her Hast Gill and Testament. &.+' Avelina A. "agno has su mitted no inventor! and accounting of her administration as AdministratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and )pecial AdministratriB of the estate of C. #. 7odges. 7owever, from manifestations made ! Avelina A. "agno and her legal counsel, Heon P. Jellada, there is no question she will claim that at least fift! per cent &38A' of the conjugal assets of the deceased spouses and the rents, emoluments and income therefrom elong to the 7igdon famil! who are named in paragraphs 5ourth and 5ifth of the Gill of Hinnie Jane 7odges &p. 3, 1ec. )p. Proc. .,8/'. G7D1D5$1D, premises considered, movant respectfull! pra!s that this 7onora le Court, after due hearing, order: &.' Avelina A. "agno to su mit an inventor! and accounting of all of the funds, properties and assets of an! character elonging to the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges and C. #. 7odges which have come into her possession, with full details of what she has done with themE &;' Avelina A. "agno to turn over and deliver to the Administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges all of the funds, properties and assets of an! character remaining in her possessionE &,' Pending this 7onora le Court's adjudication of the aforesaid issues, Avelina A. "agno to stop, unless she first secures the conformit! of Joe 7odges &or his dul! authori(ed representative, such as

the undersigned attorne!s' as the Co-administrator and attorne!-in-fact of a majorit! of the eneficiaries of the estate of C. #. 7odges: &a' Advertising the sale and the sale of the properties of the estates: & ' Dmplo!ing personnel and pa!ing them an! compensation. &4' )uch other relief as this 7onora le Court ma! deem just and equita le in the premises. &AnneB FTF, Petition.' Almost a !ear thereafter, or on )eptem er .4, .904, after the co-administrators Joe 7odges and 5ernando P. "irasol were replaced ! herein petitioner Philippine Commercial and %ndustrial 2ank as sole administrator, pursuant to an agreement of all the heirs of 7odges approved ! the court, and ecause the a ove motion of $cto er 3, .90, had not !et een heard due to the a sence from the countr! of Att!. Ji s, petitioner filed the following: (N"4EST(T"ON (N# OT"ON! "N$25#"N+ OT"ON TO SET 4OR HE(R"N+ (N# RESO28E ?5R+ENT OT"ON 4OR (N ($$O5NT"N+ (N# #E2"8ER9 TO (# "N"STR(TORS O4 THE EST(TE O4 $/ N/ HO#+ES O4 (22 THE (SSETS O4 THE $ON15+(2 *(RTNERSH"* O4 THE #E$E(SE# 2"NN"E 1(NE HO#+ES (N# $/ N/ HO#+ES E6"ST"N+ (S O4 (9 :;! ,<=> *25S (22 O4 THE RENTS! E O25 ENTS (N# "N$O E THERE4RO O4 O$TOBER =! ,<@;/
C$"D) #$G Philippine Commercial and %ndustrial 2ank &hereinafter referred to as PC%2', the administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges, deceased, in )pecial Proceedings #o. .0/;, through its undersigned counsel, and to this 7onora le Court respectfull! alleges that:

.. $n $cto er 3, .90,, Joe 7odges acting as the co-administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges filed, through the undersigned attorne!s, an F*rgent "otion 5or An Accounting and <eliver! To Administrator of the Dstate of C. #. 7odges of all $f The Assets $f The Conjugal Partnership of The <eceased Hinnie Jane 7odges and C. #. 7odges DBisting as $f "a!, ;,, .93/ Plus All $f The 1ents, Dmoluments and %ncome TherefromF &pp. 3,0-34;, C5% 1ec. ). P. #o. .0/;'. ;. $n Januar! ;4, .904 this 7onora le Court, on the asis of an amica le agreement entered into on Januar! ;,, .904 ! the two co-administrators of the estate of C. #. 7odges and virtuall! all of the heirs of C. #. 7odges &p. 9.;, C5% 1ec., ). P. #o. .0/;', resolved the dispute over who should act as administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges ! appointing the PC%2 as administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges &pp. 983-980, C5% 1ec. ). P. #o. .0/;' and issuing letters of administration to the PC%2. ,. $n Januar! ;4, .904 virtuall! all of the heirs of C. #. 7odges, Joe 7odges and 5ernando P. "irasol acting as the two co-administrators of the estate of C. #. 7odges, Avelina A. "agno acting as the administratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, and "essrs. Gilliam 2rown and Ardel =oung Acting for all of the 7igdon famil! who claim to e the sole eneficiaries of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and various legal counsel representing the aforenamed parties entered into an amica le agreement, which was approved ! this 7onora le Court, wherein the parties thereto agreed that certain sums of mone! were to e paid in settlement of different claims against the two estates and that the assets Ato the extent the& existedBof 'oth estates .ould 'e administrated Cointl& '& the *$"B as administrator of the estate of $/ N/ Hodges and (velina (/ agno as administratrix of the estate of 2innie 1ane Hodges, su ject, however, to the aforesaid $cto er 3, .90, "otion, namel!, the PC%2's claim to eBclusive possession and ownership of one-hundred percent &.88./,' &or, in the alternative, sevent!-five percent ?/3A@ of all assets owned ! C. #. 7odges or Hinnie Jane 7odges situated in the Philippines. $n 5e ruar! ., .904 &pp. 9,4-9,3, C5% 1ec., ). P. #o. .0/;' this 7onora le Court amended its order of Januar! ;4, .904 ut in no wa! changes its recognition of the aforedescri ed asic demand ! the PC%2 as administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges to one hundred percent &.88A' of the assets claimed ! oth estates.

4. $n 5e ruar! .3, .904 the PC%2 filed a F"otion to 1esolveF the aforesaid "otion of $cto er 3, .90,. This 7onora le Court set for hearing on June .., .904 the "otion of $cto er 3, .90,. 3. $n June .., .904, ecause the undersigned Allison J. Ji s was a sent in the *nited )tates, this 7onora le Court ordered the indefinite postponement of the hearing of the "otion of $cto er 3, .90,. 0. )ince its appointment as administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges the PC%2 has not een a le to properl! carr! out its duties and o ligations as administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges ecause of the following acts, among others, of Avelina A. "agno and those who claim to act for her as administratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges: &a' Avelina A. "agno illegall! acts as if she is in eBclusive control of all of the assets in the Philippines of oth estates including those claimed ! the estate of C. #. 7odges as evidenced in part ! her locking the premises at ;80-;8+ Juanco )treet, %loilo Cit! on August ,., .904 and refusing to reopen same until ordered to do so ! this 7onora le Court on )eptem er /, .904. & ' Avelina A. "agno illegall! acts as though she alone ma! decide how the assets of the estate of C.#. 7odges should e administered, who the PC%2 shall emplo! and how much the! ma! e paid as evidenced in part! ! her refusal to sign checks issued ! the PC%2 pa!a le to the undersigned counsel pursuant to their fee agreement approved ! this 7onora le Court in its order dated "arch ,., .904. &c' Avelina A. "agno illegall! gives access to and turns over possession of the records and assets of the estate of C.#. 7odges to the attorne!-in-fact of the 7igdon 5amil!, "r. James H. )ullivan, as evidenced in part ! the cashing of his personal checks. &d' Avelina A. "agno illegall! refuses to eBecute checks prepared ! the PC%2 drawn to pa! eBpenses of the estate of C. #. 7odges as evidenced in part ! the check drawn to reim urse the PC%2's advance of P4+,443.38 to pa! the .904 income taBes reported due and pa!a le ! the estate of C.#. 7odges. /. *nder and pursuant to the orders of this 7onora le Court, particularl! those of Januar! ;4 and 5e ruar! ., .904, and the mandate contained in its Hetters of Administration issued on Januar! ;4, .904 to the PC%2, it has Ffull authorit! to take possession of all the propert! of the deceased C. #. 7odges Fand to perform all other acts necessar! for the preservation of said propert!.F &p. 9.4, C5% 1ec., ).P. #o. .0/;.' +. As administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges, the PC%2 claims the right to the immediate eBclusive possession and control of all of the properties, accounts receiva les, court cases, ank accounts and other assets, including the documentar! records evidencing same, which eBisted in the Philippines on the date of C. #. 7odges' death, <ecem er ;3, .90;, and were in his possession and registered in his name alone. The PC%2 knows of no assets in the Philippines registered in the name of Hinnie Jane 7odges, the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, or, C. #. 7odges, DBecutor of the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges on <ecem er ;3, .90;. All of the assets of which the PC%2 has knowledge are either registered in the name of C. #. 7odges, alone or were derived therefrom since his death on <ecem er ;3, .90;. 9. The PC%2 as the current administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges, deceased, succeeded to all of the rights of the previousl! dul! appointed administrators of the estate of C. #. 7odges, to wit:

&a' $n <ecem er ;3, .90;, date of C. #. 7odges' death, this 7onora le Court appointed "iss Avelina A. "agno simultaneousl! as: &i' AdministratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges &p. .8;, C5% 1ec., ).P. #o. .,8/' to replace the deceased C. #. 7odges who on "a! ;+, .93/ was appointed )pecial Administrator &p. .,. C5% 1ec. ).P. #o. .,8/' and on Jul! ., .93/ DBecutor of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges &p. ,8, C5% 1ec., ). P. #o. .,8/'. &ii' Special (dministratrix of the estate of $/ N/ Hodges &p. .8;, C5% 1ec., ).P. #o. .,8/'. & ' $n <ecem er ;9, .90; this 7onora le Court appointed 7arold >. <avies as cospecial administrator of the estate of C.#. 7odges along with Avelina A. "agno &pp. .8+-..., C5% 1ec., ). P. #o. .,8/'. &c' $n Januar! ;;, .90,, with the conformit! of Avelina A. "agno, 7arold >. <avies resigned in favor of Joe 7odges &pp. ,3-,0, C5% 1ec., ).P. #o. .0/;' who thereupon was appointed on Januar! ;;, .90, ! this 7onora le Court as special coadministrator of the estate of C.#. 7odges &pp. ,+-48 6 4,, C5% 1ec. ).P. #o. .0/;' along with "iss "agno who at that time was still acting as special co-administratriB of the estate of C. #. 7odges. &d' $n 5e ruar! ;;, .90,, without o jection on the part of Avelina A. "agno, this 7onora le Court appointed Joe 7odges and 5ernando P. "irasol as coadministrators of the estate of C.#. 7odges &pp. /0-/+, +. 6 +3, C5% 1ec., ).P. #o. .0/;'. .8. "iss Avelina A. "agno, pursuant to the orders of this 7onora le Court of <ecem er ;3, .90;, took possession of all Philippine Assets now claimed ! the two estates. Hegall!, "iss "agno could take possession of the assets registered in the name of C. #. 7odges alone onl! in her capacit! as )pecial AdministratriB of the Dstate of C.#. 7odges. Gith the appointment ! this 7onora le Court on 5e ruar! ;;, .90, of Joe 7odges and 5ernando P. "irasol as the co-administrators of the estate of C.#. 7odges, the! legall! were entitled to take over from "iss "agno the full and eBclusive possession of all of the assets of the estate of C.#. 7odges. Gith the appointment on Januar! ;4, .904 of the PC%2 as the sole administrator of the estate of C.#. 7odges in su stitution of Joe 7odges and 5ernando P. "irasol, the PC%2 legall! ecame the onl! part! entitled to the sole and eBclusive possession of all of the assets of the estate of C. #. 7odges. ... The PC%2's predecessors su mitted their accounting and this 7onora le Court approved same, to wit: &a' The accounting of 7arold >. <avies dated Januar! .+, .90, &pp. .0-,,, C5% 1ec. ).P. #o. .0/;'E which shows or its face the: &i' Conformit! of Avelina A. "agno acting as FAdministratriB of the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and )pecial AdministratriB of the Dstate of C. #. 7odgesFE &ii' Conformit! of Heslie Dchols, a TeBas law!er acting for the heirs of C.#. 7odgesE and &iii' Conformit! of Gilliam 2rown, a TeBas law!er acting for the 7igdon famil! who claim to e the onl! heirs of Hinnie Jane 7odges &pp. .+, ;3-,,, C5% 1ec., ). P. #o. .0/;'. #ote: This accounting was approved ! this 7onora le Court on Januar! ;;, .90, &p. ,4, C5% 1ec., ). P. #o. .0/;'.

& ' The accounting of Joe 7odges and 5ernando P. "irasol as of Januar! ;,, .904, filed 5e ruar! ;4, .904 &pp. 998-.888, C5% 1ec. ).P. #o. .0/; and pp. .+80-.+4+, C5% 1ec. ).P. #o. .,8/'. #ote: This accounting was approved ! this 7onora le Court on "arch ,, .904. &c' The PC%2 and its undersigned law!ers are aware of no report or accounting su mitted ! Avelina A. "agno of her acts as administratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges or special administratriB of the estate of C.#. 7odges, unless it is the accounting of 7arold >. <avies as special co-administrator of the estate of C.#. 7odges dated Januar! .+, .90, to which "iss "agno manifested her conformit! &supra'. .;. %n the aforesaid agreement of Januar! ;4, .904, "iss Avelina A. "agno agreed to receive P.8,888.88 Ffor her services as administratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesF and in addition she agreed to e emplo!ed, starting 5e ruar! ., .904, at Fa monthl! salar! of P388.88 for her services as an emplo!ee of oth estates.F ;4 ems. .,. *nder the aforesaid agreement of Januar! ;4, .904 and the orders of this 7onora le Court of same date, the PC%2 as administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges is entitled to the eBclusive possession of all records, properties and assets in the name of C. #. 7odges as of the date of his death on <ecem er ;3, .90; which were in the possession of the deceased C. #. 7odges on that date and which then passed to the possession of "iss "agno in her capacit! as )pecial CoAdministratriB of the estate of C. #. 7odges or the possession of Joe 7odges or 5ernando P. "irasol as co-administrators of the estate of C. #. 7odges. .4. 2ecause of "iss "agno's refusal to compl! with the reasona le request of PC%2 concerning the assets of the estate of C. #. 7odges, the PC%2 dismissed "iss "agno as an emplo!ee of the estate of C. #. 7odges effective August ,., .904. $n )eptem er ., .904 "iss "agno locked the premises at ;80-;8+ Juanco )treet and denied the PC%2 access thereto. *pon the *rgent "otion of the PC%2 dated )eptem er ,, .904, this 7onora le Court on )eptem er /, .904 ordered "iss "agno to reopen the aforesaid premises at ;80-;8+ Juanco )treet and permit the PC%2 access thereto no later than )eptem er +, .904. .3. The PC%2 pursuant to the aforesaid orders of this 7onora le Court is again in ph!sical possession of all of the assets of the estate of C. #. 7odges. 7owever, the PC%2 is not in eBclusive control of the aforesaid records, properties and assets ecause "iss "agno continues to assert the claims hereina ove outlined in paragraph 0, continues to use her own locks to the doors of the aforesaid premises at ;80-;8+ Juanco )treet, %loilo Cit! and continues to den! the PC%2 its right to know the com inations to the doors of the vault and safes situated within the premises at ;80-;8+ Juanco )treet despite the fact that said com inations were known to onl! C. #. 7odges during his lifetime. .0. The Philippine estate and inheritance taBes assessed the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges were assessed and paid on the asis that C. #. 7odges is the sole eneficiar! of the assets of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges situated in the Philippines. Avelina A. "agno and her legal counsel at no time have questioned the validit! of the aforesaid assessment and the pa!ment of the corresponding Philippine death taBes. ./. #othing further remains to e done in the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges eBcept to resolve the aforesaid "otion of $cto er 3, .90, and grant the PC%2 the eBclusive possession and control of all of the records, properties and assets of the estate of C. #. 7odges.

.+. )uch assets as ma! have eBisted of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges were ordered ! this 7onora le Court in special Proceedings #o. .,8/ to e turned over and delivered to C. #. 7odges alone. 7e in fact took possession of them efore his death and asserted and eBercised the right of eBclusive ownership over the said assets as the sole eneficiar! of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. G7D1D5$1D, premises considered, the PC%2 respectfull! petitions that this 7onora le court: &.' )et the "otion of $cto er 3, .90, for hearing at the earliest possi le date with notice to all interested partiesE &;' $rder Avelina A. "agno to su mit an inventor! and accounting as AdministratriB of the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and Co-AdministratriB of the Dstate of C. #. 7odges of all of the funds, properties and assets of an! character elonging to the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges and C. #. 7odges which have come into her possession, with full details of what she has done with themE &,' $rder Avelina A. "agno to turn over and deliver to the PC%2 as administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges all of the funds, properties and assets of an! character remaining in her possessionE &4' Pending this 7onora le Court's adjudication of the aforesaid issues, order Avelina A. "agno and her representatives to stop interferring with the administration of the estate of C. #. 7odges ! the PC%2 and its dul! authori(ed representativesE &3' Dnjoin Avelina A. "agno from working in the premises at ;80-;8+ Juanco )treet, %loilo Cit! as an emplo!ee of the estate of C. #. 7odges and approve her dismissal as such ! the PC%2 effective August ,., .904E &0' Dnjoin James H. )ullivan, Attorne!s "anglapus and Puimpo and others allegedl! representing "iss "agno from entering the premises at ;80-;8+ Juanco )treet, %loilo Cit! or an! other properties of C. #. 7odges without the eBpress permission of the PC%2E &/' $rder such other relief as this 7onora le Court finds just and equita le in the premises. &AnneB F*F Petition.' $n Januar! +, .903, petitioner also filed a motion for F$fficial <eclaration of 7eirs of Hinnie Jane 7odges DstateF alleging: C$"D) #$G Philippine Commercial and %ndustrial 2ank &hereinafter referred to as PC%2', as administrator of the estate of the late C. #. 7odges, through the undersigned counsel, and to this 7onora le Court respectfull! alleges that: .. <uring their marriage, spouses Charles #ewton 7odges and Hinnie Jane 7odges, American citi(ens originall! from the )tate of TeBas, *.).A., acquired and accumulated considera le assets and properties in the Philippines and in the )tates of TeBas and $klahoma, *nited )tates of America. All said properties constituted their conjugal estate. ;. Although TeBas was the domicile of origin of the 7odges spouses, this 7onora le Court, in its orders dated "arch ,. and <ecem er .;, .904 &C5% 1ecord, )p. Proc. #o. .,8/, pp. ----E )p. Proc. #o. .0/;, p. ----', conclusivel! found and categoricall! ruled that said spouses had lived and worked for more than 38 !ears in %loilo Cit! and had, therefore, acquired a domicile of choice in said cit!, which the! retained until the time of their respective deaths. ,. $n #ovem er ;;, .93;, Hinnie Jane 7odges eBecuted in the Cit! of %loilo her Hast Gill and Testament, a cop! of which is hereto attached as (nnex ?(?. The equests in said will pertinent to the present issue are the second! third, and fourth provisions, which we quote in full hereunder.

)DC$#<: % give, devise and equeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m! estate, oth personal and real, wherever situated, or located, to m! hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, to have and to hold unto him, m! said hus and during his natural lifetime. T7%1<: % desire, direct and provide that m! hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, shall have the right to manage, control, use and enjo! said estate during his lifetime, and he is here ! given the right to make an! changes in the ph!sical properties of said estate ! sale of an! part thereof which he think est, and the purchase of an! other or additional propert! as he ma! think estE to eBecute conve!ances with or without general or special warrant!, conve!ing in fee simple or for an! other term or time, an! propert! which he ma! deem proper to dispose ofE to lease an! of the real propert! for oil, gas andCor other minerals, and all such deeds or leases shall pass the a solute fee simple title to the interest so conve!ed in such propert! as he ma! elect to sell. All rents, emoluments and income from said estate shall elong to him, and he is further authori(ed to use an! part of the principal of said estate as he ma! need or desire. %t is provided herein, however, that he shall not sell or otherwise dispose of an! of the improved propert! now owned ! us located at, in or near the Cit! of Hu ock, TeBas, ut he shall have the full right to lease, manage and enjo! the same during his lifetime, as a ove provided. 7e shall have the right to su -divide an! farmland and sell lots therein, and ma! sell unimproved town lots. 5$*1T7: At the death of m! said hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, % give, devise and equeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m! estate oth real and personal, wherever situated or located, to e equall! divided among m! rothers and sisters, share and share alike, namel!: FDsta 7igdon, Dmma 7owell, Heonard 7igdon, 1o! 7igdon, )adie 1ascoe, Dra 2oman and #imra! 7igdon.F 4. $n #ovem er .4, .93,, C. #. 7odges eBecuted in the Cit! of %loilo his Hast Gill and Testament, a cop! of which is hereto attached as (nnex ?B ?/ %n said Gill, C. #. 7odges designated his wife, Hinnie Jane 7odges, as his eneficiar! using the identical language she used in the second and third provisos of her Gill, supra. 3. $n "a! ;,, .93/ Hinnie Jane 7odges died in %loilo Cit!, predeceasing her hus and ! more than five &3' !ears. At the time of her death, she had no forced or compulsor! heir, eBcept her hus and, C. #. 7odges. )he was survived also ! various rothers and sisters mentioned in her Gill & supra', which, for convenience, we shall refer to as the 7%J<$#). 0. $n June ;+, .93/, this 7onora le Court admitted to pro ate the Hast Gill and Testament of the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges &AnneB FAF', and appointed C. #. 7odges as eBecutor of her estate without ond. &C5% 1ecord, )p. Proc. #o. .,8/, pp. ;4-;3'. $n Jul! ., .93/, this 7onora le Court issued letters testamentar! to C. #. 7odges in the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. &C5% 1ecord, )p. Proc. #o. .,8/, p. ,8.' /. The Gill of Hinnie Jane 7odges, with respect to the order of succession, the amount of successional rights, and the intrinsic of its testamentar! provisions, should e governed ! Philippine laws ecause: &a' The testatriB, Hinnie Jane 7odges, intended Philippine laws to govern her GillE & ' Article .0 of the Civil Code provides that Fthe national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever ma! e the nature of the propert! and regardless of the countr! wherein said propert! ma! e foundF, shall prevail. 7owever, the Conflict of Haw of TeBas, which is the Fnational lawF of the testatriB, Hinnie Jane 7odges, provide that the domiciliar! law &Philippine law I see paragraph ;, supra' should govern the testamentar! dispositions and successional

rights over mova les &personal properties', and the law of the situs of the propert! &also Philippine law as to properties located in the Philippines' with regards immova le &real properties'. Thus appl!ing the F1envoi <octrineF, as approved and applied ! our )upreme Court in the case of F%n The "atter $f The Testate Dstate of Dduard D. ChristensenF, J.1. #o. H-.0/49, promulgated Januar! ,., .90,, Philippine law should appl! to the Gill of Hinnie Jane 7odges and to the successional rights to her estate insofar as her mova'le andimmova'le assets in the Philippines are concerned. Ge shall not, at this stage, discuss what law should govern the assets of Hinnie Jane 7odges located in $klahoma and TeBas, ecause the onl! assets in issue in this motion are those within the jurisdiction of this motion Court in the two a ove-captioned )pecial Proceedings. +. *nder Philippine and TeBas law, the conjugal or communit! estate of spouses shall, upon dissolution, e divided equall! etween them. Thus, upon the death of Hinnie Jane 7odges on "a! ;,, .93/, one-half &.C;' of the entiret! of the assets of the 7odges spouses constituting their conjugal estate pertained automaticall! to Charles #ewton 7odges, not '& .a& of inheritance! 'ut in his o.n right as partner in the conCugal partnership. The other one-half &.C;' portion of the conjugal estate constituted the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. This is the onl& portion of the conCugal estate capa'le of inheritance '& her heirs. 9. This one-half &.C;' portion of the conjugal assets pertaining to Hinnie Jane 7odges cannot, under a clear and specific provision of her Gill, e enhanced or increased ! income, earnings, rents, or emoluments accruing after her death on "a! ;,, .93/. Hinnie Jane 7odges' Gill provides that F all rents! emoluments and income from said estate shall 'elong to him A$/ N/ HodgesB and he is further authorized to use an& part of the principal of said estate as he ma& need or desire .F &Paragraph ,, AnneB FAF.' Thus, ! specific provision of Hinnie Jane 7odges' Gill, Fall rents, emoluments and incomeF must e credited to the one-half &.C;' portion of the conjugal estate pertaining to C. #. 7odges. $learl&! therefore! the estate of 2innie 1ane Hodges! capa'le of inheritance '& her heirs! consisted exclusivel& of no more than one)half A,D:B of the conCugal estate! computed as of the time of her death on a& :;! ,<=>. .8. Articles 988, 993 and .88. of the #ew Civil Code provide that the surviving spouse of a deceased leaving no ascendants or descendants is entitled, as a matter of right and ! wa! of irrevoca le legitime, to at least one-half &.C;' of the estate of the deceased, and no testamentar! disposition ! the deceased can legall! and validl! affect this right of the surviving spouse. %n fact, her hus and is entitled to said one-half &.C;' portion of her estate ! wa! of legitime. &Article ++0, Civil Code.' Clearl!, therefore, immediatel! upon the death of Hinnie Jane 7odges, C. #. 7odges was the owner of at least three-fourths &,C4' or sevent!-five &/3A' percent of all of the conjugal assets of the spouses, &.C; or 38A ! wa! of conjugal partnership share and .C4 or ;3A ! wa! of inheritance and legitime' plus all Frents, emoluments and incomeF accruing to said conjugal estate from the moment of Hinnie Jane 7odges' death &see paragraph 9, supra'. ... The late Hinnie Jane 7odges designated her hus and C.#. 7odges as her sole and eBclusive heir with full authorit! to do what he pleased, as eBclusive heir and owner of all the assets constituting her estate, eBcept onl! with regards certain properties Fowned ! us, located at, in or near the Cit! of Hu ock, TeBasF. Thus, even without rel!ing on our laws of succession and legitime, which we have cited a ove! $/ N/ Hodges! '& specific testamentar& designation of his .ife! .as entitled to the entirel& to his .ifeEs estate in the *hilippines . .;. Article /// of the #ew Civil Code provides that Fthe rights of the successor are transmitted from the death of the decedentF. Thus, title to the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges was transmitted to C. #. 7odges immediatel! upon her death on "a! ;,, .93/. 5or the convenience of this 7onora le Court, we attached hereto as AnneB FCF a graph of how the conjugal estate of the spouses 7odges should e divided in accordance with Philippine law and the Gill of Hinnie Jane 7odges. .,. %n his capacit! as sole heir and successor to the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges as a ove-stated, C. #. 7odges, shortl! after the death of Hinnie Jane 7odges, appropriated to himself the entiret! of

her estate. 7e operated all the assets, engaged in usiness and performed all acts in connection with the entiret! of the conjugal estate, in his o.n name alone, just as he had een operating, engaging and doing while the late Hinnie Jane 7odges was still alive. 5pon his death on #ecem'er :=! ,<@:! therefore! all said conCugal assets .ere in his sole possession and control! and registered in his name alone! not as executor! 'ut as exclusive o.ner of all said assets . .4. All these acts of C. #. 7odges were authori(ed and sanctioned eBpressl! and impliedl! ! various orders of this 7onora le Court, as follows: &a' %n an $rder dated "a! ;/, .93/, this 7onora le Court ruled that C. #. 7odges Fis allowed or authori(ed to continue the usiness in which he was engaged, and to perform acts which he had een doing while the deceased was living.F &C5% 1ecord, )p. Proc. #o. .,8/, p. ...' & ' $n <ecem er .4, .93/, this 7onora le Court, on the asis of the following fact, alleged in the verified "otion dated <ecem er .., .93/ filed ! Heon P. Jellada as attorne! for the eBecutor C. #. 7odges: That herein DBecutor, &is' not onl! part owner of the properties left as conjugal, ut also, the successor to all the properties left ! the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges.' &C5% 1ecord, )p. Proc. #o. .,8/, p. 44E emphasis supplied.' issued the following order: FAs pra!ed for ! Attorne! Jellada, counsel for the DBecutor, for the reasons stated in his motion dated #ecem'er ,,! ,<=>! .hich the $ourt considers .ell ta%en , all the sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of all the properties left ! the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges eBecuted ! the DBecutor, Charles #ewton 7odges are here ! APP1$KD<. The said DBecutor is further authori(ed to eBecute su sequent sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of the properties left ! the said deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges in consonance .ith the .ishes contained in the last .ill and testament of the latter.F &C5% 1ecord. )p. Proc. #o. .,8/, p. 40E emphasis supplied.' ;4 ems &c' $n April ;., .939, this 7onora le Court approved the verified inventor! and accounting su mitted ! C. #. 7odges through his counsel Heon P. Jellada on April .4, .939 wherein he alleged among other things, FThat no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of eBamining the herein account, e given notice, as herein executor is the onl& devisee or legatee of the deceased! in accordance .ith the last .ill and testament alread& pro'ated '& the Honora'le $ourt.F &C5% 1ecord, )p. Proc. #o. .,8/, pp. //-/+E emphasis supplied.' &d' $n Jul! ;8, .908, this 7onora le Court approved the verified FAnnual )tatement of AccountF su mitted ! C. #. 7odges through his counsel Heon P. Jellada on Jul! ;., .908 wherein he alleged, among other things. FThat no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of eBamining the herein account, e given notice as herein executor is the onl& devisee or legatee of the deceased 2innie 1ane Hodges, in accordance with the last will and testament ofthe deceased, alread! pro ated ! this 7onora le Court.F &C5% 1ecord, )p. Proc. #o. .,8/, pp. +.-+;E emphasis supplied.' &e' $n "a! ;, .90., this 7onora le Court approved the verified FAnnual )tatement of Account 2! The DBecutor 5or the =ear .908F su mitted through Heon P. Jellada on April ;8, .90. wherein he alleged:

FThat no person interested in the Philippines e given notice, ofthe time and place of eBamining the herein account, as herein executor is the onl& devisee or legatee of the deceased 2innie 1ane Hodges! in accordance .ith the last .ill and testament ofthe deceased! alread& pro'ated '& this Honora'le $ourt.F &C5% 1ecord, )p. Proc. #o. .,8/, pp. 98-9.E emphasis supplied.' .3. )ince C. #. 7odges was the sole and eBclusive heir of Hinnie Jane 7odges, not onl! ! law, ut in accordance with the dispositions of her will, there was, in fact, no need to liquidate the conjugal estate of the spouses. The entirel! of said conjugal estate pertained to him eBclusivel!, therefore this 7onora le Court sanctioned and authori(ed, as a ove-stated, C. #. 7odges to manage, operate and control all the conjugal assets as owner. .0. 2! eBpressl! authori(ing C. #. 7odges to act as he did in connection with the estate of his wife, this 7onora le Court has &.' declared C. #. 7odges as the sole heir of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, and &;' delivered and distri uted her estate to C. #. 7odges as sole heir in accordance with the terms and conditions of her Gill. Thus, although the Festate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesF still eBists as a legal and juridical personalit!, it had no assets or properties located in the Philippines registered in its name whatsoever at the time of the death of C. #. 7odges on <ecem er ;3, .90;. ./. The Gill of Hinnie Jane 7odges &AnneB FAF', fourth paragraph, provides as follows: FAt the death of m! said hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, % give, devise and equeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m! estate oth real and personal, wherever situated or located, to e equall! divided among m! rothers and sisters, share and share alike, namel!: FDsta 7igdon, Dmma 7owell, Heonard 7igdon, 1o! 7igdon, )adie 1ascoe, Dra 2oman and #imra! 7igdon.F 2ecause of the facts hereina ove set out there is no Frest, residue and remainderF, at least to the eBtent of the Philippine assets, which remains to vest in the 7%J<$#), assuming this proviso in Hinnie Jane 7odges' Gill is valid and inding against the estate of C. #. 7odges. .+. An! claims ! the 7%J<$#) under the a ove-quoted provision of Hinnie Jane 7odges' Gill is without merit ecause said provision is void and invalid at least as to the Philippine assets. %t should not, in an!wa!, affect the rights of the estate of C. #. 7odges or his heirs to the properties, which C. #. 7odges acquired ! wa! of inheritance from his wife Hinnie Jane 7odges upon her death. &a' %n spite of the a ove-mentioned provision in the Gill of Hinnie Jane 7odges, C. #. 7odges acquired, not merel! a usufructuar! right, ut a solute title and ownership to her estate. %n a recent case involving a ver! similar testamentar! provision, the )upreme Court held that the heir first designated acquired full ownership of the propert! equeathed ! the will, not mere usufructuar! rights. &Consolacion 5lorentino de Crisologo, et al., vs. "anuel )ingson, J. 1. #o. H-.,+/0, 5e ruar! ;+, .90;.' & ' Article +04, +/; and ++0 of the #ew Civil Code clearl! provide that no charge, condition or su stitution whatsoever upon the legitime can e imposed ! a testator. Thus, under the provisions of Articles 988, 993 and .88. of the #ew Civil Code, the legitime of a surviving spouse is .C; of the estate of the deceased spouse. Consequentl!, the a ove-mentioned provision in the Gill of Hinnie Jane 7odges is clearl! invalid insofar as the legitime of C. #. 7odges was concerned, which consisted of .C; of the .C; portion of the conjugal estate, or .C4 of the entire conjugal estate of the deceased. &c' There are generall! onl! two kinds of su stitution provided for and authori(ed ! our Civil Code &Articles +3/-+/8', namel!, &.' simple or common su stitution, sometimes referred to as vulgar su stitution &Article +39', and &;' fideicommissar!

su stitution &Article +0,'. All other su stitutions are merel! variations of these. The su stitution provided for ! paragraph four of the Gill of Hinnie Jane 7odges is not fideicommissar! su stitution, ecause there is clearl! no o ligation on the part of C. #. 7odges as the first heir designated, to preserve the properties for the su stitute heirs. &Consolacion 5lorentino de Crisologo et al. vs. "anuel )ingson, J. 1. #o. H-.,+/0.' At most, it is a vulgar or simple su stitution. 7owever, in order that a vulgar orsimple su stitution can e valid, three alternative conditions must e present, namel!, that the first designated heir &.' should die efore the testatorE or &;' should not wish to accept the inheritanceE or &,' should e incapacitated to do so. #one of these conditions appl! to C. #. 7odges, and, therefore, the su stitution provided for ! the a ove-quoted provision of the Gill is not authori(ed ! the Code, and, therefore, it is void. "anresa, commenting on these kisses of su stitution, meaningfull! stated that: F... cuando el testador institu!eun primer heredero, ! por fallecimiento de este nom ra otro u otros, ha de entenderse que estas segundas designaciones solo han de llegar a tener efectividad en el caso de que el primer instituido muera antes que el testador, fuera o no esta su verdadera intencion. ...F. &0 "anresa, / a ed., pag. ./3.' %n other words, .hen another heir is designated to inherit upon the death of a first heir! the second designation can have effect onl& in case the first instituted heir dies 'efore the testator! .hether or not that .as the true intention of said testator. )ince C. #. 7odges did not die efore Hinnie Jane 7odges, the provision for su stitution contained in Hinnie Jane 7odges' Gillis void. &d' %n view of the invalidit! of the provision for su stitution in the Gill, C. #. 7odges' inheritance to the entiret! of the Hinnie Jane 7odges estate is irrevoca le and final. .9. 2e that as it ma!, at the time of C. #. 7odges' death, the entiret! of the conjugal estate appeared and was registered in him eBclusivel! as owner. Thus, the presumption is that all said assets constituted his estate. Therefore I &a' %f the 7%J<$#) wish to enforce their du ious rights as su stituted heirs to .C4 of the conjugal estate &the other .C4 is covered ! the legitime of C. #. 7odges which can not e affected ! an! testamentar! disposition', their remed!, if an!, is to file their claim against the estate of C. #. 7odges, which should e entitled at the present time to full custod! and control of all the conjugal estate of the spouses. & ' The present proceedings, in which two estates eBist under separate administration, where the administratriB of the Hinnie Jane 7odges estate eBercises an officious right to o ject and intervene in matters affecting eBclusivel! the C. #. 7odges estate, is anomalous. G7D1D5$1D, it is most respectfull! pra!ed that after trial and reception of evidence, this 7onora le Court declare: .. That the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges was and is composed eBclusivel! of one-half &.C;' share in the conjugal estate of the spouses 7odges, computed as of the date of her death on "a! ;,, .93/E ;. That the other half of the conjugal estate pertained eBclusivel! to C. #. 7odges as his share as partner in the conjugal partnershipE ,. That all Frents, emoluments and incomeF of the conjugal estate accruing after Hinnie Jane 7odges' death pertains to C. #. 7odgesE 4. That C. #. 7odges was the sole and eBclusive heir of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesE 3. That, therefore, the entire conjugal estate of the spouses located in the Philippines, plus all the Frents, emoluments and incomeF a ove-mentioned, now constitutes the estate of C. #. 7odges, capa le of distri ution to his heirs upon termination of )pecial Proceedings #o. .0/;E

0. That PC%2, as administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges, is entitled to full and eBclusive custod!, control and management of all said propertiesE and /. That Avelina A. "agno, as administratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, as well as the 7%J<$#), has no right to intervene or participate in the administration of the C. #. 7odges estate. PC%2 further pra!s for such and other relief as ma! e deemed just and equita le in the premises.F &1ecord, pp. ;03-;//' 2efore all of these motions of petitioner could e resolved, however, on <ecem er ;., .903, private respondent "agno filed her own F"otion for the $fficial <eclaration of 7eirs of the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesF as follows: C$"D) #$G the AdministratriB of the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and, through undersigned counsel, unto this 7onora le Court most respectfull! states and manifests: .. That the spouses Charles #ewton 7odges and Hinnie Jane 7odges were American citi(ens who died at the Cit! of %loilo after having amassed and accumulated eBtensive properties in the PhilippinesE ;. That on #ovem er ;;, .93;, Hinnie Jane 7odges eBecuted a last will and testament &the original of this will now forms part of the records of these proceedings as DBhi it FCF and appears as )p. Proc. #o. .,8/, 5olio %, pp. ./-.+'E ,. That on "a! ;,, .93/, Hinnie Jane 7odges died at the Cit! of %loilo at the time survived ! her hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, and several relatives named in her last will and testamentE 4. That on June ;+, .93/, a petition therefor having een priorl! filed and dul! heard, this 7onora le Court issued an order admitting to pro ate the last will and testament of Hinnie Jane 7odges &)p. Proc. #o. .,8/, 5olio %, pp. ;4-;3, ;0-;+'E 3. That the required notice to creditors and to all others who ma! have an! claims against the decedent, Hinnie Jane 7odges has alread! een printed, pu lished and posted &)p. Proc. #o. .,8/, 5olio %. pp. ,4-48' and the reglamentar! period for filing such claims has long ago lapsed and eBpired without an! claims having een asserted against the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, approved ! the AdministratorCAdministratriB of the said estate, nor ratified ! this 7onora le CourtE 0. That the last will and testament of Hinnie Jane 7odges alread! admitted to pro ate contains an institution of heirs in the following words: F)DC$#<: % give, devise and equeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m! estate, oth personal and real, wherever situated or located, to m! eloved hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges to have and to hold unto him, m! said hus and, during his natural lifetime. T7%1<: % desire, direct and provide that m! hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, shall have the right to manage, control, use and enjo! said estate during his lifetime, and, he is here ! given the right to make an! changes in the ph!sical properties of said estate, ! sale of an! part thereof which he ma! think est, and the purchase of an! other or additional propert! as he ma! think estE to eBecute conve!ances with or without general or special warrant!, conve!ing in fee simple or for an! other term or time, an! propert! which he ma! deem proper to dispose ofE to lease an! of the real propert! for oil, gas andCor other minerals, and all such deeds or leases shall pass the a solute fee simple title to the interest so conve!ed in such propert! as he elect to sell. All rents, emoluments and income from said estate shall elong to him, and he is further authori(ed to use an! part of the principal of said estate as he ma! need or desire. %t is provided herein, however, that he shall not sell or otherwise dispose of

an! of the improved propert! now owned ! us located at, in or near the Cit! of Hu ock TeBas, ut he shall have the full right to lease, manage and enjo! the same during his lifetime, a ove provided. 7e shall have the right to su divide an! farm land and sell lots therein, and ma! sell unimproved town lots. 5$*1T7: At the death of m! said hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, % give, devise and equeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of m! estate, oth real and personal, wherever situated or located, to e equall! divided among m! rothers and sisters, share and share alike, namel!: Dsta 7igdon, Dmma 7owell, Heonard 7igdon, 1o! 7igdon, )adie 1ascoe, Dra 2oman and #imro! 7igdon. 5%5T7: %n case of the death of an! of m! rothers andCor sisters named in item 5ourth, a ove, prior to the death of m! hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, then it is m! will and equest that the heirs of such deceased rother or sister shall take jointl! the share which would have gone to such rother or sister had she or he survived.F /. That under the provisions of the last will and testament alread! a ove-quoted, Hinnie Jane 7odges gave a life-estate or a usufruct over all her estate to her hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, and a vested remainder-estate or the naked title over the same estate to her relatives named thereinE +. That after the death of Hinnie Jane 7odges and after the admission to pro ate of her last will and testament, ut during the lifetime of Charles #ewton 7odges, the said Charles #ewton 7odges with full and complete knowledge of the life-estate or usufruct conferred upon him ! the will since he was then acting as Administrator of the estate and later as DBecutor of the will of Hinnie Jane 7odges, unequivoca l! and clearl! through oral and written declarations and sworn pu lic statements, renounced, disclaimed and repudiated his life-estate and usufruct over the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesE 9. That, accordingl!, the onl! heirs left to receive the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges pursuant to her last will and testament, are her named rothers and sisters, or their heirs, to wit: Dsta 7igdon, Dmma 7owell, Heonard 7igdon, Aline 7igdon and <avid 7igdon, the latter two eing the wife and son respectivel! of the deceased 1o! 7igdon, )adie 1ascoe Dra 2oman and #imro! 7igdon, all of legal ages, American citi(ens, with residence at the )tate of TeBas, *nited )tates of AmericaE .8. That at the time of the death of Hinnie Jane 7odges on "a! ;,, .93/, she was the co-owner &together with her hus and Charles #ewton 7odges' of an undivided one-half interest in their conjugal properties eBisting as of that date, "a! ;,, .93/, which properties are now eing administered sometimes jointl! and sometimes separatel! ! the AdministratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges andCor the Administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges ut all of which are under the control and supervision of this 7onora le CourtE ... That ecause there was no separation or segregation of the interests of hus and and wife in the com ined conjugal estate, as there has een no such separation or segregation up to the present, oth interests have continuall! earned eBactl! the same amount of Frents, emoluments and incomeF, the entire estate having een continuall! devoted to the usiness of the spouses as if the! were aliveE .;. That the one-half interest of Hinnie Jane 7odges in the com ined conjugal estate was earning Frents, emoluments and incomeF until her death on "a! ;,, .93/, when it ceased to e saddled with an! more charges or eBpenditures which are purel! personal to her in nature, and her estate kept on earning such Frents, emoluments and incomeF ! virtue of their having een eBpressl! renounced, disclaimed and repudiated ! Charles #ewton 7odges to whom the! were equeathed for life under the last will and testament of Hinnie Jane 7odgesE

.,. That, on the other hand, the one-half interest of Charles #ewton 7odges in the com ined conjugal estate eBisting as of "a! ;,, .93/, while it ma! have earned eBactl! the same amount of Frents, emoluments and incomeF as that of the share pertaining to Hinnie Jane 7odges, continued to e urdened ! charges, eBpenditures, and other dispositions which are purel! personal to him in nature, until the death of Charles #ewton 7odges himself on <ecem er ;3, .90;E .4. That of all the assets of the com ined conjugal estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and Charles #ewton 7odges as the! eBist toda!, the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges is clearl! entitled to a portion more than fift! percent &38A' as compared to the portion to which the estate of Charles #ewton 7odges ma! e entitled, which portions can e eBactl! determined ! the following manner: a. An inventor! must e made of the assets of the com ined conjugal estate as the! eBisted on the death of Hinnie Jane 7odges on "a! ;,, .93/ I one-half of these assets elong to the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesE . An accounting must e made of the Frents, emoluments and incomeF of all these assets I again one-half of these elong to the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesE c. Adjustments must e made, after making a deduction of charges, dis ursements and other dispositions made ! Charles #ewton 7odges personall! and for his own personal account from "a! ;,, .93/ up to <ecem er ;3, .90;, as well as other charges, dis ursements and other dispositions made for him and in his ehalf since <ecem er ;3, .90; up to the presentE .3. That there remains no other matter for disposition now insofar as the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges is concerned ut to complete the liquidation of her estate, segregate them from the conjugal estate, and distri ute them to her heirs pursuant to her last will and testament. G7D1D5$1D, premises considered, it is most respectfull! moved and pra!ed that this 7onora le Court, after a hearing on the factual matters raised ! this motion, issue an order: a. <eclaring the following persons, to wit: Dsta 7igdon, Dmma 7owell, Heonard 7igdon, Aline 7igdon, <avid 7igdon, )adie 1ascoe, Dra 2oman and #imro! 7igdon, as the sole heirs under the last will and testament of Hinnie Jane 7odges and as the onl! persons entitled to her estateE . <etermining the eBact value of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges in accordance with the s!stem enunciated in paragraph .4 of this motionE c. After such determination ordering its segregation from the com ined conjugal estate and its deliver! to the AdministratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges for distri ution to the heirs to whom the! properl! elong and appertain. &Jreen 1ecord on Appeal, pp. ,+;-,9.' whereupon, instead of further pressing on its motion of Januar! +, .903 aforequoted, as it had een doing efore, petitioner withdrew the said motion and in addition to opposing the a ove motion of respondent "agno, filed a motion on April ;;, .900 alleging in part that: .. That it has received from the counsel for the administratriB of the supposed estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges a notice to set her F"otion for $fficial <eclaration of 7eirs of the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesFE ;. That efore the aforesaid motion could e heard, there are matters pending efore this 7onora le Court, such as: a. The eBamination alread! ordered ! this 7onora le Court of documents relating to the allegation of Avelina "agno that Charles #ewton 7odges Fthrough ... written

declarations and sworn pu lic statements, renounced, disclaimed and repudiated life-estate and usufruct over the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges'E . That F*rgent "otion for An Accounting and <eliver! to the Dstate of C. #. 7odges of All the Assets of the Conjugal Partnership of the <eceased Hinnie Jane 7odges and C. #. 7odges DBisting as of "a! ;,, .93/ Plus All the 1ents, Dmoluments and %ncome TherefromFE c. Karious motions to resolve the aforesaid motionE d. "anifestation of )eptem er .4, .904, detailing acts of interference of Avelina "agno under color of title as administratriB of the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesE which are all prejudicial, and which involve no issues of fact, all facts involved therein eing matters of record, and therefore require onl! the resolution of questions of lawE ,. That whatever claims an! alleged heirs or other persons ma! have could e ver! easil! threshed out in the Testate Dstate of Charles #ewton 7odgesE 4. That the maintenance of two separate estate proceedings and two administrators onl! results in confusion and is undul! urdensome upon the Testate Dstate of Charles #ewton 7odges, particularl! ecause the ond filed ! Avelina "agno is grossl! insufficient to answer for the funds and propert! which she has inofficiousl! collected and held, as well as those which she continues to inofficiousl! collect and holdE 3. That it is a matter of record that such state of affairs affects and inconveniences not onl! the estate ut also third-parties dealing with itEF &AnneB FKF, Petition.' and then, after further reminding the court, ! quoting them, of the relevant allegations of its earlier motion of )eptem er .4, .904, AnneB *, pra!ed that: .. %mmediatel! order Avelina "agno to account for and deliver to the administrator of the Dstate of C. #. 7odges all the assets of the conjugal partnership of the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges and C. #. 7odges, plus all the rents, emoluments and income therefromE ;. Pending the consideration of this motion, immediatel! order Avelina "agno to turn over all her collections to the administrator Philippine Commercial 6 %ndustrial 2ankE ,. <eclare the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges &)p. Proc. #o. .,8/' closedE 4. <efer the hearing and consideration of the motion for declaration of heirs in the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges until the matters hereina ove set forth are resolved. &Pra!er, AnneB FKF of Petition.' $n $cto er .;, .900, as alread! indicated at the outset of this opinion, the respondent court denied the foregoing motion, holding thus: $1<D1 $n record is a motion &Kol. O, )p. .0/;, pp. 4,/9-4,98' dated April ;;, .900 of administrator PC%2 pra!ing that &.' %mmediatel! order Avelina "agno to account for and deliver to the administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges all assets of the conjugal partnership of the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges and C. #. 7odges, plus all the rents, emoluments and income therefromE &;' Pending the consideration of this motion, immediatel! order Avelina "agno to turn over all her collections to the administrator PC%2E &,' <eclare the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges &)p. Proc. #o. .,8/' closedE and &4' <efer the hearing and consideration of the motion for declaration of heirs in the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges until the matters hereina ove set forth are resolved.

This motion is predicated on the fact that there are matters pending efore this court such as &a' the eBamination alread! ordered ! this 7onora le Court of documents relating to the allegation of Avelina "agno that Charles #ewton 7odges thru written declaration and sworn pu lic statements renounced, disclaimed and repudiated his life-estate and usufruct over the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges & ' the urgent motion for accounting and deliver! to the estate of C. #. 7odges of all the assets of the conjugal partnership of the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges and C. #. 7odges eBisting as of "a! ;,, .93/ plus all the rents, emoluments and income therefromE &c' various motions to resolve the aforesaid motionE and &d' manifestation of )eptem er .4, .904, detailing acts of interference of Avelina "agno under color of title as administratriB of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. These matters, according to the instant motion, are all pre-judicial involving no issues of facts and onl! require the resolution of question of lawE that in the motion of $cto er 3, .90, it is alleged that in a motion dated <ecem er .., .93/ filed ! Att!. Heon Jellada as attorne! for the eBecutor C. #. 7odges, the said eBecutor C. #. 7odges is not onl! part owner of the properties left as conjugal ut also the successor to all the properties left ! the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges. )aid motion of <ecem er .., .93/ was approved ! the Court in consonance with the wishes contained in the last will and testament of Hinnie Jane 7odges. That on April ;., .939 this Court approved the inventor! and accounting su mitted ! C. #. 7odges thru counsel Att!. Heon Jellada in a motion filed on April .4, .939 stating therein that eBecutor C. #. 7odges is the onl! devisee or legatee of Hinnie Jane 7odges in accordance with the last will and testament alread! pro ated ! the Court. That on Jul! .,, .908 the Court approved the annual statement of accounts su mitted ! the eBecutor C. #. 7odges thru his counsel Att!. Jellada on Jul! ;., .908 wherein it is stated that the eBecutor, C. #. 7odges is the onl! devisee or legatee of the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odgesE that on "a! ;, .90. the Court approved the annual statement of accounts su mitted ! eBecutor, C. #. 7odges for the !ear .908 which was su mitted ! Att!. Jellada on April ;8, .90. wherein it is stated that eBecutor 7odges is the onl! devisee or legatee of the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odgesE That during the hearing on )eptem er 3 and 0, .90, the estate of C. #. 7odges claimed all the assets elonging to the deceased spouses Hinnie Jane 7odges and C. #. 7odges situated in the PhilippinesE that administratriB "agno has eBecuted illegal acts to the prejudice of the testate estate of C. #. 7odges. An opposition &)p. .0/;, Kol. O, pp. 44.3-44;.' dated April ;/, .900 of administratriB "agno has een filed asking that the motion e denied for lack of merit and that the motion for the official declaration of heirs of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges e set for presentation and reception of evidence. %t is alleged in the aforesaid opposition that the eBamination of documents which are in the possession of administratriB "agno can e made prior to the hearing of the motion for the official declaration of heirs of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, during said hearing. That the matters raised in the PC%2's motion of $cto er 3, .90, &as well as the other motion' dated )eptem er .4, .904 have een consolidated for the purpose of presentation and reception of evidence with the hearing on the determination of the heirs of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. %t is further alleged in the opposition that the motion for the official declaration of heirs of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges is the one that constitutes a prejudicial question to the motions dated $cto er 3 and )eptem er .4, .904 ecause if said motion is found meritorious and granted ! the Court, the PC%2's motions of $cto er 3, .90, and )eptem er .4, .904 will ecome moot and academic since the! are premised on the assumption and claim that the onl! heir of Hinnie Jane 7odges was C. #. 7odges. That the PC%2 and counsel are estopped from further questioning the determination of heirs in the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges at this stage since it was PC%2 as earl! as Januar! +, .903 which filed

a motion for official declaration of heirs of Hinnie Jane 7odges that the claim of an! heirs of Hinnie Jane 7odges can e determined onl! in the administration proceedings over the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and not that of C. #. 7odges, since the heirs of Hinnie Jane 7odges are claiming her estate and not the estate of C. #. 7odges. A repl! &)p. .0/;, Kol. O, pp. 44,0-4444' dated "a! .., .900 of the PC%2 has een filed alleging that the motion dated April ;;, .900 of the PC%2 is not to seek deferment of the hearing and consideration of the motion for official declaration of heirs of Hinnie Jane 7odges ut to declare the testate estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges closed and for administratriB "agno to account for and deliver to the PC%2 all assets of the conjugal partnership of the deceased spouses which has come to her possession plus all rents and income. A rejoinder &)p. .0/;, Kol. O, pp. 443+-440;' of administratriB "agno dated "a! .9, .900 has een filed alleging that the motion dated <ecem er .., .93/ onl! sought the approval of all conve!ances made ! C. #. 7odges and requested the Court authorit! for all su sequent conve!ances that will e eBecuted ! C. #. 7odgesE that the order dated <ecem er .4, .93/ onl! approved the conve!ances made ! C. #. 7odgesE that C. #. 7odges represented ! counsel never made an! claim in the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and never filed a motion to declare himself as the heir of the said Hinnie Jane 7odges despite the lapse of more than five &3' !ears after the death of Hinnie Jane 7odgesE that it is further alleged in the rejoinder that there can e no order of adjudication of the estate unless there has een a prior eBpress declaration of heirs and so far no declaration of heirs in the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges &)p. .,8/' has een made. Considering the allegations and arguments in the motion and of the PC%2 as well as those in the opposition and rejoinder of administratriB "agno, the Court finds the opposition and rejoinder to e well taken for the reason that so far there has een no official declaration of heirs in the testate estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and therefore no disposition of her estate. G7D1D5$1D, the motion of the PC%2 dated April ;;, .900 is here ! <D#%D<. &AnneB FGF, Petition' %n its motion dated #ovem er ;4, .900 for the reconsideration of this order, petitioner alleged inter alia that: %t cannot e over-stressed that the motion of <ecem er .., .93/ was ased on the fact that: a. *nder the last will and testament of the deceased, Hinnie Jane 7odges, the late Charles #ewton 7odges was the sole heir instituted insofar as her properties in the Philippines are concernedE . )aid last will and testament vested upon the said late Charles #ewton 7odges rights over said properties which, in sum, spell ownership, a solute and in fee simpleE c. )aid late Charles #ewton 7odges was, therefore, Fnot onl! part owner of the properties left as conjugal, ut also, the successor to all the properties left ! the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges. Hikewise, it cannot e over-stressed that the aforesaid motion was granted ! this 7onora le Court Ffor the reasons statedF therein. Again, the motion of <ecem er .., .93/ pra!ed that not onl! Fall the sales, conve!ances, leases, and mortgages eBecuted !F the late Charles #ewton 7odges, ut also all Fthe su sequent sales, conve!ances, leases, and mortgages ...F e approved and authori(ed. This 7onora le Court, in its order of <ecem er .4, .93/, Ffor the reasons statedF in the aforesaid motion, granted the same, and not onl! approved all the sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of all properties left ! the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges eBecuted ! the late Charles #ewton 7odges, ut also authori(ed Fall

su sequent sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of the properties left ! the said deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges. &AnneB FOF, Petition' and reiterated its fundamental pose that the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges had alread! een factuall!, although not legall!, closed with the virtual declaration of 7odges and adjudication to him, as sole universal heir of all the properties of the estate of his wife, in the order of <ecem er .4, .93/, AnneB J. )till unpersuaded, on Jul! .+, .90/, respondent court denied said motion for reconsideration and held that Fthe court elieves that there is no justification wh! the order of $cto er .;, .900 should e considered or modifiedF, and, on Jul! .9, .90/, the motion of respondent "agno Ffor official declaration of heirs of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesF, alread! referred to a ove, was set for hearing. %n consequence of all these developments, the present petition was filed on August ., .90/ &al eit petitioner had to pa! another docketing fee on August 9, .90/, since the orders in question were issued in two separate testate estate proceedings, #os. .,8/ and .0/;, in the court elow'. Together with such petition, there are now pending efore *s for resolution herein, appeals from the following: .. The order of <ecem er .9, .904 authori(ing pa!ment ! respondent "agno of overtime pa!, &pp. ;;., Jreen 1ecord on Appeal' together with the su sequent orders of Januar! 9, .903, &pp. ;,.;,;, id/' $cto er ;/, .903, &pp. ;;/, id/' and 5e ruar! .3, .900 &pp. 433-430, id/' repeatedl! den!ing motions for reconsideration thereof. ;. The order of August 0, .903 &pp. ;4+, id/' requiring that deeds eBecuted ! petitioner to e cosigned ! respondent "agno, as well as the order of $cto er ;/, .903 &pp. ;/0-;//' den!ing reconsideration. ,. The order of $cto er ;/, .903 &pp. ;9;-;93, id/' enjoining the deposit of all collections in a joint account and the same order of 5e ruar! .3, .900 mentioned in #o. . a ove which included the denial of the reconsideration of this order of $cto er ;/, .903. 4. The order of #ovem er ,, .903 &pp. ,.,-,;8, id/' directing the pa!ment of attorne!'s fees, fees of the respondent administratriB, etc. and the order of 5e ruar! .0, .900 den!ing reconsideration thereof. 3. The order of #ovem er ;,, .903 &pp. ,,4-,,3, id/' allowing appellee Gestern %nstitute of Technolog! to make pa!ments to either one or oth of the administrators of the two estates as well as the order of "arch /, .900 &p. 40;, id/' den!ing reconsideration. 0. The various orders hereina ove earlier enumerated approving deeds of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno in favor of appellees Carles, Catedral, Pa lito, Ju(man, Coronado, 2arrido, Causing, Javier, Hucero and 2atisanan, &see pp. ,3 to ,/ of this opinion', together with the two separate orders oth dated <ecem er ;, .900 &pp. ,80-,8+, and pp. ,8+-,89, =ellow 1ecord on Appeal' den!ing reconsideration of said approval. /. The order of Januar! ,, .90/, on pp. ,,3-,,0, =ellow 1ecord on Appeal, approving similar deeds of sale eBecuted ! respondent "agno, as those in #o. 0, in favor of appellees Pacaonsis and Prema!lon, as to which no motion for reconsideration was filed. +. Hastl!, the order of <ecem er ;, .900, on pp. ,83-,80, =ellow 1ecord on Appeal, directing petitioner to surrender to appellees Hucero, 2atisanan, Javier, Pa lito, 2arrido, Catedral, Causing, Ju(man, and Coronado, the certificates of title covering the lands involved in the approved sales, as to which no motion for reconsideration was filed either. )trictl! speaking, and considering that the a ove orders deal with different matters, just as the! affect distinctl! different individuals or persons, as outlined ! petitioner in its rief as appellant on pp. .;-;8 thereof, there are, therefore, thirt!-three &,,' appeals efore *s, for which reason, petitioner has to pa! also thirt!-one &,.' more docket fees.

%t is as well perhaps to state here as elsewhere in this opinion that in connection with these appeals, petitioner has assigned a total of sevent!-eight &HOOK%%%' alleged errors, the respective discussions and arguments under all of them covering also the fundamental issues raised in respect to the petition for certiorari and prohi ition, thus making it feasi le and more practical for the Court to dispose of all these cases together. ) The assignments of error read thus: % to %K T7D $1<D1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D 5%#AH <DD<) $5 )AHD %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD), PDP%T$ J. %=*H$1D), D)P%1%<%$# PA1T%)AHA, G%#%51D<$ C. D)PA<A A#< 1$)A1%$ AH%#JA)A, DODC*TD< 2= T7D APPDHHDD, AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$, C$KD1%#J PA1CDH) $5 HA#< $G#D< 2= T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), A#< T7D C$#T1ACT) T$ )DHH C$KD1%#J G7%C7 GD1D DODC*TD< 2= 7%" <*1%#J 7%) H%5DT%"D. K to K%%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D <DD<) $5 )AHD %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD), PDP%T$ J. %=*H$1D), D)P%1%<%$# PA1T%)AHA, G%#%51D<$ C. D)PA<A A#< 1$)A1%$ AH%#JA)A, C$KD1%#J PA1CDH) $5 HA#< 5$1 G7%C7 T7D= 7AKD #DKD1 PA%< %# 5*HH %# ACC$1<A#CD G%T7 T7D $1%J%#AH C$#T1ACT) T$ )DHH. %O to O%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# <DTD1"%#%#J T7D 1%J7T) $5 $G#D1)7%P $KD1 1DAH P1$PD1T= $5 T7D APPDHHDD), PDP%T$ J. %=*H$1D), D)P%1%<%$# PA1T%)AHA, G%#%51D<$ C. D)PA<A A#< 1$)A1%$ AH%#JA)A, G7%HD ACT%#J A) A P1$2ATD C$*1T. O%%% to OK T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D 5%#AH <DD<) $5 )AHD %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD) A<DH5A P1D"A=H$# &H$T #$. .8;', )A#T%AJ$ PACA$#)%), A#< A<DH5A P1D"A=H$# &H$T #$. .84', DODC*TD< 2= T7D APPDHHDD, AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$, C$KD1%#J PA1CDH) $5 HA#< $G#D< 2= T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), A#< T7D C$#T1ACT) T$ )DHH C$KD1%#J G7%C7 GD1D DODC*TD< 2= 7%" <*1%#J 7%) H%5DT%"D. OK% to OK%%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D <DD<) $5 )AHD %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD) A<DH5A P1D"A=H$# &H$T #$. .8;', )A#T%AJ$ PACA$#)%), A#< A<DH5A P1D"A=H$# &H$T #$. .84' C$KD1%#J PA1CDH) $5 HA#< 5$1 G7%C7 T7D= 7AKD #DKD1 PA%< %# 5*HH %# ACC$1<A#CD G%T7 T7D $1%J%#AH C$#T1ACT) T$ )DHH. O%O to OO% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# <DTD1"%#%#J T7D 1%J7T) $5 $G#D1)7%P $KD1 1DAH P1$PD1T= $5 T7D APPDHHDD) A<DH5A P1D"A=H$# &H$T #$. .8;', )A#T%AJ$ PACA$#)%), A#< A<DH5A P1D"A=H$# &H$T #$. .84' G7%HD ACT%#J A) A P1$2ATD C$*1T. OO%% to OOK T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D 5%#AH <DD<) $5 )AHD %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD) H$1D#L$ CA1HD), J$)D PA2H%C$, AH51D<$ CATD<1AH A#< )AHKA<$1 ). J*L"A#, DODC*TD< 2= T7D APPDHHDD, AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$, C$KD1%#J PA1CDH) $5 HA#< $G#D< 2= T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), A#< T7D C$#T1ACT) T$ )DHH C$KD1%#J G7%C7 GD1D DODC*TD< 2= 7%" <*1%#J 7%) H%5DT%"D.

OOK% to OO%O T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D 5%#AH <DD< $5 )AHD DODC*TD< %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD), H$1D#L$ CA1HD), J$)D PA2H%C$, AH51D<$ CATD<1AH A#< )AHKA<$1 ). J*L"A# P*1)*A#T T$ C$#T1ACT) T$ )PDHH G7%C7 GD1D CA#CDHHD< A#< 1D)C%#<D<. OOO to OOO%K T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# <DTD1"%#%#J T7D 1%J7T) $5 $G#D1)7%P $KD1 1DAH P1$PD1T= $5 T7D H$1D#L$ CA1HD), J$)D PA2H%C$, AH51D<$ CATD<1AH A#< )AHKA<$1 ). J*L"A#, G7%HD ACT%#J A) A P1$2ATD C$*1T. OOOK to OOOK% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D 5%#AH <DD<) $5 )AHD %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD), 5H$1D#%A 2A11%<$ A#< P*1%5%CAC%$# C$1$#A<$, DODC*TD< 2= T7D APPDHHDD, AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$, C$KD1%#J PA1CDH) $5 HA#< $G#D< 2= T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), A#< T7D C$#T1ACT) T$ )DHH C$KD1%#J G7%C7 GD1D DODC*TD< 2= 7%" <*1%#J 7%) H%5DT%"D. OOOK%% to OOOK%%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D <DD<) $5 )AHD %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD), 5H$1D#%A 2A11%<$ A#< P*1%5%CAC%$# C$1$#A<$, AHT7$*J7 T7D= GD1D %# A11DA1) %# T7D PA="D#T) AJ1DD< *P$# %# T7D $1%J%#AH C$#T1ACT T$ )DHH G7%C7 T7D= DODC*TD< G%T7 T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), %# T7D A"$*#T $5 P.8,0+8.88 and P4,4;+.98, 1D)PDCT%KDH=. OOO%O to OH T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# <DP1%K%#J T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), $5 T7D C$#T1ACT*AH 1%J7T, DOD1C%)D< T71$*J7 7%) A<"%#%)T1AT$1, T7D %#)TA#T APPDHHA#T, T$ CA#CDH T7D C$#T1ACT) T$ )DHH $5 T7D APPDHHDD), 5H$1D#%A 2A11%<$ A#< P*1%5%CAC%$# C$1$#A<$. OH% to OH%%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D 5%#AH <DD<) $5 )AHD %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD), J1AC%A#$ H*CD1$, A1%TD$ T7$"A) JA"%1 A#< "DHP*%A<D) 2AT%)A#A#, DODC*TD< 2= T7D APPDHHDD, AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$, C$KD1%#J PA1CDH) $5 HA#< $G#D< 2= T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), A#< T7D C$#T1ACT) T$ )DHH C$KD1%#J G7%C7 GD1D DODC*TD< 2= 7%" <*1%#J 7%) H%5DT%"D. OH%K to OHK% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D 5%#AH <DD< $5 )AHD %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD), J1AC%A#$ H*CD1$, A1%TD$ T7$"A) JA"%1 A#< "DHP*%A<D) 2AT%)A#A#, P*1)*A#T T$ C$#T1ACT) T$ )DHH DODC*TD< 2= T7D" G%T7 T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), T7D TD1") A#< C$#<%T%$#) $5 G7%C7 T7D= 7AKD #DKD1 C$"PH%D< G%T7. OHK%% to OH%O T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# <DP1%K%#J T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), $5 7%) 1%J7T, DOD1C%)D< T71$*J7 7%) A<"%#%)T1AT%$#, T7D %#)TA#T APPDHHA#T, T$ CA#CDH T7D C$#T1ACT) T$ )DHH $5 T7D APPDHHDD), J1AC%A#$ H*CD1$, A1%TD$

T7$"A) JA"%1 A#< "DHP*%A<D) 2AT%)A#A#, A#< %# <DTD1"%#%#J T7D 1%J7T) $5 T7D )A%< APPDHHDD) $KD1 1DAH P1$PD1T= G7%HD ACT%#J A) A P1$2ATD C$*1T. H T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D 5%#AH <DD<) $5 )AHD %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD, 2DHCD)A1 CA*)%#J, DODC*TD< 2= T7D APPDHHDD, AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$, C$KD1%#J PA1CDH) $5 HA#< $G#D< 2= T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), A#< T7D C$#T1ACT) T$ )DHH C$KD1%#J G7%C7 GD1D DODC*TD< 2= 7%" <*1%#J 7%) H%5DT%"D. H% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D <DD<) $5 )AHD %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD, 2DHCD)A1 CA*)%#J, AHT7$*J7 7D GA) %# A11DA1) %# T7D PA="D#T) AJ1DD< *P$# %# T7D $1%J%#AH C$#T1ACT T$ )DHH G7%C7 7D DODC*TD< G%T7 T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), %# T7D A"$*#T $5 P;,,,/.38. H%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# APP1$K%#J T7D <DD< $5 )AHD %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D APPDHHDD, 2DHCD)A1 CA*)%#J, AHT7$*J7 T7D )A"D GA) #$T DODC*TD< %# ACC$1<A#CD G%T7 T7D 1*HD) $5 C$*1T. H%%% to HO% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# $1<D1%#J T7D APPDHHA#T, P7%H%PP%#D C$""D1C%AH A#< %#<*)T1%AH 2A#> T$ )*11D#<D1 T7D $G#D1') <*PH%CATD CD1T%5%CATD) $5 T%THD $KD1 T7D 1D)PDCT%KD H$T) C$KD1D< 2= T7D <DD<) $5 )AHD DODC*TD< 2= T7D APPDHHDD, AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$, %# 5AK$1 $5 T7D $T7D1 APPDHHDD), J$)D PA2H%C$, AH51D<$ CATD<1AH, )AHKA<$1 ). J*L"A#, 5H1D#%A 2A11%<$, P*1%5%CAC%$# C$1$#A<$, 2DHCD)A1 CA*)%#J, A1%TD$ T7$"A) JA"%1, "AO%"A 2AT%)A#A# A#< J1AC%A#$ H. H*CD1$. HO%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# 1D)$HK%#J T7D "$T%$# $5 T7D APPDHHDD, GD)TD1# %#)T%T*TD $5 TDC7#$H$J=, <ATD< #$KD"2D1 ,, .903, G%T7$*T A#= C$P= T7D1D$5 7AK%#J 2DD# )D1KD< *P$# T7D APPDHHA#T, P7%H%PP%#D C$""D1C%AH 6 %#<*)T1%AH 2A#>. HO%%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# 7DA1%#J A#< C$#)%<D1%#J T7D "$T%$# $5 T7D APPDHHDD, GD)TD1# %#)T%T*TD $5 TDC7#$H$J=, <ATD< #$KD"2D1 ,rd, .903, $# #$KD"2D1 ;,, .903, G7D# T7D #$T%CD 5$1 T7D 7DA1%#J T7D1D$5 GA) 5$1 #$KD"2D1 ;8, .903. HO%K T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# J1A#T%#J T7D APPDHHDD, GD)TD1# %#)T%T*TD $5 TDC7#$H$J= A 1DH%D5 $T7D1 T7A# T7AT P1A=D< 5$1 %# %T) "$T%$#, <ATD< #$KD"2D1 ,, .903, %# T7D A2)D#CD $5 A P1A=D1 5$1 JD#D1AH 1DH%D5 C$#TA%#D< T7D1D%#. HOK

T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# AHH$G%#J T7D APPDHHDD, GD)TD1# %#)T%T*TD $5 TDC7#$H$J=, T$ C$#T%#*D PA="D#T) *P$# A C$#T1ACT T$ )DHH T7D TD1") A#< C$#<%T%$#) $5 G7%C7 %T 7A) 5A%HD< T$ 5*H5%HH. HOK% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# <DTD1"%#%#J T7D 1%J7T) $5 T7D APPDHHDD, GD)TD1# %#)T%T*TD $5 TDC7#$H$J= $KD1 T7D 1DAH P1$PD1T= )*2JDCT "ATTD1 $5 T7D C$#T1ACT T$ )DHH %T DODC*TD< G%T7 T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), G7%HD ACT%#J A) A P1$2ATD C$*1T. HOK%% H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# AHH$G%#J T7D C$#T%#*AT%$# $5 PA="D#T) 2= T7D APPDHHDD, GD)TD1# %#)T%T*TD $5 TDC7#$H$J=, *P$# A C$#T1ACT T$ )DHH DODC*TD< 2= %T A#< T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), T$ A PD1)$# $T7D1 T7A# 7%) HAG5*HH= APP$%#TD< A<"%#%)T1AT$1. HOK%%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# $1<D1%#J T7D PA="D#T $5 1DTA%#D1') 5DD) 51$" T7D )*PP$)D< D)TATD $5 T7D <DCDA)D<, H%##%D JA#D 7$<JD), G7D# T7D1D %) #D%T7D1 )*C7 D)TATD #$1 A))DT) T7D1D$5. HO%O T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# $1<D1%#J T7D PA="D#T $5 1DTA%#D1') 5DD) $5 HAG=D1) $5 AHHDJD< 7D%1) T$ T7D )*PP$)D< D)TATD $5 T7D <DCDA)D<, H%##%D JA#D 7$<JD). HOO T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# %"PHD"D#T%#J T7D AHHDJD< AJ1DD"D#T 2DTGDD# T7D 7D%1) $5 T7D )*PP$)D< D)TATD $5 T7D <DCDA)D<, H%##%D JA#D 7$<JD), A#< T7D%1 HAG=D1). HOO% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# $1<D1%#J T7D P1D"AT*1D <%)T1%2*T%$# $5 D)TATD A))DT) T$ AHHDJD< 7D%1) $1 2D#D5%C%A1%D) T7D1D$5, 2= GA= $5 1DTA%#D1') 5DD). HOO%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# $1<D1%#J T7AT AHH 5%#AH <DD<) $5 )AHD DODC*TD< P*1)*A#T T$ C$#T1ACT) T$ )DHH D#TD1D< %#T$ 2= T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), <*1%#J 7%) H%5DT%"D, 2D )%J#D< J$%#TH= 2= T7D APPDHHDD, AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$, A#< T7D APPDHHA#T, P7%H%PP%#D C$""D1C%AH A#< %#<*)T1%AH 2A#>, A#< #$T 2= T7D HATTD1 $#H= A) T7D HAG5*HH= APP$%#TD< A<"%#%)T1AT$1 $5 7%) D)TATD. HOO%%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# $1<D1%#J T7D PA="D#T $5 HDJAH DOPD#)D) 51$" T7D )*PP$)D< D)TATD $5 T7D <DCDA)D<, H%##%D JA#D 7$<JD), G7D# T7D1D %) #D%T7D1 )*C7 D)TATD #$1 A))DT) T7D1D$5.

HOO%K T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# $1<D1%#J T7D PA="D#T $5 HDJAH DOPD#)D) $5 HAG=D1) $5 AHHDJD< 7D%1) T$ T7D )*PP$)D< D)TATD $5 T7D <DCDA)D<, H%##%D JA#D 7$<JD). HOOK T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# $1<D1%#J T7D P1D"AT*1D <%)T1%2*T%$# $5 D)TATD A))DT) T$ AHHDJD< 7D%1) $1 2D#D5%C%A1%D) T7D1D$5, 2= GA= $5 HDJAH DOPD#)D). HOOK% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# $1<D1%#J T7D PA="D#T $5 C$"PD#)AT%$# T$ T7D P*1P$1TD< A<"%#%)T1AT1%O $5 T7D )*PP$)D< D)TATD $5 T7D <DCDA)D<, H%##%D JA#D 7$<JD), T7D %#)TA#T APPDHHDD, AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$, G7D# T7D1D %) #D%T7D1 )*C7 D)TATD #$1 A))DT) T7D1D$5. HOOK%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# $1<D1%#J T7AT T7D 5*#<) $5 T7D TD)TATD D)TATD $5 T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), 2D PHACD< %# A J$%#T ACC$*#T $5 T7D APPDHHA#T, P7%H%PP%#D C$""D1C%AH A#< %#<*)T1%AH 2A#>, A#< T7D APPDHHDD, AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$, G7$ %) A C$"PHDTD )T1A#JD1 T$ T7D A5$1D)A%< D)TATD. HOOK%%% T7D H$GD1 C$*1T D11D< %# $1<D1%#J T7AT T7D APPDHHDD, AKDH%#A A. "AJ#$, 2D J%KD# DP*AH ACCD)) T$ T7D 1DC$1<) $5 T7D TD)TATD D)TATD $5 T7D <DCDA)D<, C7A1HD) #DGT$# 7$<JD), G7D# )7D %) A C$"PHDTD )T1A#JD1 T$ T7D A5$1D)A%< D)TATD. &Pp. /,-+,, Appellant's 2rief.' To complete this rather ela orate, and unavoida l! eBtended narration of the factual setting of these cases, it ma! also e mentioned that an attempt was made ! the heirs of "rs. 7odges to have respondent "agno removed as administratriB, with the proposed appointment of 2enito J. Hope( in her place, and that respondent court did actuall! order such proposed replacement, ut the Court declared the said order of respondent court violative of its injunction of August +, .90/, hence without force and effect &see 1esolution of )eptem er +, .9/; and 5e ruar! ., .9/,'. )u sequentl!, Att!. Dfrain 2. Trenas, one of the law!ers of said heirs, appeared no longer for the proposed administrator Hope( ut for the heirs themselves, and in a motion dated $cto er ;0, .9/; informed the Court that a motion had een filed with respondent court for the removal of petitioner PC%2 as administrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges in )pecial Proceedings .0/;, which removal motion alleged that ;;.90+.49A of the share of C. #. 7odges had alread! een acquired ! the heirs of "rs. 7odges from certain heirs of her hus and. 5urther, in this connection, in the answer of PC%2 to the motion of respondent "agno to have it declared in contempt for disregarding the Court's resolution of )eptem er +, .9/; modif!ing the injunction of August +, .90/, said petitioner anneBed thereto a joint manifestation and motion, appearing to have een filed with respondent court, informing said court that in addition to the fact that ;;A of the share of C. #. 7odges had alread! een ought ! the heirs of "rs. 7odges, as alread! stated, certain other heirs of 7odges representing ./.,4,/38A of his estate were joining cause with the heirs of "rs. 7odges as against PC%2, there ! making somewhat precarious, if not possi l! untena le, petitioners' continuation as administrator of the 7odges estate. 1D)$H*T%$# $5 %))*D) %# T7D $ERT"OR(R" A#< P1$7%2%T%$# CA)D) % (s to the (lleged Tardiness of the *resent (ppeals

The priorit! question raised ! respondent "agno relates to the alleged tardiness of all the aforementioned thirt!three appeals of PC%2. Considering, however, that these appeals revolve around practicall! the same main issues and that it is admitted that some of them have een timel! taken, and, moreover, their final results herein elow to e stated and eBplained make it of no consequence whether or not the orders concerned have ecome final ! the lapsing of the respective periods to appeal them, Ge do not deem it necessar! to pass upon the timeliness of an! of said appeals. %% The *ropriet& Here of $ertiorari and *rohi'ition instead of (ppeal The other preliminar! point of the same respondent is alleged impropriet! of the special civil action of certiorariand prohi ition in view of the eBistence of the remed! of appeal which it claims is proven ! the ver! appeals now efore *s. )uch contention fails to take into account that there is a common thread among the asic issues involved in all these thirt!-three appeals which, unless resolved in one single proceeding, will inevita l! cause the proliferation of more or less similar or closel! related incidents and consequent eventual appeals. %f for this consideration alone, and without taking account an!more of the unnecessar! additional effort, eBpense and time which would e involved in as man! individual appeals as the num er of such incidents, it is logical and proper to hold, as Ge do hold, that the remed! of appeal is not adequate in the present cases. %n determining whether or not a special civil action of certiorari or prohi ition ma! e resorted to in lieu of appeal, in instances wherein lack or eBcess of jurisdiction or grave a use of discretion is alleged, it is not enough that the remed! of appeal eBists or is possi le. %t is indispensa le that taking all the relevant circumstances of the given case, appeal would etter serve the interests of justice. $ viousl!, the longer dela!, augmented eBpense and trou le and unnecessar! repetition of the same work attendant to the present multiple appeals, which, after all, deal with practicall! the same asic issues that can e more eBpeditiousl! resolved or determined in a single special civil action, make the remedies of certiorari and prohi ition, pursued ! petitioner, prefera le, for purposes of resolving the common asic issues raised in all of them, despite the conceded availa ilit! of appeal. 2esides, the settling of such common fundamental issues would naturall! minimi(e the areas of conflict etween the parties and render more simple the determination of the secondar! issues in each of them. Accordingl!, respondent "agno's o jection to the present remed! of certiorari and prohi ition must e overruled. Ge come now to the errors assigned ! petitioner-appellant, Philippine Commercial 6 %ndustrial 2ank, &PC%2, for short' in the petition as well as in its main rief as appellant. %%% On Whether or Not There is Still (n& *art of the Testate Estate rs/ Hodges that ma& 'e (dCudicated to her 'rothers and sisters as her estate! of .hich respondent agno is the unquestioned (dministratrix in special *roceedings ,;F>/ %n the petition, it is the position of PC%2 that the respondent court eBceeded its jurisdiction or gravel! a used its discretion in further recogni(ing after <ecem er .4, .93/ the eBistence of the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and in sanctioning purported acts of administration therein of respondent "agno. "ain ground for such posture is that ! the aforequoted order of respondent court of said date, 7odges was alread! allowed to assert and eBercise all his rights as universal heir of his wife pursuant to the provisions of her will, quoted earlier, hence, nothing else remains to e done in )pecial Proceedings .,8/ eBcept to formall! close it. %n other words, the contention of PC%2 is that in view of said order, nothing more than a formal declaration of 7odges as sole and eBclusive heir of his wife and the consequent formal unqualified adjudication to him of all her estate remain to e done to completel! close )pecial Proceedings .,8/, hence respondent "agno should e considered as having ceased to e AdministratriB of the Testate Dstate of "rs. 7odges since then. After carefull! going over the record, Ge feel constrained to hold that such pose is patentl! untena le from whatever angle it is eBamined. To start with, Ge cannot find an!where in respondent $rder of <ecem er .4, .93/ the sense eing read into it ! PC%2. The tenor of said order ears no suggestion at all to such effect. The declaration of heirs and distri ution !

the pro ate court of the estate of a decedent is its most important function, and this Court is not disposed to encourage judges of pro ate proceedings to e less than definite, plain and specific in making orders in such regard, if for no other reason than that all parties concerned, like the heirs, the creditors, and most of all the government, the devisees and legatees, should know with certaint! what are and when their respective rights and o ligations ensuing from the inheritance or in relation thereto would egin or cease, as the case ma! e, there ! avoiding precisel! the legal complications and consequent litigations similar to those that have developed unnecessaril! in the present cases. Ghile it is true that in instances wherein all the parties interested in the estate of a deceased person have alread! actuall! distri uted among themselves their respective shares therein to the satisfaction of ever!one concerned and no rights of creditors or third parties are adversel! affected, it would naturall! e almost ministerial for the court to issue the final order of declaration and distri ution, still it is inconceiva le that the special proceeding instituted for the purpose ma! e considered terminated, the respective rights of all the parties concerned e deemed definitel! settled, and the eBecutor or administrator thereof e regarded as automaticall! discharged and relieved alread! of all functions and responsi ilities without the corresponding definite orders of the pro ate court to such effect. %ndeed, the law on the matter is specific, categorical and unequivocal. )ection . of 1ule 98 provides: )DCT%$# .. When order for distri'ution of residue made. I Ghen the de ts, funeral charges, and eBpenses of administration, the allowance to the widow and inheritance taB, if an!, chargea le to the estate in accordance with law have een paid, the court, on the application of the eBecutor or administrator, or of a person interested in the estate, and after hearing upon notice, shall assign the residue of the estate to the persons entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which each is entitled, and such persons ma! demand and recover their respective shares from the eBecutor or administrator, or an! other person having the same in his possession. %f there is a controvers! efore the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distri utive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controvers! shall e heard and decided as in ordinar! cases. #o distri ution shall e allowed until the pa!ment of the o ligations a ove mentioned has een made or provided for, unless the distri utees, or an! of them give a ond, in a sum to e fiBed ! the court, conditioned for the pa!ment of said o ligations within such time as the court directs. These provisions cannot mean an!thing less than that in order that a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a deceased ma! e deemed read! for final closure, &.' there should have een issued alread! an order of distri ution or assignment of the estate of the decedent among or to those entitled thereto ! will or ! law, ut &;' such order shall not e issued until after it is shown that the Fde ts, funeral eBpenses, eBpenses of administration, allowances, taBes, etc. chargea le to the estateF have een paid, which is ut logical and proper. &,' 2esides, such an order is usuall! issued upon proper and specific application for the purpose of the interested part! or parties, and not of the court. ... it is onl! after, and not efore, the pa!ment of all de ts, funeral charges, eBpenses of administration, allowance to the widow, and inheritance taB shall have een effected that the court should make a declaration of heirs or of such persons as are entitled ! law to the residue. &"oran, Comments on the 1ules of Court, ;nd ed., Kol. %%, p. ,9/, citing Capistrano vs. #adurata, 49 Phil., /;0E Hope( vs. Hope(, ,/ $ff. Ja(., ,89..' &J%"$JA-$# v. 2DH"$#TD, +4 Phil. 343, 34+' &p. +0, Appellee's 2rief' BBB BBB BBB *nder )ection /3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, &corresponding to )ection ., 1ule 98' what rings an intestate &or testate' proceeding to a close is the order of distri ution directing deliver! of the residue to the persons entitled thereto after pa!ing the inde tedness, if an!, left ! the deceased. &)antieste an vs. )antieste an, 0+ Phil. ,0/, ,/8.' %n the cases at ar, Ge cannot discern from the voluminous and varied facts, pleadings and orders efore *s that the a ove indispensa le prerequisites for the declaration of heirs and the adjudication of the estate of "rs. 7odges had alread! een complied with when the order of <ecem er .4, .93/ was issued. As alread! stated, Ge are not persuaded that the proceedings leading to the issuance of said order, constituting arel! of the motion of "a! ;/,

.93/, AnneB < of the petition, the order of even date, AnneB D, and the motion of <ecem er .., .93/, AnneB 7, all aforequoted, are what the law contemplates. Ge cannot see in the order of <ecem er .4, .93/, so much relied upon ! the petitioner, an!thing more than an eBplicit approval of Fall the sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of all the properties left ! the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges eBecuted ! the DBecutor Charles #. 7odgesF &after the death of his wife and prior to the date of the motion', plus a general advance authori(ation to ena le said FDBecutor I to eBecute su sequent sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of the properties left the said deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges in consonance with wishes conve!ed in the last will and testament of the latterF, which, certainl!, cannot amount to the order of adjudication of the estate of the decedent to 7odges contemplated in the law. %n fact, the motion of <ecem er .., .93/ on which the court predicated the order in question did not pra! for an! such adjudication at all. Ghat is more, although said motion did allege that Fherein DBecutor &7odges' is not onl! part owner of the properties left as conjugal, ut also, the successor to all the properties left ! the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odgesF, it significantl! added that Fherein DBecutor, as Hegatee &sic', has the right to sell, conve!, lease or dispose of the properties in the Philippines I during his lifetimeF, there ! indicating that what said motion contemplated was nothing more than either the enjo!ment ! 7odges of his rights under the particular portion of the dispositions of his wife's will which were to e operative onl! during his lifetime or the use of his own share of the conjugal estate, pending the termination of the proceedings. %n other words, the authorit! referred to in said motions and orders is in the nature of that contemplated either in )ection ; of 1ule .89 which permits, in appropriate cases, advance or partial implementation of the terms of a dul! pro ated will efore final adjudication or distri ution when the rights of third parties would not e adversel! affected there ! or in the esta lished practice of allowing the surviving spouse to dispose of his own share of he conjugal estate, pending its final liquidation, when it appears that no creditors of the conjugal partnership would e prejudiced there !, &see the 1evised 1ules of Court ! 5rancisco, Kol. K-2, .9/8 ed. p. ++/' al eit, from the tenor of said motions, Ge are more inclined to elieve that 7odges meant to refer to the former. %n an! event, Ge are full! persuaded that the quoted allegations of said motions read together cannot e construed as a repudiation of the rights unequivocall! esta lished in the will in favor of "rs. 7odges' rothers and sisters to whatever have not een disposed of ! him up to his death. %ndeed, nowhere in the record does it appear that the trial court su sequentl! acted upon the premise suggested ! petitioner. $n the contrar!, on #ovem er ;,, .903, when the court resolved the motion of appellee Gestern %nstitute of Technolog! ! its order Ge have quoted earlier, it categoricall! held that as of said date, #ovem er ;,, .903, Fin oth cases &)pecial Proceedings .,8/ and .0/;' there is as !et no judicial declaration of heirs nor distri ution of properties to whomsoever are entitled thereto.F %n this connection, it ma! e stated further against petitioner, ! wa! of some kind of estoppel, that in its own motion of Januar! +, .903, alread! quoted in full on pages 34-0/ of this decision, it pra!ed inter alia that the court declare that FC. #. 7odges was the sole and eBclusive heir of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesF, which it would not have done if it were reall! convinced that the order of <ecem er .4, .93/ was alread! the order of adjudication and distri ution of her estate. That said motion was later withdrawn when "agno filed her own motion for determination and adjudication of what should correspond to the rothers and sisters of "rs. 7odges does not alter the indu ita le implication of the pra!er of the withdrawn motion. %t must e orne in mind that while it is true that "rs. 7odges equeathed her whole estate to her hus and and gave him what amounts to full powers of dominion over the same during his lifetime, she imposed at the same time the condition that whatever should remain thereof upon his death should go to her rothers and sisters. %n effect, therefore, what was a solutel! given to 7odges was onl! so much of his wife's estate as he might possi l! dispose of during his lifetimeE hence, even assuming that ! the allegations in his motion, he did intend to adjudicate the whole estate to himself, as suggested ! petitioner, such unilateral act could not have affected or diminished in an! degree or manner the right of his rothers and sisters-in-law over what would remain thereof upon his death, for surel!, no one can rightl! contend that the testamentar! provision in question allowed him to so adjudicate an! part of the estate to himself as to prejudice them. %n other words, irrespective of whatever might have een 7odges' intention in his motions, as DBecutor, of "a! ;/, .93/ and <ecem er .., .93/, the trial court's orders granting said motions, even in the terms in which the! have een worded, could not have had the effect of an a solute and unconditional adjudication unto 7odges of the whole estate of his wife. #one of them could have deprived his rothers and sisters-in-law of their rights under said will. And it ma! e added here that the fact that no one appeared to oppose the motions in question ma! onl! e attri uted, firstl!, to the failure of 7odges to send notices to an! of them, as admitted in the motion itself, and, secondl!, to the fact that even if the! had een notified, the! could not have taken said motions to e for the final distri ution and adjudication of the estate, ut merel! for him to e a le, pending such final distri ution and adjudication, to either eBercise during his lifetime rights of dominion over his wife's estate in accordance with the equest in his favor, which, as alread! o served, ma! e allowed under the road terms of )ection ; of 1ule .89, or make use of his own share of the conjugal estate. %n an! event, Ge do not elieve that the trial court could have acted in the sense pretended ! petitioner, not onl! ecause of the clear language of the will ut also ecause none of the interested parties had een dul! notified of the motion and hearing

thereof. )tated differentl!, if the orders of "a! ;/, .93/ and <ecem er 4, .93/ were reall! intended to e read in the sense contended ! petitioner, Ge would have no hesitanc! in declaring them null and void. Petitioner cites the case of (ustria vs/ 8entenilla, J. 1. #o. H-.88.+, )eptem er .9, .930, &unreported ut a partial digest thereof appears in 99 Phil. .809' in support of its insistence that with the orders of "a! ;/ and <ecem er .4, .93/, the closure of "rs. 7odges' estate has ecome a mere formalit!, inasmuch as said orders amounted to the order of adjudication and distri ution ordained ! )ection . of 1ule 98. 2ut the parallel attempted to e drawn etween that case and the present one does not hold. There the trial court had in fact issued a clear, distinct and eBpress order of adjudication and distri ution more than twent! !ears efore the other heirs of the deceased filed their motion asking that the administratriB e removed, etc. As quoted in that decision, the order of the lower court in that respect read as follows: Dn orden a la mocion de la administradora, el ju(gado la encuentra procedente ajo la condicion de que no se hara entrega ni adjudicacion de los ienes a los herederos antes de que estos presten la fian(a correspondiente ! de acuerdo con lo prescrito en el Art. /34 del Codigo de Procedimientos: pues, en autos no aparece que ha!an sido nom rados comisionados de avaluo ! reclamaciones. <icha fian(a podra ser por un valor igual al de los ienes que correspondan a cada heredero segun el testamento. Creo que no es o ice para la terminacion del eBpediente el hecho de que la administradora no ha presentado hasta ahora el inventario de los ienesE pues, segun la le!, estan eBentos de esta formalidad os administradores que son legatarios del residuo o remanente de los ienes ! ha!an prestado fian(a para responder de las gestiones de su cargo, ! aparece en el testamento que la administradora Alejandra Austria reune dicha condicion. P$1 T$<$ H$ DOP*D)T$, el ju(gado declara, ..o: no ha er lugar a la mocion de 1amon Kentenilla ! otrosE ;.o, declara asimismo que los unicos herederos del finado Antonio Kentenilla son su esposa Alejandra Austria, "aria Kentenilla, hermana del testador, ! 1amon Kentenilla, "aria Kentenilla, 1amon )oriano, Dulalio )oriano, Jose )oriano, Ja riela Kentenilla, Horen(o Kentenilla, 5elicitas Kentenilla, Dugenio Kentenilla ! Alejandra Kentenilla, en representacion de los difuntos Juan, Tomas, Catalino ! 5roilan, hermanos del testador, declarando, ademas que la heredera Alejandra Austria tiene derecho al remanente de todos los ienes dejados por el finado, despues de deducir de ellos la porcion que corresponde a cada uno de sus coherederos, conforme esta mandado en las clausulas +.a, 9.a, .8.a, ...a, .;.a ! .,.a del testamentoE ,.o, se aprue a el pago hecho por la administradora de los gastos de la ultima enfermedad ! funerales del testador, de la donacion hecha por el testador a favor de la Dscuela a Pu lica del "unicipio de "angatarem, ! de las misas en sufragio del alma del finadoE 4.o, que una ve( prestada la fian(a mencionada al principio de este auto, se haga la entrega ! adjudicacion de los ienes, conforme se dispone en el testamento ! se aca a de declarar en este autoE 3.o, !, finalmente, que verificada la adjudicacion, se dara por terminada la administracion, revelandole toda responsa ilidad a la administradora, ! cancelando su fian(a. A)% )D $1<D#A. *ndou tedl!, after the issuance of an order of such tenor, the closure of an! proceedings for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person cannot e ut perfunctor!. %n the case at ar, as alread! pointed out a ove, the two orders relied upon ! petitioner do not appear ex)facie to e of the same tenor and nature as the order just quoted, and, what is more, the circumstances attendant to its issuance do not suggest that such was the intention of the court, for nothing could have een more violative of the will of "rs. 7odges. %ndeed, to infer from 7odges' said motions and from his statements of accounts for the !ears .93+, .939 and .908, A AnneBes %, > and ", respectivel!, wherein he repeatedl! claimed that Fherein eBecutor & eing' the onl! devisee or legatee of the deceased, in accordance with the last will and testament alread! pro ated,F there is Fno &other' person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of eBamining herein account to e given noticeF, an intent to adjudicate unto himself the whole of his wife's estate in an a solute manner and without regard to the contingent interests of her rothers and sisters, is to impute ad faith to him, an imputation which is not legall! permissi le, much less warranted ! the facts of record herein. 7odges knew or ought to have known that, legall! speaking, the terms of his wife's will did not give him such a right. 5actuall!, there are enough circumstances eBtant in the records

of these cases indicating that he had no such intention to ignore the rights of his co-heirs. %n his ver! motions in question, 7odges alleged, thru counsel, that the Fdeceased Hinnie Jane 7odges died leaving no descendants and ascendants, except 'rothers and sisters and herein petitioner! as surviving spouse! to inherit the properties of the decedentF, and even promised that Fproper accounting will e had I in all these transactionsF which he had su mitted for approval and authori(ation ! the court, there ! impl!ing that he was aware of his responsi ilities visa-vis his co-heirs. As alleged ! respondent "agno in her rief as appellee: *nder date of April .4, .939, C. #. 7odges filed his first FAccount ! the DBecutorF of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. %n the F)tatement of #etworth of "r. C. #. 7odges and the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesF as of <ecem er ,., .93+ anneBed thereto, C. #. 7odges reported that the com ined conjugal estate earned a net income of P,;+,48;.0;, divided evenl! etween him and the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. Pursuant to this, he filed an Findividual income taB returnF for calendar !ear .93+ on the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges reporting, under oath, the said estate as having earned income of P.04,;8..,., eBactl! one-half of the net income of his com ined personal assets and that of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. &p. 9., Appellee's 2rief.' *nder date of Jul! ;., .908, C. #. 7odges filed his second FAnnual )tatement of Account ! the DBecutorF of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. %n the F)tatement of #etworth of "r. C. #. 7odges and the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesF as of <ecem er ,., .939 anneBed thereto, C. #. 7odges reported that the com ined conjugal estate earned a net income of P;/8,0;,.,;, divided evenl! etween him and the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. Pursuant to this, he filed an Findividual income taB returnF for calendar !ear .939 on the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges reporting, under oath, the said estate as having earned income of P.,3,,...00, eBactl! one-half of the net income of his com ined personal assets and that of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. &pp. 9.-9;, id/' *nder date of April ;8, .90., C. #. 7odges filed his third FAnnual )tatement of Account ! the DBecutor for the !ear .908F of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. %n the F)tatement of #et Gorth of "r. C. #. 7odges and the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesF as of <ecem er ,., .908 anneBed thereto, C. #. 7odges reported that the com ined conjugal estate earned a net income of P,.4,+3/.94, divided of Hinnie Jane 7odges. Pursuant to this, he filed an Findividual evenl! etween him and the estate income taB returnF for calendar !ear .908 on the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges reporting, under oath, the said estate as having earned income of P.3/,4;+.9/, eBactl! one-half of the net income of his com ined personal assets and that of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges. &pp. 9;9,, id/' %n the petition for pro ate that he &7odges' filed, he listed the seven rothers and sisters of Hinnie Jane as her FheirsF &see p. ;, Jreen 1$A'. The order of the court admitting the will to pro ate unfortunatel! omitted one of the heirs, 1o! 7igdon &see p. .4, Jreen 1$A'. %mmediatel!, C. #. 7odges filed a verified motion to have 1o! 7igdon's name included as an heir, stating that he wanted to straighten the records Fin order &that' the heirs of deceased 1o! 7igdon ma! not think or elieve the! were omitted, and that the! were reall! and are interested in the estate of deceased Hinnie Jane 7odgesF. Thus, he recogni(ed, if in his own wa!, the separate identit! of his wife's estate from his own share of the conjugal partnership up to the time of his death, more than five !ears after that of his wife. 7e never considered the whole estate as a single one elonging eBclusivel! to himself. The onl! conclusion one can gather from this is that he could have een preparing the asis for the eventual transmission of his wife's estate, or, at least, so much thereof as he would not have een a le to dispose of during his lifetime, to her rothers and sisters in accordance with her eBpressed desire, as intimated in his taB return in the *nited )tates to e more eBtensivel! referred to anon. And assuming that he did pa! the corresponding estate and inheritance taBes in the Philippines on the asis of his eing sole heir, such pa!ment is not necessaril! inconsistent with his recognition of the rights of his co-heirs. Githout purporting to rule definitel! on the matter in these proceedings, Ge might sa! here that Ge are inclined to the view that under the peculiar provisions of his wife's will, and for purposes of the applica le inheritance taB laws, 7odges had to e considered as her sole heir, pending the actual transmission of the remaining portion of her estate to her other heirs, upon the eventualit! of his death, and whatever adjustment might e warranted should there e an! such remainder then is a matter that could well e taken care of ! the internal revenue authorities in due time.

%t is to e noted that the law!er, Att!. Heon P. Jellada, who signed the motions of "a! ;/, .93/ and <ecem er .., .93/ and the aforementioned statements of account was the ver! same one who also su sequentl! signed and filed the motion of <ecem er ;0, .90; for the appointment of respondent "agno as FAdministratriB of the Dstate of "rs. Hinnie Jane 7odgesF wherein it was alleged that Fin accordance with the provisions of the last will and testament of Hinnie Jane 7odges, whatever real properties that ma! remain at the death of her hus and, Charles #ewton 7odges, the said properties shall e equall! divided among their heirs.F And it appearing that said attorne! was 7odges' law!er as DBecutor of the estate of his wife, it stands to reason that his understanding of the situation, implicit in his allegations just quoted, could somehow e reflective of 7odges' own understanding thereof. As a matter of fact, the allegations in the motion of the same Att!. Jellada dated Jul! ., .93/, a F1equest for %nclusion of the #ame of 1o! 7igdon in the $rder of the Court dated Jul! .9, .93/, etc.F, reference to which is made in the a ove quotation from respondent "agno's rief, are over the oath of 7odges himself, who verified the motion. )aid allegations read: .. I That the 7on. Court issued orders dated June ;9, .93/, ordering the pro ate of the will. ;. I That in said order of the 7on. Court, the relatives of the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges were enumerated. 7owever, in the petition as well as in the testimon! of DBecutor during the hearing, the name 1o! 7igdon was mentioned, ut deceased. %t was unintentionall! omitted the heirs of said 1o! 7igdon who are his wife Aline 7igdon and son <avid 7igdon, all of age, and residents of Puinlan, TeBas, *.).A. ,. I That to straighten the records! and in order the heirs of deceased Ro& Higdon ma& not thin% or 'elieve the& .ere omitted! and that the& .ere reall& and are interested in the estate of deceased 2innie 1ane Hodges, it is requested of the 7on. Court to insert the names of Aline 7igdon and <avid 7igdon, wife and son of deceased 1o! 7igdon in the said order of the 7on. Court dated June ;9, .93/. &pars. . to ,, AnneB ; of "agno's Answer I 1ecord, p. ;08' As can e seen, these italici(ed allegations indicate, more or less, the real attitude of 7odges in regard to the testamentar! dispositions of his wife. %n connection with this point of 7odges' intent, Ge note that there are documents, copies of which are anneBed to respondent "agno's answer, which purportedl! contain 7odges' own solemn declarations recogni(ing the right of his co-heirs, such as the alleged taB return he filed with the *nited )tates TaBation authorities, identified as )chedule ", &AnneB 4 of her answer' and his supposed affidavit of renunciation, AnneB 3. %n said )chedule ", 7odges appears to have answered the pertinent question thus: ;a. 7ad the surviving spouse the right to declare an election etween &.' the provisions made in his or her favor ! the will and &..' dower, curtes! or a statutor! interestN &O' =es & ' #o ;d. <oes the surviving spouse contemplate renouncing the will and electing to take dower, curtes!, or a statutor! interestN &O' =es & ' #o ,. According to the information and elief of the person or persons filing the return, is an! action descri ed under question . designed or contemplatedN & ' =es &O' #o &AnneB 4, Answer I 1ecord, p. ;0,' and to have further stated under the item, F<escription of propert! interests passing to surviving spouseF the following: #one, eBcept for purposes of administering the Dstate, pa!ing de ts, taBes and other legal charges. "t is the intention of the surviving hus'and of deceased to distri'ute the remaining propert& and interests of the deceased in their $ommunit& Estate to the devisees and legatees named in the .ill .hen the de'ts! lia'ilities! taxes and expenses of administration are finall& determined and paid . &AnneB 4, Answer I 1ecord, p. ;0,' %n addition, in the supposed affidavit of 7odges, AnneB 3, it is stated:

%, C. #. 7odges, eing dul! sworn, on oath affirm that at the time the *nited )tates Dstate TaB 1eturn was filed in the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges on August +, .93+, % renounced and disclaimed an! and all right to receive the rents, emoluments and income from said estate, as shown ! the statement contained in )chedule " at page ;9 of said return, a cop! of which schedule is attached to this affidavit and made a part hereof. The purpose of this affidavit is to ratif& and confirm! and " do here'& ratif& and confirm! the declaration made in Schedule of said return and here ! formall! disclaim and renounce an! right on m! part to receive an! of the said rents, emoluments and income from the estate of m! deceased wife, Hinnie Jane 7odges. This affidavit is made to a solve me or m! estate from an! lia ilit! for the pa!ment of income taBes on income which has accrued to the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges since the death of the said Hinnie Jane 7odges on "a! ;,, .93/. &AnneB 3, Answer I 1ecord, p. ;04' Although it appears that said documents were not dul! presented as evidence in the court elow, and Ge cannot, therefore, rel! on them for the purpose of the present proceedings, still, Ge cannot close our e!es to their eBistence in the record nor fail to note that their tenor ji es with $ur conclusion discussed a ove from the circumstances related to the orders of "a! ;/ and <ecem er .4, .93/. 3 )omehow, these documents, considering the! are supposed to e copies of their originals found in the official files of the governments of the *nited )tates and of the Philippines, serve to lessen an! possi le apprehension that $ur conclusion from the other evidence of 7odges' manifest intent vis-a-vis the rights of his co-heirs is without asis in fact. Keril!, with such eloquent manifestations of his good intentions towards the other heirs of his wife, Ge find it ver! hard to elieve that 7odges did ask the court and that the latter agreed that he e declared her sole heir and that her whole estate e adjudicated to him without so much as just annotating the contingent interest of her rothers and sisters in what would remain thereof upon his demise. $n the contrar!, it seems to us more factual and fairer to assume that 7odges was well aware of his position as eBecutor of the will of his wife and, as such, had in mind the following admonition made ! the Court in *amittan vs/ 2asam! et al., 08 Phil., 98+, at pp. 9.,-9.4: *pon the death of 2ernarda in )eptem er, .98+, said lands continued to e conjugal propert! in the hands of the defendant Hasam. %t is provided in article .4.+ of the Civil Code that upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership, an inventor! shall immediatel! e made and this court in construing this provision in connection with section 0+3 of the Code of Civil Procedure &prior to its amendment ! Act #o. ,./0 of #ovem er ;4, .9;4' has repeatedl! held that in the event of the death of the wife, the law imposes upon the hus and the dut! of liquidating the affairs of the partnership without dela! &desde luego' &Alfonso vs. #atividad, 0 Phil., ;48E Prado vs. Hagera, / Phil., ,93E <e la 1ama vs. <e la 1ama, / Phil., /43E Dnrique( vs. Kictoria, .8 Phil., .8E Amancio vs. Pardo, ., Phil., ;9/E 1ojas vs. )ingson Tongson, ./ Phil., 4/0E )ocha!seng vs. Trujillo, ,. Phil., .3,E "olera vs. "olera, 48 Phil., 300E #a le Jose vs. #a le Jose, 4. Phil., /.,.' %n the last mentioned case this court quoted with approval the case of 2eather.ood vs/ (rnold &00 TeBas, 4.4, 4.0, 4./', in which that court discussed the powers of the surviving spouse in the administration of the communit! propert!. Attention was called to the fact that the surviving hus and, in the management of the conjugal propert! after the death of the wife, was a trustee of unique character who is lia le for an! fraud committed ! him with relation to the propert! while he is charged with its administration. %n the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, he had wide powers &as the law stood prior to Act #o. ,./0' and the high degree of trust reposed in him stands out more clearl! in view of the fact that he was the owner of a half interest in his own right of the conjugal estate which he was charged to administer. 7e could therefore no more acquire a title ! prescription against those for whom he was administering the conjugal estate than could a guardian against his ward or a judicial administrator against the heirs of estate. )ection ,+ of Chapter %%% of the Code of Civil Procedure, with relation to prescription, provides that Fthis chapter shall not appl! ... in the case of a continuing and su sisting trust.F The surviving hus and in the administration and liquidation of the conjugal estate occupies the position of a trustee of the highest order and is not permitted ! the law to hold that estate or an! portion thereof adversel! to those for whose enefit the law imposes upon him the dut! of administration and liquidation. #o liquidation was ever made ! Hasam I hence, the conjugal propert! which came into his possession on the death of his wife in )eptem er, .98+, still remains conjugal propert!, a continuing and su sisting trust. 7e should have made a liquidation immediatel! &desde luego'. 7e cannot now e permitted to take advantage of his

own wrong. $ne of the conditions of title ! prescription &section 4., Code of Civil Procedure' is possession Funder a claim of title eBclusive of an! other rightF. 5or a trustee to make such a claim would e a manifest fraud. And knowing thus his responsi ilities in the premises, Ge are not convinced that 7odges arrogated ever!thing unto himself leaving nothing at all to e inherited ! his wife's rothers and sisters. PC%2 insists, however, that to read the orders of "a! ;/ and <ecem er .4, .93/, not as adjudicator!, ut merel! as approving past and authori(ing future dispositions made ! 7odges in a wholesale and general manner, would necessaril! render the said orders void for eing violative of the provisions of 1ule +9 governing the manner in which such dispositions ma! e made and how the authorit! therefor and approval thereof ! the pro ate court ma! e secured. %f Ge sustained such a view, the result would onl! e that the said orders should e declared ineffective either wa! the! are understood, considering Ge have alread! seen it is legall! impossi le to consider them as adjudicator!. As a matter of fact, however, what surges immediatel! to the surface, relative to PC%2's o servations ased on 1ule +9, is that from such point of view, the supposed irregularit! would involve no more than some nonjurisdictional technicalities of procedure, which have for their evident fundamental purpose the protection of parties interested in the estate, such as the heirs, its creditors, particularl! the government on account of the taBes due itE and since it is apparent here that none of such parties are o jecting to said orders or would e prejudiced ! the uno servance ! the trial court of the procedure pointed out ! PC%2, Ge find no legal inconvenience in nor impediment to $ur giving sanction to the lanket approval and authorit! contained in said orders. This solution is definitel! prefera le in law and in equit!, for to view said orders in the sense suggested ! PC%2 would result in the deprivation of su stantive rights to the rothers and sisters of "rs. 7odges, whereas reading them the other wa! will not cause an! prejudice to an!one, and, withal, will give peace of mind and sta ilit! of rights to the innocent parties who relied on them in good faith, in the light of the peculiar pertinent provisions of the will of said decedent. #ow, the inventor! su mitted ! 7odges on "a! .;, .93+ referred to the estate of his wife as consisting of F$nehalf of all the items designated in the alance sheet, cop! of which is hereto attached and marked as FAnneB AF.F Although, regretta l!, no cop! of said AnneB A appears in the records efore *s, Ge take judicial notice, on the asis of the undisputed facts in these cases, that the same consists of considera le real and other personal kinds of properties. And since, according to her will, her hus and was to e the sole owner thereof during his lifetime, with full power and authorit! to dispose of an! of them, provided that should there e an! remainder upon his death, such remainder would go to her rothers and sisters, and furthermore, there is no pretension, much less an! proof that 7odges had in fact disposed of all of them, and, on the contrar!, the indications are rather to the effect that he had kept them more or less intact, it cannot truthfull! e said that, upon the death of 7odges, there was no more estate of "rs. 7odges to speak of. %t is $ur conclusion, therefore, that properties do eBist which constitute such estate, hence )pecial Proceedings .,8/ should not !et e closed. #either is there asis for holding that respondent "agno has ceased to e the AdministratriB in said proceeding. There is no showing that she has ever een legall! removed as such, the attempt to replace her with "r. 2enito Hope( without authorit! from the Court having een eBpressl! held ineffective ! $ur resolution of )eptem er +, .9/;. Parentheticall!, on this last point, PC%2 itself is ver! emphatic in stressing that it is not questioning said respondent's status as such administratriB. %ndeed, it is not clear that PC%2 has an! standing to raise an! o jection thereto, considering it is a complete stranger insofar as the estate of "rs. 7odges is concerned. %t is the contention of PC%2, however, that as things actuall! stood at the time of 7odges' death, their conjugal partnership had not !et een liquidated and, inasmuch as the properties composing the same were thus commingled pro indiviso and, consequentl!, the properties pertaining to the estate of each of the spouses are not !et identifia le, it is PC%2 alone, as administrator of the estate of 7odges, who should administer ever!thing, and all that respondent "agno can do for the time eing is to wait until the properties constituting the remaining estate of "rs. 7odges have een dul! segregated and delivered to her for her own administration. )eemingl!, PC%2 would liken the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges to a part! having a claim of ownership to some properties included in the inventor! of an administrator of the estate of a decedent, &here that of 7odges' and who normall! has no right to take part in the proceedings pending the esta lishment of his right or titleE for which as a rule it is required that an ordinar! action should e filed, since the pro ate court is without jurisdiction to pass with finalit! on questions of title etween the estate of the deceased, on the one hand, and a third part! or even an heir claiming adversel! against the estate, on the other.

Ge do not find such contention sufficientl! persuasive. As Ge see it, the situation o taining herein cannot e compared with the claim of a third part! the asis of which is alien to the pending pro ate proceedings. %n the present cases what gave rise to the claim of PC%2 of eBclusive ownership ! the estate of 7odges over all the properties of the 7odges spouses, including the share of "rs. 7odges in the communit! properties, were the orders of the trial court issued in the course of the ver! settlement proceedings themselves, more specificall!, the orders of "a! ;/ and <ecem er .4, .93/ so often mentioned a ove. %n other words, the root of the issue of title etween the parties is something that the court itself has done in the eBercise of its pro ate jurisdiction. And since in the ultimate anal!sis, the question of whether or not all the properties herein involved pertain eBclusivel! to the estate of 7odges depends on the legal meaning and effect of said orders, the claim that respondent court has no jurisdiction to take cogni(ance of and decide the said issue is incorrect. %f it was within the competence of the court to issue the root orders, wh! should it not e within its authorit! to declare their true significance and intent, to the end that the parties ma! know whether or not the estate of "rs. 7odges had alread! een adjudicated ! the court, upon the initiative of 7odges, in his favor, to the eBclusion of the other heirs of his wife instituted in her willN At this point, it ears emphasis again that the main cause of all the present pro lems confronting the courts and the parties in these cases was the failure of 7odges to secure, as eBecutor of his wife's estate, from "a!, .93/ up to the time of his death in <ecem er, .90;, a period of more than five !ears, the final adjudication of her estate and the closure of the proceedings. The record is are of an! showing that he ever eBerted an! effort towards the earl! settlement of said estate. Ghile, on the one hand, there are enough indications, as alread! discuss that he had intentions of leaving intact her share of the conjugal properties so that it ma! pass wholl! to his co-heirs upon his death, pursuant to her will, on the other hand, ! not terminating the proceedings, his interests in his own half of the conjugal properties remained commingled pro-indiviso with those of his co-heirs in the other half. $ viousl!, such a situation could not e conducive to read! ascertainment of the portion of the inheritance that should appertain to his co-heirs upon his death. 7aving these considerations in mind, it would e giving a premium for such procrastination and rather unfair to his co-heirs, if the administrator of his estate were to e given eBclusive administration of all the properties in question, which would necessaril! include the function of promptl! liquidating the conjugal partnership, there ! identif!ing and segregating without unnecessar! loss of time which properties should e considered as constituting the estate of "rs. 7odges, the remainder of which her rothers and sisters are supposed to inherit equall! among themselves. To e sure, an administrator is not supposed to represent the interests of an! particular part! and his acts are deemed to e o jectivel! for the protection of the rights of ever! od! concerned with the estate of the decedent, and from this point of view, it ma! e said that even if PC%2 were to act alone, there should e no fear of undue disadvantage to an!one. $n the other hand, however, it is evidentl! implicit in section 0 of 1ule /+ fiBing the priorit! among those to whom letters of administration should e granted that the criterion in the selection of the administrator is not his impartialit! alone ut, more importantl!, the eBtent of his interest in the estate, so much so that the one assumed to have greater interest is preferred to another who has less. Taking oth of these considerations into account, inasmuch as, according to 7odges' own inventor! su mitted ! him as DBecutor of the estate of his wife, practicall! all their properties were conjugal which means that the spouses have equal shares therein, it is ut logical that oth estates should e administered jointl! ! representatives of oth, pending their segregation from each other. Particularl! is such an arrangement warranted ecause the actuations so far of PC%2 evince a determined, al eit groundless, intent to eBclude the other heirs of "rs. 7odges from their inheritance. 2esides, to allow PC%2, the administrator of his estate, to perform now what 7odges was dut! ound to do as eBecutor is to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of )ection ; of 1ule /+ which eBpressl! provides that FThe eBecutor of an eBecutor shall not, as such, administer the estate of the first testator.F %t goes without sa!ing that this provision refers also to the administrator of an eBecutor like PC%2 here. Ge are not unmindful of the fact that under )ection ; of 1ule /,, FGhen the marriage is dissolved ! the death of the hus and or wife, the communit! propert! shall e inventoried, administered, and liquidated, and the de ts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. %f oth spouses have died, the conjugal partnership shall e liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either.F %ndeed, it is true that the last sentence of this provision allows or permits the conjugal partnership of spouses who are oth deceased to e settled or liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either, ut precisel! ecause said sentence allows or permits that the liquidation e made in either proceeding, it is a matter of sound judicial discretion in which one it should e made. After all, the former rule referring to the administrator of the hus and's estate in respect to such liquidation was done awa! with ! Act ,./0, the pertinent provisions of which are now em odied in the rule just cited.

Thus, it can e seen that at the time of the death of 7odges, there was alread! the pending judicial settlement proceeding of the estate of "rs. 7odges, and, more importantl!, that the former was the eBecutor of the latter's will who had, as such, failed for more than five !ears to see to it that the same was terminated earliest, which was not difficult to do, since from ought that appears in the record, there were no serious o stacles on the wa!, the estate not eing inde ted and there eing no immediate heirs other than 7odges himself. )uch dilator! or indifferent attitude could onl! spell possi le prejudice of his co-heirs, whose rights to inheritance depend entirel! on the eBistence of an! remainder of "rs. 7odges' share in the communit! properties, and who are now faced with the pose of PC%2 that there is no such remainder. 7ad 7odges secured as earl! as possi le the settlement of his wife's estate, this pro lem would not arisen. All things considered, Ge are full! convinced that the interests of justice will e etter served ! not permitting or allowing PC%2 or an! administrator of the estate of 7odges eBclusive administration of all the properties in question. Ge are of the considered opinion and so hold that what would e just and proper is for oth administrators of the two estates to act conjointl! until after said estates have een segregated from each other. At this juncture, it ma! e stated that we are not overlooking the fact that it is PC%2's contention that, viewed as a su stitution, the testamentar! disposition in favor of "rs. 7odges' rothers and sisters ma! not e given effect. To a certain eBtent, this contention is correct. %ndeed, legall! speaking, "rs. 7odges' will provides neither for a simple or vulgar su stitution under Article +39 of the Civil Code nor for a fideicommissar! su stitution under Article +0, thereof. There is no vulgar su stitution therein ecause there is no provision for either &.' predecease of the testator ! the designated heir or &;' refusal or &,' incapacit! of the latter to accept the inheritance, as required ! Article +39E and neither is there a fideicommissar! su stitution therein ecause no o ligation is imposed there ! upon 7odges to preserve the estate or an! part thereof for an!one else. 2ut from these premises, it is not correct to jump to the conclusion, as PC%2 does, that the testamentar! dispositions in question are therefore inoperative and invalid. The error in PC%2's position lies simpl! in the fact that it views the said disposition eBclusivel! in the light of su stitutions covered ! the Civil Code section on that su ject, &)ection ,, Chapter ;, Title %K, 2ook %%%' when it is o vious that su stitution occurs onl! when another heir is appointed in a will Fso that he ma! enter into inheritance in default of the heir originall! instituted,F &Article +3/, id/' and, in the present case, no such possi le default is contemplated. The rothers and sisters of "rs. 7odges are not su stitutes for 7odges ecause, under her will, the! are not to inherit what 7odges cannot, would not or ma! not inherit, ut what he would not dispose of from his inheritanceE rather, therefore, the! are also heirs instituted simultaneousl! with 7odges, su ject, however, to certain conditions, partiall! resolutor! insofar as 7odges was concerned and correspondingl! suspensive with reference to his rothers and sisters-in-law. %t is partiall! resolutor!, since it equeaths unto 7odges the whole of her estate to e owned and enjo!ed ! him as universal and sole heir with a solute dominion over them * onl! during his lifetime, which means that while he could completel! and a solutel! dispose of an! portion thereof inter vivos to an!one other than himself, he was not free to do so mortis causa, and all his rights to what might remain upon his death would cease entirel! upon the occurrence of that contingenc!, inasmuch as the right of his rothers and sisters-inlaw to the inheritance, although vested alread! upon the death of "rs. 7odges, would automaticall! ecome operative upon the occurrence of the death of 7odges in the event of actual eBistence of an! remainder of her estate then. Contrar! to the view of respondent "agno, however, it was not the usufruct alone of her estate, as contemplated in Article +09 of the Civil Code, that she equeathed to 7odges during his lifetime, ut the full ownership thereof, although the same was to last also during his lifetime onl!, even as there was no restriction whatsoever against his disposing or conve!ing the whole or an! portion thereof to an! od! other than himself. The Court sees no legal impediment to this kind of institution, in this jurisdiction or under Philippine law, eBcept that it cannot appl! to the legitime of 7odges as the surviving spouse, consisting of one-half of the estate, considering that "rs. 7odges had no surviving ascendants nor descendants. &Arts. +/;, 988, and 984, #ew Civil Code.' 2ut relative precisel! to the question of how much of "rs. 7odges' share of the conjugal partnership properties ma! e considered as her estate, the parties are in disagreement as to how Article .0 of the Civil Code 7 should e applied. $n the one hand, petitioner claims that inasmuch as "rs. 7odges was a resident of the Philippines at the time of her death, under said Article .0, construed in relation to the pertinent laws of TeBas and the principle ofrenvoi, what should e applied here should e the rules of succession under the Civil Code of the Philippines, and, therefore, her estate could consist of no more than one-fourth of the said conjugal properties, the other fourth eing, as alread! eBplained, the legitime of her hus and &Art. 988, Civil Code' which she could not have disposed of nor urdened with an! condition &Art. +/;, Civil Code'. $n the other hand, respondent "agno denies that "rs. 7odges died a resident of the Philippines, since allegedl! she never changed nor intended to change her original

residence of irth in TeBas, *nited )tates of America, and contends that, an!wa!, regardless of the question of her residence, she eing indisputa l! a citi(en of TeBas, under said Article .0 of the Civil Code, the distri ution of her estate is su ject to the laws of said )tate which, according to her, do not provide for an! legitime, hence, the rothers and sisters of "rs. 7odges are entitled to the remainder of the whole of her share of the conjugal partnership properties consisting of one-half thereof. 1espondent "agno further maintains that, in an! event, 7odges had renounced his rights under the will in favor of his co-heirs, as allegedl! proven ! the documents touching on the point alread! mentioned earlier, the genuineness and legal significance of which petitioner seemingl! questions. 2esides, the parties are disagreed as to what the pertinent laws of TeBas provide. %n the interest of settling the estates herein involved soonest, it would e est, indeed, if these conflicting claims of the parties were determined in these proceedings. The Court regrets, however, that it cannot do so, for the simple reason that neither the evidence su mitted ! the parties in the court elow nor their discussion, in their respective riefs and memoranda efore *s, of their respective contentions on the pertinent legal issues, of grave importance as the! are, appear to *s to e adequate enough to ena le *s to render an intelligent comprehensive and just resolution. 5or one thing, there is no clear and relia le proof of what in fact the possi l! applica le laws of TeBas are. 7@ Then also, the genuineness of documents relied upon ! respondent "agno is disputed. And there are a num er of still other conceiva le related issues which the parties ma! wish to raise ut which it is not proper to mention here. %n Justice, therefore, to all the parties concerned, these and all other relevant matters should first e threshed out full! in the trial court in the proceedings hereafter to e held therein for the purpose of ascertaining and adjudicating andCor distri uting the estate of "rs. 7odges to her heirs in accordance with her dul! pro ated will. To e more eBplicit, all that Ge can and do decide in connection with the petition for certiorari and prohi ition are: &.' that regardless of which corresponding laws are applied, whether of the Philippines or of TeBas, and taking for granted either of the respective contentions of the parties as to provisions of the latter, + and regardless also of whether or not it can e proven ! competent evidence that 7odges renounced his inheritance in an! degree, it is easil! and definitel! discerni le from the inventor! su mitted ! 7odges himself, as DBecutor of his wife's estate, that there are properties which should constitute the estate of "rs. 7odges and ought to e disposed of or distri uted among her heirs pursuant to her will in said )pecial Proceedings .,8/E &;' that, more specificall!, inasmuch as the question of what are the pertinent laws of TeBas applica le to the situation herein is asicall! one of fact, and, considering that the sole difference in the positions of the parties as to the effect of said laws has reference to the supposed legitime of 7odges I it eing the stand of PC%2 that 7odges had such a legitime whereas "agno claims the negative - it is now e!ond controvers! for all future purposes of these proceedings that whatever e the provisions actuall! of the laws of TeBas applica le hereto, the estate of "rs. 7odges is at least, one-fourth of the conjugal estate of the spousesE the eBistence and effects of foreign laws eing questions of fact, and it eing the position now of PC%2 that the estate of "rs. 7odges, pursuant to the laws of TeBas, should onl! e one-fourth of the conjugal estate, such contention constitutes an admission of fact, and consequentl!, it would e in estoppel in an! further proceedings in these cases to claim that said estate could e less, irrespective of what might e proven later to e actuall! the provisions of the applica le laws of TeBasE &,' that )pecial Proceedings .,8/ for the settlement of the testate estate of "rs. 7odges cannot e closed at this stage and should proceed to its logical conclusion, there having een no proper and legal adjudication or distri ution !et of the estate therein involvedE and &4' that respondent "agno remains and continues to e the AdministratriB therein. 7ence, nothing in the foregoing opinion is intended to resolve the issues which, as alread! stated, are not properl! efore the Court now, namel!, &.' whether or not 7odges had in fact and in law waived or renounced his inheritance from "rs. 7odges, in whole or in part, and &;' assuming there had een no such waiver, whether or not, ! the application of Article .0 of the Civil Code, and in the light of what might e the applica le laws of TeBas on the matter, the estate of "rs. 7odges is more than the one-fourth declared a ove. As a matter of fact, even our finding a ove a out the eBistence of properties constituting the estate of "rs. 7odges rests largel! on a general appraisal of the si(e and eBtent of the conjugal partnership gathered from reference made thereto ! oth parties in their riefs as well as in their pleadings included in the records on appeal, and it should accordingl! !ield, as to which eBactl! those properties are, to the more concrete and specific evidence which the parties are supposed to present in support of their respective positions in regard to the foregoing main legal and factual issues. %n the interest of justice, the parties should e allowed to present such further evidence in relation to all these issues in a joint hearing of the two pro ate proceedings herein involved. After all, the court a quo has not !et passed squarel! on these issues, and it is est for all concerned that it should do so in the first instance. 1elative to $ur holding a ove that the estate of "rs. 7odges cannot e less than the remainder of one-fourth of the conjugal partnership properties, it ma! e mentioned here that during the deli erations, the point was raised as to whether or not said holding might e inconsistent with $ur other ruling here also that, since there is no relia le evidence as to what are the applica le laws of TeBas, *.).A. Fwith respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rightsF that ma! e willed ! a testator which, under Article .0 of the Civil Code, are

controlling in the instant cases, in view of the undisputed TeBan nationalit! of the deceased "rs. 7odges, these cases should e returned to the court a quo, so that the parties ma! prove what said law provides, it is premature for *s to make an! specific ruling now on either the validit! of the testamentar! dispositions herein involved or the amount of inheritance to which the rothers and sisters of "rs. 7odges are entitled. After nature reflection, Ge are of the considered view that, at this stage and in the state of the records efore *s, the feared inconsistenc! is more apparent than real. Githal, it no longer lies in the lips of petitioner PC%2 to make an! claim that under the laws of TeBas, the estate of "rs. 7odges could in an! event e less than that Ge have fiBed a ove. %t should e orne in mind that as a ove-indicated, the question of what are the laws of TeBas governing the matters herein issue is, in the first instance, one of fact, not of law. Dlementar! is the rule that foreign laws ma! not e taken judicial notice of and have to e proven like an! other fact in dispute etween the parties in an! proceeding, with the rare eBception in instances when the said laws are alread! within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when the! are well and generall! known or the! have een actuall! ruled upon in other cases efore it and none of the parties concerned do not claim otherwise. &3 "oran, Comments on the 1ules of Court, p. 4., .9/8 ed.' %n 4luemer vs/ Hix, 34 Phil. 0.8, it was held: %t is the theor! of the petitioner that the alleged will was eBecuted in Dlkins Gest Kirginia, on #ovem er ,, .9;3, ! 7iB who had his residence in that jurisdiction, and that the laws of Gest Kirginia govern. To this end, there was su mitted a cop! of section ,+0+ of Acts .++;, c. +4 as found in Gest Kirginia Code, Annotated, ! 7ogg Charles D., vol. ;, .9.4, p. .908, and as certified to ! the <irector of the #ational Hi rar!. 2ut this was far from a compliance with the law. The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. The courts of the Philippine %slands are not authori(ed to take judicial notice of the laws of the various )tates of the American *nion. )uch laws must e proved as facts. &%n re Dstate of Johnson ?.9.+@, ,9 Phil., .30.' 7ere the requirements of the law were not met. There was no showing that the ook from which an eBtract was taken was printed or pu lished under the authorit! of the )tate of Gest Kirginia, as provided in section ,88 of the Code of Civil Procedure. #or was the eBtract from the law attested ! the certificate of the officer having charge of the original, under the seal of the )tate of Gest Kirginia, as provided in section ,8. of the Code of Civil Procedure. #o evidence was introduced to show that the eBtract from the laws of Gest Kirginia was in force at the time the alleged will was eBecuted.F #o evidence of the nature thus suggested ! the Court ma! e found in the records of the cases at ar. Puite to the contrar!, the parties herein have presented opposing versions in their respective pleadings and memoranda regarding the matter. And even if Ge took into account that in (znar vs/ +arcia, the Court did make reference to certain provisions regarding succession in the laws of TeBas, the disparit! in the material dates of that case and the present ones would not permit *s to indulge in the ha(ardous conjecture that said provisions have not een amended or changed in the meantime. $n the other hand, in %n re Dstate of Johnson, ,9 Phil. .30, Ge held: *pon the other point I as to whether the will was eBecuted in conformit! with the statutes of the )tate of %llinois I we note that it does not affirmativel! appear from the transcription of the testimon! adduced in the trial court that an! witness was eBamined with reference to the law of %llinois on the su ject of the eBecution of will. The trial judge no dou t was satisfied that the will was properl! eBecuted ! eBamining section .+/4 of the 1evised )tatutes of %llinois, as eBhi ited in volume , of )tarr 6 Curtis's Annotated %llinois )tatutes, ;nd ed., p. 4;0E and he ma! have assumed that he could take judicial notice of the laws of %llinois under section ;/3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. %f so, he was in our opinion mistaken. That section authori(es the courts here to take judicial notice, among other things, of the acts of the legislative department of the *nited )tates. These words clearl! have reference to Acts of the Congress of the *nited )tatesE and we would hesitate to hold that our courts can, under this provision, take judicial notice of the multifarious laws of the various American )tates. #or do we think that an! such authorit! can e derived from the roader language, used in the same section, where it is said that our courts ma! take judicial notice of matters of pu lic knowledge FsimilarF to those therein enumerated. The proper rule we think is to require proof of the statutes of the )tates of the American *nion whenever their provisions are determinative of the issues in an! action litigated in the Philippine courts. #evertheless, even supposing that the trial court ma! have erred in taking judicial notice of the law of %llinois on the point in question, such error is not now availa le to the petitioner, first, ecause the petition does not state an! fact from which it would appear that the law of %llinois is different from

what the court found, and, secondl!, ecause the assignment of error and argument for the appellant in this court raises no question ased on such supposed error. Though the trial court ma! have acted upon pure conjecture as to the law prevailing in the )tate of %llinois, its judgment could not e set aside, even upon application made within siB months under section .., of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless it should e made to appear affirmativel! that the conjecture was wrong. The petitioner, it is true, states in general terms that the will in question is invalid and inadequate to pass real and personal propert! in the )tate of %llinois, ut this is merel! a conclusion of law. The affidavits ! which the petition is accompanied contain no reference to the su ject, and we are cited to no authorit! in the appellant's rief which might tend to raise a dou t as to the correctness of the conclusion of the trial court. %t is ver! clear, therefore, that this point cannot e urged as of serious moment. %t is implicit in the a ove ruling that when, with respect to certain aspects of the foreign laws concerned, the parties in a given case do not have an! controvers! or are more or less in agreement, the Court ma! take it for granted for the purposes of the particular case efore it that the said laws are as such virtual agreement indicates, without the need of requiring the presentation of what otherwise would e the competent evidence on the point. Thus, in the instant cases wherein it results from the respective contentions of oth parties that even if the pertinent laws of TeBas were known and to e applied, the amount of the inheritance pertaining to the heirs of "rs. 7odges is as Ge have fiBed a ove, the a sence of evidence to the effect that, actuall! and in fact, under said laws, it could e otherwise is of no longer of an! consequence, unless the purpose is to show that it could e more. %n other words, since PC%2, the petitioner-appellant, concedes that upon application of Article .0 of the Civil Code and the pertinent laws of TeBas, the amount of the estate in controvers! is just as Ge have determined it to e, and respondentappellee is onl! claiming, on her part, that it could e more, PC%2 ma! not now or later pretend differentl!. To e more concrete, on pages ;8-;. of its petition herein, dated Jul! ,., .90/, PC%2 states categoricall!: %nasmuch as Article .0 of the Civil Code provides that Fintestate and testamentar! successions oth with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validit! of testamentar! provisions, shall e regulated ! the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever ma! e the nature of the propert! and regardless of the countr! wherein said propert! ma! e foundF, while the law of TeBas &the 7odges spouses eing nationals of *.).A., )tate of TeBas', in its conflicts of law rules, provides that the domiciliar! law &in this case Philippine law' governs the testamentar! dispositions and successional rights over mova les or personal properties, while the law of the situs &in this case also Philippine law with respect to all 7odges properties located in the Philippines', governs with respect to immova le properties, and appl!ing therefore the 'renvoi doctrine' as enunciated and applied ! this 7onora le Court in the case of %n re Dstate of Christensen &J.1. #o. H-.0/49, Jan. ,., .90,', there can e no question that Philippine law governs the testamentar! dispositions contained in the Hast Gill and Testament of the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges, as well as the successional rights to her estate, oth with respect to mova les, as well as to immova les situated in the Philippines. %n its main rief dated 5e ruar! ;0, .90+, PC%2 asserts: The la. governing successional rights/
As recited a ove, there is no question that the deceased, Hinnie Jane 7odges, was an American citi(en. There is also no question that she was a national of the )tate of TeBas, *.).A. Again, there is likewise no question that she had her domicile of choice in the Cit! of %loilo, Philippines, as this has alread! een pronounced ! the a ove-cited orders of the lower court, pronouncements which are ! now res adCudicata &par. ?a@, )ee. 49, 1ule ,9, 1ules of CourtE %n re Dstate of Johnson, ,9 Phil. .30'.

Article .0 of the Civil Code provides: F1eal propert! as well as personal propert! is su ject to the law of the countr! where it is situated. 7owever, intestate and testamentar! successions, oth with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validit! of testamentar! provisions, shall e

regulated ! the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever ma! e the nature of the propert! and regardless of the countr! wherein said propert! ma! e found.F Thus the aforecited provision of the Civil Code points towards the national law of the deceased, Hinnie Jane 7odges, which is the law of TeBas, as governing succession F oth with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validit! of testamentar! provisions ...F. 2ut the law of TeBas, in its conflicts of law rules, provides that the domiciliar! law governs the testamentar! dispositions and successional rights over mova les or personal propert!, while the law of the situs governs with respect to immova le propert!. )uch that with respect to oth mova le propert!, as well as immova le propert! situated in the Philippines, the law of TeBas points to the law of the Philippines. Appl!ing, therefore, the so-called Frenvoi doctrineF, as enunciated and applied ! this 7onora le Court in the case of F%n re ChristensenF &J.1. #o. H-.0/49, Jan. ,., .90,', there can e no question that Philippine law governs the testamentar! provisions in the Hast Gill and Testament of the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges, as well as the successional rights to her estate, oth with respect to mova les, as well as immova les situated in the Philippines. The su ject of successional rights. *nder Philippine law, as it is under the law of TeBas, the conjugal or communit! propert! of the spouses, Charles #ewton 7odges and Hinnie Jane 7odges, upon the death of the latter, is to e divided into two, one-half pertaining to each of the spouses, as his or her own propert!. Thus, upon the death of Hinnie Jane 7odges, one-half of the conjugal partnership propert! immediatel! pertained to Charles #ewton 7odges as his own share, and not ! virtue of an! successional rights. There can e no question a out this. Again, Philippine law, or more specificall!, Article 988 of the Civil Code provides: %f the onl! survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall e entitled to one-half of the hereditar! estate of the deceased spouse, and the testator ma! freel! dispose of the other half. %f the marriage etween the surviving spouse and the testator was solemni(ed in articulo mortis, and the testator died within three months from the time of the marriage, the legitime of the surviving spouse as the sole heir shall e one-third of the hereditar! estate, eBcept when the! have een living as hus and and wife for more than five !ears. %n the latter case, the legitime of the surviving spouse shall e that specified in the preceding paragraph. This legitime of the surviving spouse cannot e urdened ! a fideicommisar! su stitution &Art. +04, Civil code', nor ! an! charge, condition, or su stitution &Art, +/;, Civil code'. %t is clear, therefore, that in addition to one-half of the conjugal partnership propert! as his own conjugal share, Charles #ewton 7odges was also immediatel! entitled to one-half of the half conjugal share of the deceased, Hinnie Jane 7odges, or one-fourth of the entire conjugal propert!, as his legitime. $ne-fourth of the conjugal propert! therefore remains at issue. %n the summar! of its arguments in its memorandum dated April ,8, .90+, the following appears: 2riefl!, the position advanced ! the petitioner is: a. That the 7odges spouses were domiciled legall! in the Philippines &pp. .9-;8, petition'. This is now a matter of res adjudicata &p. ;8, petition'.

. That under Philippine law, TeBas law, and the renvoi doctrine, Philippine law governs the successional rights over the properties left ! the deceased, Hinnie Jane 7odges &pp. ;8-;., petition'. c. That under Philippine as well as TeBas law, one-half of the 7odges properties pertains to the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges &p. ;., petition'. This is not questioned ! the respondents. d. That under Philippine law, the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, automaticall! inherited onehalf of the remaining one-half of the 7odges properties as his legitime &p. ;., petition'. e. That the remaining ;3A of the 7odges properties was inherited ! the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, under the will of his deceased spouse &pp. ;;-;,, petition'. *pon the death of Charles #ewton 7odges, the su stitution 'provision of the will of the deceased, Hinnie Jane 7odges, did not operate ecause the same is void &pp. ;,-;3, petition'. f. That the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, asserted his sole ownership of the 7odges properties and the pro ate court sanctioned such assertion &pp. ;3-;9, petition'. 7e in fact assumed such ownership and such was the status of the properties as of the time of his death &pp. ;9-,4, petition'. $f similar tenor are the allegations of PC%2 in some of its pleadings quoted in the earlier part of this option. $n her part, it is respondent-appellee "agno's posture that under the laws of TeBas, there is no s!stem of legitime, hence the estate of "rs. 7odges should e one-half of all the conjugal properties. %t is thus unquestiona le that as far as PC%2 is concerned, the application to these cases of Article .0 of the Civil Code in relation to the corresponding laws of TeBas would result in that the Philippine laws on succession should control. $n that asis, as Ge have alread! eBplained a ove, the estate of "rs. 7odges is the remainder of onefourth of the conjugal partnership properties, considering that Ge have found that there is no legal impediment to the kind of disposition ordered ! "rs. 7odges in her will in favor of her rothers and sisters and, further, that the contention of PC%2 that the same constitutes an inoperative testamentar! su stitution is untena le. As will e recalled, PC%2's position that there is no such estate of "rs. 7odges is predicated eBclusivel! on two propositions, namel!: &.' that the provision in question in "rs. 7odges' testament violates the rules on su stitution of heirs under the Civil Code and &;' that, in an! event, ! the orders of the trial court of "a! ;/, and <ecem er .4, .93/, the trial court had alread! finall! and irrevoca l! adjudicated to her hus and the whole free portion of her estate to the eBclusion of her rothers and sisters, oth of which poses, Ge have overruled. #owhere in its pleadings, riefs and memoranda does PC%2 maintain that the application of the laws of TeBas would result in the other heirs of "rs. 7odges not inheriting an!thing under her will. And since PC%2's representations in regard to the laws of TeBas virtuall! constitute admissions of fact which the other parties and the Court are eing made to rel! and act upon, PC%2 is Fnot permitted to contradict them or su sequentl! take a position contradictor! to or inconsistent with them.F &3 "oran, id, p. 03, citing Cunanan vs. Amparo, +8 Phil. ;;/E )ta. Ana vs. "aliwat, H-;,8;,, Aug. ,., .90+, ;4 )C1A .8.+'. Accordingl!, the onl! question that remains to e settled in the further proceedings here ! ordered to e held in the court elow is how much more than as fiBed a ove is the estate of "rs. 7odges, and this would depend on &.' whether or not the applica le laws of TeBas do provide in effect for more, such as, when there is no legitime provided therein, and &;' whether or not 7odges has validl! waived his whole inheritance from "rs. 7odges. %n the course of the deli erations, it was rought out ! some mem ers of the Court that to avoid or, at least, minimi(e further protracted legal controversies etween the respective heirs of the 7odges spouses, it is imperative to elucidate on the possi le consequences of dispositions made ! 7odges after the death of his wife from the mass of the unpartitioned estates without an! eBpress indication in the pertinent documents as to whether his intention is to dispose of part of his inheritance from his wife or part of his own share of the conjugal estate as well as of those made ! PC%2 after the death of 7odges. After a long discussion, the consensus arrived at was as follows: &.' an! such dispositions made gratuitousl& in favor of third parties, whether these e individuals, corporations or foundations, shall e considered as intended to e of properties constituting part of 7odges' inheritance from his wife, it appearing from the tenor of his motions of "a! ;/ and <ecem er .., .93/ that in asking for general authorit! to make sales or other disposals of properties under the jurisdiction of the court, which include his own

share of the conjugal estate, he was not invoking particularl! his right over his own share, ut rather his right to dispose of an! part of his inheritance pursuant to the will of his wifeE &;' as regards sales, eBchanges or other remunerative transfers, the proceeds of such sales or the properties taken in ! virtue of such eBchanges, shall e considered as merel! the products of Fph!sical changesF of the properties of her estate which the will eBpressl! authori(es 7odges to make, provided that whatever of said products should remain with the estate at the time of the death of 7odges should go to her rothers and sistersE &,' the dispositions made ! PC%2 after the death of 7odges must naturall! e deemed as covering onl! the properties elonging to his estate considering that eing onl! the administrator of the estate of 7odges, PC%2 could not have disposed of properties elonging to the estate of his wife. #either could such dispositions e considered as involving conjugal properties, for the simple reason that the conjugal partnership automaticall! ceased when "rs. 7odges died, and ! the peculiar provision of her will, under discussion, the remainder of her share descended also automaticall! upon the death of 7odges to her rothers and sisters, thus outside of the scope of PC%2's administration. Accordingl!, these construction of the will of "rs. 7odges should e adhered to ! the trial court in its final order of adjudication and distri ution andCor partition of the two estates in question. THE (**E(2S A cursor! eBamination of the sevent!-eight assignments of error in appellant PC%2's rief would readil! reveal that all of them are predicated mainl! on the contention that inasmuch as 7odges had alread! adjudicated unto himself all the properties constituting his wife's share of the conjugal partnership, allegedl! with the sanction of the trial court per its order of <ecem er .4, .93/, there has een, since said date, no longer an! estate of "rs. 7odges of which appellee "agno could e administratriB, hence the various assailed orders sanctioning her actuations as such are not in accordance with law. )uch eing the case, with the foregoing resolution holding such posture to e untena le in fact and in law and that it is in the est interest of justice that for the time eing the two estates should e administered conjointl! ! the respective administrators of the two estates, it should follow that said assignments of error have lost their fundamental reasons for eing. There are certain matters, however, relating peculiarl! to the respective orders in question, if commonl! among some of them, which need further clarification. 5or instance, some of them authori(ed respondent "agno to act alone or without concurrence of PC%2. And with respect to man! of said orders, PC%2 further claims that either the matters involved were not properl! within the pro ate jurisdiction of the trial court or that the procedure followed was not in accordance with the rules. 7ence, the necessit! of dealing separatel! with the merits of each of the appeals. %ndeed, inasmuch as the said two estates have until now remained commingled pro)indiviso, due to the failure of 7odges and the lower court to liquidate the conjugal partnership, to recogni(e appellee "agno as AdministratriB of the Testate Dstate of "rs. 7odges which is still unsegregated from that of 7odges is not to sa!, without an! qualification, that she was therefore authori(ed to do and perform all her acts complained of in these appeals, sanctioned though the! might have een ! the trial court. As a matter of fact, it is such commingling pro)indivisoof the two estates that should deprive appellee of freedom to act independentl! from PC%2, as administrator of the estate of 7odges, just as, for the same reason, the latter should not have authorit! to act independentl! from her. And considering that the lower court failed to adhere consistentl! to this asic point of view, ! allowing the two administrators to act independentl! of each other, in the various instances alread! noted in the narration of facts a ove, the Court has to look into the attendant circumstances of each of the appealed orders to e a le to determine whether an! of them has to e set aside or the! ma! all e legall! maintained notwithstanding the failure of the court a quo to o serve the pertinent procedural technicalities, to the end onl! that graver injur! to the su stantive rights of the parties concerned and unnecessar! and undesira le proliferation of incidents in the su ject proceedings ma! e forestalled. %n other words, Ge have to determine, whether or not, in the light of the unusual circumstances eBtant in the record, there is need to e more pragmatic and to adopt a rather unorthodoB approach, so as to cause the least distur ance in rights alread! eing eBercised ! numerous innocent third parties, even if to do so ma! not appear to e strictl! in accordance with the letter of the applica le purel! adjective rules. %ncidentall!, it ma! e mentioned, at this point, that it was principall! on account of the confusion that might result later from PC%2's continuing to administer all the communit! properties, notwithstanding the certaint! of the eBistence of the separate estate of "rs. 7odges, and to ena le oth estates to function in the meantime with a relative degree of regularit!, that the Court ordered in the resolution of )eptem er +, .9/; the modification of the injunction issued pursuant to the resolutions of August +, $cto er 4 and <ecem er 0, .90/, ! virtue of which respondent "agno was completel! arred from an! participation in the administration of the properties herein involved. %n the )eptem er + resolution, Ge ordered that, pending this decision, )pecial Proceedings .,8/ and .0/; should proceed jointl! and that the respective administrators therein Fact conjointl! I none of them to act

singl! and independentl! of each other for an! purpose.F *pon mature deli eration, Ge felt that to allow PC%2 to continue managing or administering all the said properties to the eBclusion of the administratriB of "rs. 7odges' estate might place the heirs of 7odges at an undul! advantageous position which could result in considera le, if not irrepara le, damage or injur! to the other parties concerned. %t is indeed to e regretted that apparentl!, up to this date, more than a !ear after said resolution, the same has not een given due regard, as ma! e gleaned from the fact that recentl!, respondent "agno has filed in these proceedings a motion to declare PC%2 in contempt for alleged failure to a ide therewith, notwithstanding that its repeated motions for reconsideration thereof have all een denied soon after the! were filed. 9 Joing ack to the appeals, it is perhaps est to egin first with what appears to $ur mind to e the simplest, and then proceed to the more complicated ones in that order, without regard to the numerical sequence of the assignments of error in appellant's rief or to the order of the discussion thereof ! counsel. (ssignments of error num'ers 266""! 2668"" and 2668"""/ These assignments of error relate to &.' the order of the trial court of August 0, .903 providing that Fthe deeds of sale &therein referred to involving properties in the name of 7odges' should e signed jointl! ! the PC%2, as Administrator of Testate Dstate of C.#. 7odges, and Avelina A. "agno, as AdministratriB of the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, and to this effect, the PC%2 should take the necessar! steps so that AdministratriB Avelina A. "agno could sign the deeds of sale,F &p. ;4+, Jreen 1ec. on Appeal' &;' the order of $cto er ;/, .903 den!ing the motion for reconsideration of the foregoing order, &pp. ;/0-;//, id/' &,' the other order also dated $cto er ;/, .903 enjoining inter alia, that F&a' all cash collections should e deposited in the joint account of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and estate of C. #. 7odges, & ' that whatever cash collections &that' had een deposited in the account of either of the estates should e withdrawn and since then &sic' deposited in the joint account of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges and the estate of C. #. 7odgesE ... &d' &that' AdministratriB "agno I allow the PC%2 to inspect whatever records, documents and papers she ma! have in her possession, in the same manner that Administrator PC%2 is also directed to allow AdministratriB "agno to inspect whatever records, documents and papers it ma! have in its possessionF and F&e' that the accountant of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odges shall have access to all records of the transactions of oth estates for the protection of the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesE and in like manner, the accountant or an! authori(ed representative of the estate of C. #. 7odges shall have access to the records of transactions of the Hinnie Jane 7odges estate for the protection of the estate of C. #. 7odgesF, &pp. ;9;-;93, id/' and &4' the order of 5e ruar! .3, .900, den!ing, among others, the motion for reconsideration of the order of $cto er ;/, .903 last referred to. &pp. 433-430, id/' As ma! e readil! seen, the thrust of all these four impugned orders is in line with the Court's a ove-mentioned resolution of )eptem er +, .9/; modif!ing the injunction previousl! issued on August +, .90/, and, more importantl!, with what Ge have said the trial court should have alwa!s done pending the liquidation of the conjugal partnership of the 7odges spouses. %n fact, as alread! stated, that is the arrangement Ge are ordering, ! this decision, to e followed. )tated differentl!, since the questioned orders provide for joint action ! the two administrators, and that is precisel! what Ge are holding out to have een done and should e done until the two estates are separated from each other, the said orders must e affirmed. Accordingl! the foregoing assignments of error must e, as the! are here ! overruled. (ssignments of error Num'ers 268""" to 266" and 266""" to 2668"/ The orders complained of under these assignments of error commonl! deal with eBpenditures made ! appellee "agno, as AdministratriB of the Dstate of "rs. 7odges, in connection with her administration thereof, al eit additionall!, assignments of error #um ers HO%O to HOO% put into question the pa!ment of attorne!s fees provided for in the contract for the purpose, as constituting, in effect, premature advances to the heirs of "rs. 7odges. "ore specificall!, assignment #um er HOO%%% refers to reim ursement of overtime pa! paid to siB emplo!ees of the court and three other persons for services in cop!ing the court records to ena le the law!ers of the administration to e full! informed of all the incidents in the proceedings. The reim ursement was approved as proper legal eBpenses of administration per the order of <ecem er .9, .904, &pp. ;;.-;;;, id/' and repeated motions for reconsideration thereof were denied ! the orders of Januar! 9, .903, &pp. ;,.-;,;, id/' $cto er ;/, .903, &p. ;//, id/' and 5e ruar! .3, .900. &pp. 433-430, id/' $n the other hand, Assignments #um ers HOK%%% to HOO%, HOO%K and HOOK

question the trial court's order of #ovem er ,, .903 approving the agreement of June 0, .904 etween AdministratriB "agno and James H. )ullivan, attorne!-in-fact of the heirs of "rs. 7odges, as Parties of the 5irst Part, and Attorne!s 1aul "anglapus and 1i(al 1. Puimpo, as Parties of the )econd Part, regarding attorne!s fees for said counsel who had agreed Fto prosecute and defend their interests &of the Parties of the 5irst Part' in certain cases now pending litigation in the Court of 5irst %nstance of %loilo I, more specificall! in )pecial Proceedings .,8/ and .0/; IF &pp. .;0-.;9, id/' and directing AdministratriB "agno Fto issue and sign whatever check or checks ma! e needed to implement the approval of the agreement anneBed to the motionF as well as the Fadministrator of the estate of C. #. 7odges I to countersign the said check or checks as the case ma! e.F &pp. ,.,-,;8, id/', reconsideration of which order of approval was denied in the order of 5e ruar! .0, .900, &p. 430, id/' Assignment #um er HOOK% imputes error to the lower court's order of $cto er ;/, .903, alread! referred to a ove, insofar as it orders that FPC%2 should counter sign the check in the amount of P;38 in favor of AdministratriB Avelina A. "agno as her compensation as administratriB of Hinnie Jane 7odges estate chargea le to the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges onl!.F &p. ;94, id/' "ain contention again of appellant PC%2 in regard to these eight assigned errors is that there is no such estate as the estate of "rs. 7odges for which the questioned eBpenditures were made, hence what were authori(ed were in effect eBpenditures from the estate of 7odges. As Ge have alread! demonstrated in $ur resolution a ove of the petition for certiorari and prohi ition, this posture is incorrect. %ndeed, in whichever wa! the remaining issues etween the parties in these cases are ultimatel! resolved, 1, the final result will surel! e that there are properties constituting the estate of "rs. 7odges of which "agno is the current administratriB. %t follows, therefore, that said appellee had the right, as such administratriB, to hire the persons whom she paid overtime pa! and to e paid for her own services as administratriB. That she has not !et collected and is not collecting amounts as su stantial as that paid to or due appellant PC%2 is to her credit. $f course, she is also entitled to the services of counsel and to that end had the authorit! to enter into contracts for attorne!'s fees in the manner she had done in the agreement of June 0, .904. And as regards to the reasona leness of the amount therein stipulated, Ge see no reason to distur the discretion eBercised ! the pro ate court in determining the same. Ge have gone over the agreement, and considering the o vious si(e of the estate in question and the nature of the issues etween the parties as well as the professional standing of counsel, Ge cannot sa! that the fees agreed upon require the eBercise ! the Court of its inherent power to reduce it. PC%2 insists, however, that said agreement of June 0, .904 is not for legal services to the estate ut to the heirs of "rs. 7odges, or, at most, to oth of them, and such eing the case, an! pa!ment under it, insofar as counsels' services would redound to the enefit of the heirs, would e in the nature of advances to such heirs and a premature distri ution of the estate. Again, Ge hold that such posture cannot prevail. *pon the premise Ge have found plausi le that there is an eBisting estate of "rs. 7odges, it results that juridicall! and factuall! the interests involved in her estate are distinct and different from those involved in her estate of 7odges and vice versa. %nsofar as the matters related eBclusivel! to the estate of "rs. 7odges, PC%2, as administrator of the estate of 7odges, is a complete stranger and it is without personalit! to question the actuations of the administratriB thereof regarding matters not affecting the estate of 7odges. Actuall!, considering the o viousl! considera le si(e of the estate of "rs. 7odges, Ge see no possi le cause for apprehension that when the two estates are segregated from each other, the amount of attorne!'s fees stipulated in the agreement in question will prejudice an! portion that would correspond to 7odges' estate. And as regards the other heirs of "rs. 7odges who ought to e the ones who should have a sa! on the attorne!'s fees and other eBpenses of administration assailed ! PC%2, suffice it to sa! that the! appear to have een dul! represented in the agreement itself ! their attorne!-in-fact, James H. )ullivan and have not otherwise interposed an! o jection to an! of the eBpenses incurred ! "agno questioned ! PC%2 in these appeals. As a matter of fact, as ordered ! the trial court, all the eBpenses in question, including the attorne!'s fees, ma! e paid without awaiting the determination and segregation of the estate of "rs. 7odges. Githal, the weightiest consideration in connection with the point under discussion is that at this stage of the controvers! among the parties herein, the vital issue refers to the eBistence or non-eBistence of the estate of "rs. 7odges. %n this respect, the interest of respondent "agno, as the appointed administratriB of the said estate, is to maintain that it eBists, which is naturall! common and identical with and insepara le from the interest of the rothers and sisters of "rs. 7odges. Thus, it should not e wondered wh! oth "agno and these heirs have seemingl! agreed to retain ut one counsel. %n fact, such an arrangement should e more convenient and economical to oth.

The possi ilit! of conflict of interest etween "agno and the heirs of "rs. 7odges would e, at this stage, quite remote and, in an! event, rather insu stantial. 2esides, should an! su stantial conflict of interest etween them arise in the future, the same would e a matter that the pro ate court can ver! well take care of in the course of the independent proceedings in Case #o. .,8/ after the corresponding segregation of the two su ject estates. Ge cannot perceive an! cogent reason wh!, at this stage, the estate and the heirs of "rs. 7odges cannot e represented ! a common counsel. #ow, as to whether or not the portion of the fees in question that should correspond to the heirs constitutes premature partial distri ution of the estate of "rs. 7odges is also a matter in which neither PC%2 nor the heirs of 7odges have an! interest. %n an! event, since, as far as the records show, the estate has no creditors and the corresponding estate and inheritance taBes, eBcept those of the rothers and sisters of "rs. 7odges, have alread! een paid, 11 no prejudice can caused to an!one ! the comparativel! small amount of attorne!'s fees in question. And in this connection, it ma! e added that, although strictl! speaking, the attorne!'s fees of the counsel of an administrator is in the first instance his personal responsi ilit!, reim ursa le later on ! the estate, in the final anal!sis, when, as in the situation on hand, the attorne!-in-fact of the heirs has given his conformit! thereto, it would e idle effort to inquire whether or not the sanction given to said fees ! the pro ate court is proper. 5or the foregoing reasons, Assignments of Drror HOK%%% to HOO% and HOO%%% to HOOK% should e as the! are here ! overruled. (ssignments of error " to "8! 6""" to 68! 66"" to 668! 6668 to 666 8"! 62" to 62""" and 2/ These assignments of error deal with the approval ! the trial court of various deeds of sale of real properties registered in the name of 7odges ut eBecuted ! appellee "agno, as AdministratriB of the Dstate of "rs. 7odges, purportedl! in implementation of corresponding supposed written FContracts to )ellF previousl! eBecuted ! 7odges during the interim etween "a! ;,, .93/, when his wife died, and <ecem er ;3, .90;, the da! he died. As stated on pp. ..+-.;8 of appellant's main rief, FThese are: the, contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellee, Pepito J. %!ulores eBecuted on 5e ruar! 3, .90.E the contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellant Dsperidion Partisala, eBecuted on April ;8, .908E the contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellee, Ginifredo C. Dspada, eBecuted on April .+, .908E the contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellee, 1osario Alingasa, eBecuted on August ;3, .93+E the contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellee, Horen(o Carles, eBecuted on June ./, .93+E the contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellee, )alvador ). Ju(man, eBecuted on )eptem er .,, .908E the contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellee, 5lorenia 2arrido, eBecuted on 5e ruar! ;., .93+E the contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellee, Purificacion Coronado, eBecuted on August .4, .90.E the contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellee, Jraciano Hucero, eBecuted on #ovem er ;/, .90.E the contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellee, Ariteo Thomas Jamir, eBecuted on "a! ;0, .90.E the contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellee, "elquiades 2atisanan, eBecuted on June 9, .939E the contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellee, 2elce(ar Causing, eBecuted on 5e ruar! .8, .939 and the contract to sell etween the deceased, Charles #ewton 7odges, and the appellee, Adelfa Prema!lon, eBecuted on $cto er ,., .939, re Title #o. .,+.3.F 1elative to these sales, it is the position of appellant PC%2 that, inasmuch as pursuant to the will of "rs. 7odges, her hus and was to have dominion over all her estate during his lifetime, it was as a solute owner of the properties respectivel! covered ! said sales that he eBecuted the aforementioned contracts to sell, and consequentl!, upon his death, the implementation of said contracts ma! e undertaken onl! ! the administrator of his estate and not ! the administratriB of the estate of "rs. 7odges. 2asicall!, the same theor! is invoked with particular reference to five other sales, in which the respective Fcontracts to sellF in favor of these appellees were eBecuted ! 7odges efore the death of his wife, namel!, those in favor of appellee )antiago Pacaonsis, Alfredo Catedral, Jose Pa lico, Gestern %nstitute of Technolog! and Adelfa Prema!lon. Anent those deeds of sale ased on promises or contracts to sell eBecuted ! 7odges after the death of his wife, those enumerated in the quotation in the immediatel! preceding paragraph, it is quite o vious that PC%2's contention cannot e sustained. As alread! eBplained earlier, . 1@ all proceeds of remunerative transfers or dispositions made

! 7odges after the death of his wife should e deemed as continuing to e parts of her estate and, therefore, su ject to the terms of her will in favor of her rothers and sisters, in the sense that should there e no showing that such proceeds, whether in cash or propert! have een su sequentl! conve!ed or assigned su sequentl! ! 7odges to an! third part! ! acts inter vivos with the result that the! could not there ! elong to him an!more at the time of his death, the! automaticall! ecame part of the inheritance of said rothers and sisters. The deeds here in question involve transactions which are eBactl! of this nature. Consequentl!, the pa!ments made ! the appellees should e considered as pa!ments to the estate of "rs. 7odges which is to e distri uted and partitioned among her heirs specified in the will. The five deeds of sale predicated on contracts to sell eBecuted 7odges during the lifetime of his wife, present a different situation. At first lush, it would appear that as to them, PC%2's position has some degree of plausi ilit!. Considering, however, that the adoption of PC%2's theor! would necessaril! have tremendous repercussions and would ring a out considera le distur ance of propert! rights that have somehow accrued alread! in favor of innocent third parties, the five purchasers aforenamed, the Court is inclined to take a pragmatic and practical view of the legal situation involving them ! overlooking the possi le technicalities in the wa!, the non-o servance of which would not, after all, detract materiall! from what should su stantiall! correspond to each and all of the parties concerned. To start with, these contracts can hardl! e ignored. Bona fide third parties are involvedE as much as possi le, the! should not e made to suffer an! prejudice on account of judicial controversies not of their own making. Ghat is more, the transactions the! rel! on were su mitted ! them to the pro ate court for approval, and from alread! known and recorded actuations of said court then, the! had reason to elieve that it had authorit! to act on their motions, since appellee "agno had, from time to time prior to their transactions with her, een allowed to act in her capacit! as administratriB of one of the su ject estates either alone or conjointl! with PC%2. All the sales in question were eBecuted ! "agno in .900 alread!, ut efore that, the court had previousl! authori(ed or otherwise sanctioned eBpressl! man! of her act as administratriB involving eBpenditures from the estate made ! her either conjointl! with or independentl! from PC%2, as Administrator of the Dstate of 7odges. Thus, it ma! e said that said u!ers-appellees merel! followed precedents in previous orders of the court. Accordingl!, unless the impugned orders approving those sales indu ita l! suffer from some clearl! fatal infirmit! the Court would rather affirm them. %t is quite apparent from the record that the properties covered ! said sales are equivalent onl! to a fraction of what should constitute the estate of "rs. 7odges, even if it is assumed that the same would finall! e held to e onl! onefourth of the conjugal properties of the spouses as of the time of her death or, to e more eBact, one-half of her estate as per the inventor! su mitted ! 7odges as eBecutor, on "a! .;, .93+. %n none of its numerous, varied and voluminous pleadings, motions and manifestations has PC%2 claimed an! possi ilit! otherwise. )uch eing the case, to avoid an! conflict with the heirs of 7odges, the said properties covered ! the questioned deeds of sale eBecuted ! appellee "agno ma! e treated as among those corresponding to the estate of "rs. 7odges, which would have een actuall! under her control and administration had 7odges complied with his dut! to liquidate the conjugal partnership. Kiewing the situation in that manner, the onl! ones who could stand to e prejudiced ! the appealed orders referred to in the assignment of errors under discussion and who could, therefore, have the requisite interest to question them would e onl! the heirs of "rs. 7odges, definitel! not PC%2. %t is of no moment in what capacit! 7odges made the Fcontracts to sell' after the death of his wife. Dven if he had acted as eBecutor of the will of his wife, he did not have to su mit those contracts to the court nor follow the provisions of the rules, &)ections ;, 4, 3, 0, + and 9 of 1ule +9 quoted ! appellant on pp. .;3 to .;/ of its rief' for the simple reason that ! the ver! orders, much relied upon ! appellant for other purposes, of "a! ;/, .93/ and <ecem er .4, .93/, 7odges was Fallowed or authori(edF ! the trial court Fto continue the usiness in which he was engaged and to perform acts which he had een doing while the deceased was livingF, &$rder of "a! ;/' which according to the motion on which the court acted was Fof u!ing and selling personal and real propertiesF, and Fto eBecute su sequent sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of the properties left ! the said deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges in consonance with the wishes conve!ed in the last will and testament of the latter.F &$rder of <ecem er .4' %n other words, if 7odges acted then as eBecutor, it can e said that he had authorit! to do so ! virtue of these lanket orders, and PC%2 does not question the legalit! of such grant of authorit!E on the contrar!, it is rel!ing on the terms of the order itself for its main contention in these cases. $n the other hand, if, as PC%2 contends, he acted as heir-adjudicatee, the authorit! given to him ! the aforementioned orders would still suffice. As can e seen, therefore, it is of no moment whether the Fcontracts to sellF upon which the deeds in question were ased were eBecuted ! 7odges efore or after the death of his wife. %n a word, Ge hold, for the reasons alread!

stated, that the properties covered ! the deeds eing assailed pertain or should e deemed as pertaining to the estate of "rs. 7odgesE hence, an! supposed irregularit! attending the actuations of the trial court ma! e invoked onl! ! her heirs, not ! PC%2, and since the said heirs are not o jecting, and the defects pointed out not eing strictl! jurisdictional in nature, all things considered, particularl! the unnecessar! distur ance of rights alread! created in favor of innocent third parties, it is est that the impugned orders are not distur ed. %n view of these considerations, Ge do not find sufficient merit in the assignments of error under discussion. (ssignments of error 8 to 8"""! 68" to 68"""! 668" to 66"6! 6668"" to 6668"""! 62"8 to 628" and 2"/ All these assignments of error commonl! deal with alleged non-fulfillment ! the respective vendees, appellees herein, of the terms and conditions em odied in the deeds of sale referred to in the assignments of error just discussed. %t is claimed that some of them never made full pa!ments in accordance with the respective contracts to sell, while in the cases of the others, like Horen(o Carles, Jose Pa lico, Alfredo Catedral and )alvador ). Ju(man, the contracts with them had alread! een unilaterall! cancelled ! PC%2 pursuant to automatic rescission clauses contained in them, in view of the failure of said u!ers to pa! arrearages long overdue. 2ut PC%2's posture is again premised on its assumption that the properties covered ! the deeds in question could not pertain to the estate of "rs. 7odges. Ge have alread! held a ove that, it eing evident that a considera le portion of the conjugal properties, much more than the properties covered ! said deeds, would inevita l! constitute the estate of "rs. 7odges, to avoid unnecessar! legal complications, it can e assumed that said properties form part of such estate. 5rom this point of view, it is apparent again that the questions, whether or not it was proper for appellee "agno to have disregarded the cancellations made ! PC%2, there ! reviving the rights of the respective u!ers-appellees, and, whether or not the rules governing new dispositions of properties of the estate were strictl! followed, ma! not e raised ! PC%2 ut onl! ! the heirs of "rs. 7odges as the persons designated to inherit the same, or perhaps the government ecause of the still unpaid inheritance taBes. 2ut, again, since there is no pretense that an! o jections were raised ! said parties or that the! would necessaril! e prejudiced, the contentions of PC%2 under the instant assignments of error hardl! merit an! consideration. (ssignments of error "6 to 6""! 6"6 to 66"! 666 to 66"8! 666"6 to 62! 628"" to 62"6! 2"" and 2""" to 26"/ PC%2 raises under these assignments of error two issues which according to it are fundamental, namel!: &.' that in approving the deeds eBecuted ! "agno pursuant to contracts to sell alread! cancelled ! it in the performance of its functions as administrator of the estate of 7odges, the trial court deprived the said estate of the right to invoke such cancellations it &PC%2' had made and &;' that in so acting, the court Farrogated unto itself, while acting as a pro ate court, the power to determine the contending claims of third parties against the estate of 7odges over real propert!,F since it has in effect determined whether or not all the terms and conditions of the respective contracts to sell eBecuted ! 7odges in favor of the u!ers-appellees concerned were complied with ! the latter. Ghat is worse, in the view of PC%2, is that the court has taken the word of the appellee "agno, Fa total stranger to his estate as determinative of the issueF. Actuall!, contrar! to the stand of PC%2, it is this last point regarding appellee "agno's having agreed to ignore the cancellations made ! PC%2 and allowed the u!ers-appellees to consummate the sales in their favor that is decisive. )ince Ge have alread! held that the properties covered ! the contracts in question should e deemed to e portions of the estate of "rs. 7odges and not that of 7odges, it is PC%2 that is a complete stranger in these incidents. Considering, therefore, that the estate of "rs. 7odges and her heirs who are the real parties in interest having the right to oppose the consummation of the impugned sales are not o jecting, and that the! are the ones who are precisel! urging that said sales e sanctioned, the assignments of error under discussion have no asis and must accordingl! e as the! are here ! overruled. Gith particular reference to assignments H%%% to HO%, assailing the orders of the trial court requiring PC%2 to surrender the respective owner's duplicate certificates of title over the properties covered ! the sales in question and otherwise directing the 1egister of <eeds of %loilo to cancel said certificates and to issue new transfer certificates of title in favor of the u!ers-appellees, suffice it to sa! that in the light of the a ove discussion, the trial court was

within its rights to so require and direct, PC%2 having refused to give wa!, ! withholding said owners' duplicate certificates, of the corresponding registration of the transfers dul! and legall! approved ! the court. (ssignments of error 26"" to 268"" All these assignments of error commonl! deal with the appeal against orders favoring appellee Gestern %nstitute of Technolog!. As will e recalled, said institute is one of the u!ers of real propert! covered ! a contract to sell eBecuted ! 7odges prior to the death of his wife. As of $cto er, .903, it was in arrears in the total amount of P9;,09..88 in the pa!ment of its installments on account of its purchase, hence it received under date of $cto er 4, .903 and $cto er ;8, .903, letters of collection, separatel! and respectivel!, from PC%2 and appellee "agno, in their respective capacities as administrators of the distinct estates of the 7odges spouses, al eit, while in the case of PC%2 it made known that Fno other arrangement can e accepted eBcept ! pa!ing all !our past due accountF, on the other hand, "agno merel! said she would Fappreciate ver! much if !ou can make some remittance to ring this account up-to-date and to reduce the amount of the o ligation.F &)ee pp. ;93-,.., Jreen 1. on A.' $n #ovem er ,, .903, the %nstitute filed a motion which, after alleging that it was read! and willing to pa! P;8,888 on account of its overdue installments ut uncertain whether it should pa! PC%2 or "agno, it pra!ed that it e Fallowed to deposit the aforesaid amount with the court pending resolution of the conflicting claims of the administrators.F Acting on this motion, on #ovem er ;,, .903, the trial court issued an order, alread! quoted in the narration of facts in this opinion, holding that pa!ment to oth or either of the two administrators is Fproper and legalF, and so Fmovant I can pa! to oth estates or either of themF, considering that Fin oth cases &)pecial Proceedings .,8/ and .0/;' there is as !et no judicial declaration of heirs nor distri ution of properties to whomsoever are entitled thereto.F The arguments under the instant assignments of error revolve around said order. 5rom the procedural standpoint, it is claimed that PC%2 was not served with a cop! of the %nstitute's motion, that said motion was heard, considered and resolved on #ovem er ;,, .903, whereas the date set for its hearing was #ovem er ;8, .903, and that what the order grants is different from what is pra!ed for in the motion. As to the su stantive aspect, it is contended that the matter treated in the motion is e!ond the jurisdiction of the pro ate court and that the order authori(ed pa!ment to a person other than the administrator of the estate of 7odges with whom the %nstitute had contracted. The procedural points urged ! appellant deserve scant consideration. Ge must assume, a sent an! clear proof to the contrar!, that the lower court had acted regularl! ! seeing to it that appellant was dul! notified. $n the other hand, there is nothing irregular in the court's having resolved the motion three da!s after the date set for hearing the same. "oreover, the record reveals that appellants' motion for reconsideration wherein it raised the same points was denied ! the trial court on "arch /, .900 &p. 40;, Jreen 1. on A.' Githal, Ge are not convinced that the relief granted is not within the general intent of the %nstitute's motion. %nsofar as the su stantive issues are concerned, all that need e said at this point is that the! are mere reiterations of contentions Ge have alread! resolved a ove adversel! to appellants' position. %ncidentall!, Ge ma! add, perhaps, to erase all dou ts as to the propriet! of not distur ing the lower court's orders sanctioning the sales questioned in all these appeal s ! PC%2, that it is onl! when one of the parties to a contract to conve! propert! eBecuted ! a deceased person raises su stantial o jections to its eing implemented ! the eBecutor or administrator of the decedent's estate that )ection + of 1ule +9 ma! not appl! and, consequentl!, the matter has, to e taken up in a separate action outside of the pro ate courtE ut where, as in the cases of the sales herein involved, the interested parties are in agreement that the conve!ance e made, it is properl! within the jurisdiction of the pro ate court to give its sanction thereto pursuant to the provisions of the rule just mentioned. And with respect to the supposed automatic rescission clauses contained in the contracts to sell eBecuted ! 7odges in favor of herein appellees, the effect of said clauses depend on the true nature of the said contracts, despite the nomenclature appearing therein, which is not controlling, for if the! amount to actual contracts of sale instead of eing mere unilateral accepted Fpromises to sellF, &Art. .4/9, Civil Code of the Philippines, ;nd paragraph' thepactum commissorium or the automatic rescission provision would not operate, as a matter of pu lic polic!, unless there has een a previous notarial or judicial demand ! the seller &.8 "anresa ;0,, ;nd ed.' neither of which have een shown to have een made in connection with the transactions herein involved. Consequentl!, Ge find no merit in the assignments of error #um er HO%% to HOK%%. S5 (R9

Considering the fact that this decision is unusuall! eBtensive and that the issues herein taken up and resolved are rather numerous and varied, what with appellant making sevent!-eight assignments of error affecting no less than thirt! separate orders of the court a quo, if onl! to facilitate proper understanding of the import and eBtent of our rulings herein contained, it is perhaps desira le that a rief restatement of the whole situation e made together with our conclusions in regard to its various factual and legal aspects. . The instant cases refer to the estate left ! the late Charles #ewton 7odges as well as that of his wife, Hinnie Jane 7odges, who predeceased him ! a out five !ears and a half. %n their respective wills which were eBecuted on different occasions, each one of them provided mutuall! as follows: F% give, devise and equeath all of the rest, residue and remainder &after funeral and administration eBpenses, taBes and de ts' of m! estate, oth real and personal, wherever situated or located, to m! eloved &spouse' to have and to hold unto &himCher' I during &hisCher' natural lifetimeF, su ject to the condition that upon the death of whoever of them survived the other, the remainder of what he or she would inherit from the other is Fgive&n', devise&d' and equeath&ed'F to the rothers and sisters of the latter. "rs. 7odges died first, on "a! ;,, .93/. 5our da!s later, on "a! ;/, 7odges was appointed special administrator of her estate, and in a separate order of the same date, he was Fallowed or authori(ed to continue the usiness in which he was engaged, & u!ing and selling personal and real properties' and to perform acts which he had een doing while the deceased was living.F )u sequentl!, on <ecem er .4, .93/, after "rs. 7odges' will had een pro ated and 7odges had een appointed and had qualified as DBecutor thereof, upon his motion in which he asserted that he was Fnot onl! part owner of the properties left as conjugal, ut also, the successor to all the properties left ! the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odgesF, the trial court ordered that Ffor the reasons stated in his motion dated <ecem er .., .93/, which the Court considers well taken, ... all the sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of all properties left ! the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges eBecuted ! the DBecutor, Charles #ewton 7odges are here ! APP1$KD<. The said DBecutor is further authori(ed to eBecute su sequent sales, conve!ances, leases and mortgages of the properties left ! the said deceased Hinnie Jane 7odges in consonance with the wishes contained in the last will and testament of the latter.F Annuall! thereafter, 7odges su mitted to the court the corresponding statements of account of his administration, with the particularit! that in all his motions, he alwa!s made it point to urge the that Fno person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of eBamining the herein accounts e given notice as herein eBecutor is the onl! devisee or legatee of the deceased in accordance with the last will and testament alread! pro ated ! the 7onora le Court.F All said accounts approved as pra!ed for. #othing else appears to have een done either ! the court a quo or 7odges until <ecem er ;3, .90;. %mportantl! to e the provision in the will of "rs. 7odges that her share of the conjugal partnership was to e inherited ! her hus and Fto have and to hold unto him, m! said hus and, during his natural lifetimeF and that Fat the death of m! said hus and, % give, devise and equeath all the rest, residue and remainder of m! estate, oth real and personal, wherever situated or located, to e equall! divided among m! rothers and sisters, share and share alikeF, which provision naturall! made it imperative that the conjugal partnership e promptl! liquidated, in order that the Frest, residue and remainderF of his wife's share thereof, as of the time of 7odges' own death, ma! e readil! known and identified, no such liquidation was ever undertaken. The record gives no indication of the reason for such omission, although relatedl!, it appears therein: .. That in his annual statement su mitted to the court of the net worth of C. #. 7odges and the Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, 7odges repeatedl! and consistentl! reported the com ined income of the conjugal partnership and then merel! divided the same equall! etween himself and the estate of the deceased wife, and, more importantl!, he also, as consistentl!, filed corresponding separate income taB returns for each calendar !ear for each resulting half of such com ined income, thus reporting that the estate of "rs. 7odges had its own income distinct from his own. ;. That when the court a quo happened to inadvertentl! omit in its order pro ating the will of "rs. 7odges, the name of one of her rothers, 1o! 7igdon then alread! deceased, 7odges lost no time in asking for the proper correction Fin order that the heirs of deceased 1o! 7igdon ma! not think or elieve the! were omitted, and that the! were reall! interested in the estate of the deceased Hinnie Jane 7odgesF.

,. That in his aforementioned motion of <ecem er .., .93/, he eBpressl! stated that Fdeceased Hinnie Jane 7odges died leaving no descendants or ascendants eBcept rothers and sisters and herein petitioner as the surviving spouse, to inherit the properties of the decedentF, there ! indicating that he was not eBcluding his wife's rothers and sisters from the inheritance. 4. That 7odges allegedl! made statements and manifestations to the *nited )tates inheritance taB authorities indicating that he had renounced his inheritance from his wife in favor of her other heirs, which attitude he is supposed to have reiterated or ratified in an alleged affidavit su scri ed and sworn to here in the Philippines and in which he even purportedl! stated that his reason for so disclaiming and renouncing his rights under his wife's will was to Fa solve &him' or &his' estate from an! lia ilit! for the pa!ment of income taBes on income which has accrued to the estate of Hinnie Jane 7odgesF, his wife, since her death. $n said date, <ecem er ;3, .90;, 7odges died. The ver! neBt da!, upon motion of herein respondent and appellee, Avelina A. "agno, she was appointed ! the trial court as AdministratriB of the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, in )pecial Proceedings #o. .,8/ and as )pecial AdministratriB of the estate of Charles #ewton 7odges, Fin the latter case, ecause the last will of said Charles #ewton 7odges is still kept in his vault or iron safe and that the real and personal properties of oth spouses ma! e lost, damaged or go to waste, unless )pecial AdministratriB is appointed,F &$rder of <ecem er ;0, .90;, p. ;/, =ellow 1. on A.' although, soon enough, on <ecem er ;9, .90;, a certain 7arold >. <avies was appointed as her Co-)pecial Administrator, and when )pecial Proceedings #o. .0/;, Testate Dstate of Charles #ewton 7odges, was opened, Joe 7odges, as neBt of kin of the deceased, was in due time appointed as Co-Administrator of said estate together with Att!. 5ernando P. "irasol, to replace "agno and <avies, onl! to e in turn replaced eventuall! ! petitioner PC%2 alone. At the outset, the two pro ate proceedings appear to have een proceeding jointl!, with each administrator acting together with the other, under a sort of modus operandi. PC%2 used to secure at the eginning the conformit! to and signature of "agno in transactions it wanted to enter into and su mitted the same to the court for approval as their joint acts. )o did "agno do likewise. )omehow, however, differences seem to have arisen, for which reason, each of them egan acting later on separatel! and independentl! of each other, with apparent sanction of the trial court. Thus, PC%2 had its own law!ers whom it contracted and paid handsomel!, conducted the usiness of the estate independentl! of "agno and otherwise acted as if all the properties appearing in the name of Charles #ewton 7odges elonged solel! and onl! to his estate, to the eBclusion of the rothers and sisters of "rs. 7odges, without considering whether or not in fact an! of said properties corresponded to the portion of the conjugal partnership pertaining to the estate of "rs. 7odges. $n the other hand, "agno made her own eBpenditures, hired her own law!ers, on the premise that there is such an estate of "rs. 7odges, and dealth with some of the properties, appearing in the name of 7odges, on the assumption that the! actuall! correspond to the estate of "rs. 7odges. All of these independent and separate actuations of the two administrators were invaria l! approved ! the trial court upon su mission. Dventuall!, the differences reached a point wherein "agno, who was more cogni(ant than an!one else a out the ins and outs of the usinesses and properties of the deceased spouses ecause of her long and intimate association with them, made it difficult for PC%2 to perform normall! its functions as administrator separatel! from her. Thus, legal complications arose and the present judicial controversies came a out. Predicating its position on the tenor of the orders of "a! ;/ and <ecem er .4, .93/ as well as the approval ! the court a quo of the annual statements of account of 7odges, PC%2 holds to the view that the estate of "rs. 7odges has alread! een in effect closed with the virtual adjudication in the mentioned orders of her whole estate to 7odges, and that, therefore, "agno had alread! ceased since then to have an! estate to administer and the rothers and sisters of "rs. 7odges have no interests whatsoever in the estate left ! 7odges. "ainl! upon such theor!, PC%2 has come to this Court with a petition for certiorari and prohi ition pra!ing that the lower court's orders allowing respondent "agno to continue acting as administratriB of the estate of "rs. 7odges in )pecial Proceedings .,8/ in the manner she has een doing, as detailed earlier a ove, e set aside. Additionall!, PC%2 maintains that the provision in "rs. 7odges' will instituting her rothers and sisters in the manner therein specified is in the nature of a testamentar! su stitution, ut inasmuch as the purported su stitution is not, in its view, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code, it is ineffective and ma! not e enforced. %t is further contended that, in an! event, inasmuch as the 7odges spouses were oth residents of the Philippines, following the decision of this Court in A(nar vs. Jarcia, or the case of Christensen, / )C1A 93, the estate left ! "rs. 7odges could not e more than one-half of her share of the conjugal partnership, notwithstanding the fact that she was citi(en of TeBas, *.).A., in accordance with Article .0 in relation to Articles 988 and +/; of the Civil Code. %nitiall!, Ge issued a preliminar! injunction against "agno and allowed PC%2 to act alone.

At the same time PC%2 has appealed several separate orders of the trial court approving individual acts of appellee "agno in her capacit! as administratriB of the estate of "rs. 7odges, such as, hiring of law!ers for specified fees and incurring eBpenses of administration for different purposes and eBecuting deeds of sale in favor of her coappellees covering properties which are still registered in the name of 7odges, purportedl! pursuant to corresponding Fcontracts to sellF eBecuted ! 7odges. The said orders are eing questioned on jurisdictional and procedural grounds directl! or indirectl! predicated on the principal theor! of appellant that all the properties of the two estates elong alread! to the estate of 7odges eBclusivel!. $n the other hand, respondent-appellee "agno denies that the trial court's orders of "a! ;/ and <ecem er .4, .93/ were meant to e finall! adjudicator! of the hereditar! rights of 7odges and contends that the! were no more than the court's general sanction of past and future acts of 7odges as eBecutor of the will of his wife in due course of administration. As to the point regarding su stitution, her position is that what was given ! "rs. 7odges to her hus and under the provision in question was a lifetime usufruct of her share of the conjugal partnership, with the naked ownership passing directl! to her rothers and sisters. Anent the application of Article .0 of the Civil Code, she claims that the applica le law to the will of "rs. 7odges is that of TeBas under which, she alleges, there is no s!stem of legitime, hence, the estate of "rs. 7odges cannot e less than her share or one-half of the conjugal partnership properties. )he further maintains that, in an! event, 7odges had as a matter of fact and of law renounced his inheritance from his wife and, therefore, her whole estate passed directl! to her rothers and sisters effective at the latest upon the death of 7odges. %n this decision, for the reasons discussed a ove, and upon the issues just summari(ed, Ge overrule PC%2's contention that the orders of "a! ;/, .93/ and <ecem er .4, .93/ amount to an adjudication to 7odges of the estate of his wife, and Ge recogni(e the present eBistence of the estate of "rs. 7odges, as consisting of properties, which, while registered in that name of 7odges, do actuall! correspond to the remainder of the share of "rs. 7odges in the conjugal partnership, it appearing that pursuant to the pertinent provisions of her will, an! portion of said share still eBisting and undisposed of ! her hus and at the time of his death should go to her rothers and sisters share and share alike. 5actuall!, Ge find that the proven circumstances relevant to the said orders do not warrant the conclusion that the court intended to make there ! such alleged final adjudication. Hegall!, Ge hold that the tenor of said orders furnish no asis for such a conclusion, and what is more, at the time said orders were issued, the proceedings had not !et reached the point when a final distri ution and adjudication could e made. "oreover, the interested parties were not dul! notified that such disposition of the estate would e done. At est, therefore, said orders merel! allowed 7odges to dispose of portions of his inheritance in advance of final adjudication, which is implicitl! permitted under )ection ; of 1ule .89, there eing no possi le prejudice to third parties, inasmuch as "rs. 7odges had no creditors and all pertinent taBes have een paid. "ore specificall!, Ge hold that, on the asis of circumstances presentl! eBtant in the record, and on the assumption that 7odges' purported renunciation should not e upheld, the estate of "rs. 7odges inherited ! her rothers and sisters consists of one-fourth of the communit! estate of the spouses at the time of her death, minus whatever 7odges had gratuitousl! disposed of therefrom during the period from, "a! ;,, .93/, when she died, to <ecem er ;3, .90;, when he died provided, that with regard to remunerative dispositions made ! him during the same period, the proceeds thereof, whether in cash or propert!, should e deemed as continuing to e part of his wife's estate, unless it can e shown that he had su sequentl! disposed of them gratuitousl&. At this juncture, it ma! e reiterated that the question of what are the pertinent laws of TeBas and what would e the estate of "rs. 7odges under them is asicall! one of fact, and considering the respective positions of the parties in regard to said factual issue, it can alread! e deemed as settled for the purposes of these cases that, indeed, the free portion of said estate that could possi l! descend to her rothers and sisters ! virtue of her will ma! not e less than one-fourth of the conjugal estate, it appearing that the difference in the stands of the parties has reference solel! to the legitime of 7odges, PC%2 eing of the view that under the laws of TeBas, there is such a legitime of one-fourth of said conjugal estate and "agno contending, on the other hand, that there is none. %n other words, hereafter, whatever might ultimatel! appear, at the su sequent proceedings, to e actuall! the laws of TeBas on the matter would no longer e of an! consequence, since PC%2 would an!wa! e in estoppel alread! to claim that the estate of "rs. 7odges should e less than as contended ! it now, for admissions ! a part! related to the effects of foreign laws, which have to e proven in our courts like an! other controverted fact, create estoppel. %n the process, Ge overrule PC%2's contention that the provision in "rs. 7odges' will in favor of her rothers and sisters constitutes ineffective hereditar! su stitutions. 2ut neither are Ge sustaining, on the other hand, "agno's pose that it gave 7odges onl! a lifetime usufruct. Ge hold that ! said provision, "rs. 7odges simultaneousl!

instituted her rothers and sisters as co-heirs with her hus and, with the condition, however, that the latter would have complete rights of dominion over the whole estate during his lifetime and what would go to the former would e onl! the remainder thereof at the time of 7odges' death. %n other words, whereas the! are not to inherit onl! in case of default of 7odges, on the other hand, 7odges was not o liged to preserve an!thing for them. Clearl! then, the essential elements of testamentar! su stitution are a sentE the provision in question is a simple case of conditional simultaneous institution of heirs, where ! the institution of 7odges is su ject to a partial resolutor! condition the operative contingenc! of which is coincidental with that of the suspensive condition of the institution of his rothers and sisters-in-law, which manner of institution is not prohi ited ! law. Ge also hold, however, that the estate of "rs. 7odges inherited ! her rothers and sisters could e more than just stated, ut this would depend on &.' whether upon the proper application of the principle of renvoi in relation to Article .0 of the Civil Code and the pertinent laws of TeBas, it will appear that 7odges had no legitime as contended ! "agno, and &;' whether or not it can e held that 7odges had legall! and effectivel! renounced his inheritance from his wife. *nder the circumstances presentl! o taining and in the state of the record of these cases, as of now, the Court is not in a position to make a final ruling, whether of fact or of law, on an! of these two issues, and Ge, therefore, reserve said issues for further proceedings and resolution in the first instance ! the court a quo, as hereina ove indicated. Ge reiterate, however, that pending such further proceedings, as matters stand at this stage, $ur considered opinion is that it is e!ond cavil that since, under the terms of the will of "rs. 7odges, her hus and could not have an!wa! legall! adjudicated or caused to e adjudicated to himself her whole share of their conjugal partnership, al eit he could have disposed an! part thereof during his lifetime, the resulting estate of "rs. 7odges, of which "agno is the uncontested administratriB, cannot e less than one-fourth of the conjugal partnership properties, as of the time of her death, minus what, as eBplained earlier, have een gratuitousl& disposed of therefrom, ! 7odges in favor of third persons since then, for even if it were assumed that, as contended ! PC%2, under Article .0 of the Civil Code and appl!ing renvoi the laws of the Philippines are the ones ultimatel! applica le, such one-fourth share would e her free disposa le portion, taking into account alread! the legitime of her hus and under Article 988 of the Civil Code. The foregoing considerations leave the Court with no alternative than to conclude that in predicating its orders on the assumption, al eit uneBpressed therein, that there is an estate of "rs. 7odges to e distri uted among her rothers and sisters and that respondent "agno is the legal administratriB thereof, the trial court acted correctl! and within its jurisdiction. Accordingl!, the petition for certiorari and prohi ition has to e denied. The Court feels however, that pending the liquidation of the conjugal partnership and the determination of the specific properties constituting her estate, the two administrators should act conjointl! as ordered in the Court's resolution of )eptem er +, .9/; and as further clarified in the dispositive portion of its decision. Anent the appeals from the orders of the lower court sanctioning pa!ment ! appellee "agno, as administratriB, of eBpenses of administration and attorne!'s fees, it is o vious that, with $ur holding that there is such an estate of "rs. 7odges, and for the reasons stated in the od! of this opinion, the said orders should e affirmed. This Ge do on the assumption Ge find justified ! the evidence of record, and seemingl! agreed to ! appellant PC%2, that the si(e and value of the properties that should correspond to the estate of "rs. 7odges far eBceed the total of the attorne!'s fees and administration eBpenses in question. Gith respect to the appeals from the orders approving transactions made ! appellee "agno, as administratriB, covering properties registered in the name of 7odges, the details of which are related earlier a ove, a distinction must e made etween those predicated on contracts to sell eBecuted ! 7odges efore the death of his wife, on the one hand, and those premised on contracts to sell entered into ! him after her death. As regards the latter, Ge hold that inasmuch as the pa!ments made ! appellees constitute proceeds of sales of properties elonging to the estate of "rs. 7odges, as ma! e implied from the tenor of the motions of "a! ;/ and <ecem er .4, .93/, said pa!ments continue to pertain to said estate, pursuant to her intent o viousl! reflected in the relevant provisions of her will, on the assumption that the si(e and value of the properties to correspond to the estate of "rs. 7odges would eBceed the total value of all the properties covered ! the impugned deeds of sale, for which reason, said properties ma! e deemed as pertaining to the estate of "rs. 7odges. And there eing no showing that thus viewing the situation, there would e prejudice to an!one, including the government, the Court also holds that, disregarding procedural technicalities in favor of a pragmatic and practical approach as discussed a ove, the assailed orders should e affirmed. 2eing a stranger to the estate of "rs. 7odges, PC%2 has no personalit! to raise the procedural and jurisdictional issues raised ! it. And inasmuch as it does not appear that an! of the other heirs of "rs. 7odges or the government has o jected to an! of the orders under appeal, even as to these parties, there eBists no reason for said orders to e set aside.

#"S*OS"T"8E *(RT %# K%DG $5 AHH T7D 5$1DJ$%#J P1D"%)D), judgment is here ! rendered <%)"%))%#J the petition in J. 1. #os. H-;/+08 and H-;/+90, and A55%1"%#J, in J. 1. #os. H-;/9,0-,/ and the other thirt!-one num ers hereunder ordered to e added after pa!ment of the corresponding docket fees, all the orders of the trial court under appeal enumerated in detail on pages ,3 to ,/ and +8 to +; of this decisionE the eBistence of the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, with respondent-appellee Avelina A. "agno, as administratriB thereof is recogni(ed, and it is declared that, until final judgment is ultimatel! rendered regarding &.' the manner of appl!ing Article .0 of the Civil Code of the Philippines to the situation o taining in these cases and &;' the factual and legal issue of whether or not Charles #ewton 7odges had effectivel! and legall! renounced his inheritance under the will of Hinnie Jane 7odges, the said estate consists of one-fourth of the communit! properties of the said spouses, as of the time of the death of the wife on "a! ;,, .93/, minus whatever the hus and had alread! gratuitousl! disposed of in favor of third persons from said date until his death, provided, first, that with respect to remunerative dispositions, the proceeds thereof shall continue to e part of the wife's estate, unless su sequentl! disposed of gratuitousl! to third parties ! the hus and, and second, that should the purported renunciation e declared legall! effective, no deductions whatsoever are to e made from said estateE in consequence, the preliminar! injunction of August +, .90/, as amended on $cto er 4 and <ecem er 0, .90/, is lifted, and the resolution of )eptem er +, .9/;, directing that petitioner-appellant PC%2, as Administrator of the Testate Dstate of Charles #ewton 7odges, in )pecial Proceedings .0/;, and respondentappellee Avelina A. "agno, as AdministratriB of the Testate Dstate of Hinnie Jane 7odges, in )pecial Proceedings .,8/, should act thenceforth alwa!s conjointl!, never independentl! from each other, as such administrators, is reiterated, and the same is made part of this judgment and shall continue in force, pending the liquidation of the conjugal partnership of the deceased spouses and the determination and segregation from each other of their respective estates, provided, that upon the finalit! of this judgment, the trial court should immediatel! proceed to the partition of the presentl! com ined estates of the spouses, to the end that the one-half share thereof of "rs. 7odges ma! e properl! and clearl! identifiedE thereafter, the trial court should forthwith segregate the remainder of the onefourth herein adjudged to e her estate and cause the same to e turned over or delivered to respondent for her eBclusive administration in )pecial Proceedings .,8/, while the other one-fourth shall remain under the joint administration of said respondent and petitioner under a joint proceedings in )pecial Proceedings .,8/ and .0/;, whereas the half unquestiona l! pertaining to 7odges shall e administered ! petitioner eBclusivel! in )pecial Proceedings .0/;, without prejudice to the resolution ! the trial court of the pending motions for its removal as administrator 12E and this arrangement shall e maintained until the final resolution of the two issues of renvoi and renunciation here ! reserved for further hearing and determination, and the corresponding complete segregation and partition of the two estates in the proportions that ma! result from the said resolution. Jenerall! and in all other respects, the parties and the court a quo are directed to adhere henceforth, in all their actuations in )pecial Proceedings .,8/ and .0/;, to the views passed and ruled upon ! the Court in the foregoing opinion. Appellant PC%2 is ordered to pa!, within five &3' da!s from notice hereof, thirt!-one additional appeal docket fees, ut this decision shall nevertheless ecome final as to each of the parties herein after fifteen &.3' da!s from the respective notices to them hereof in accordance with the rules. Costs against petitioner-appellant PC%2.

Case /4
G.R. No. L/2*,53 February 21, 19*7

CIT& OF %ANILA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERAR'O GARCIA A CAR%ENCITA =ILLAN E=A, %O'ESTA !ARA&NO A NARCISO !ARA&NO, ( AN AS!ERAS, %ARIA TA-IA A SI%EON 'ILI%AN, A. ILINO -ARRIOS A LEONORA R I>, LA REANO 'I>O, -ERNA-E A& 'A A LEOGAR'A 'E LOS SANTOS, ISA-ELO O-AO- A AN'REA RI!ARI!, (OSE -ARRIENTOS, R-ANO RA%OS, 1 ELENA RA%OS, ESTEFANIA NE!ACINA, %O'ESTA SANCHE>, %ARCIAL LA>ARO, %ARCIANA ALANO, HONORIO -ERIBO A SE'ORA ORA&LE, GLORIA =ELASCO, WILARICO RICA%ATA, -ENE'ICTO 'IA>, ANA 'E. I> A :%RS.< AL NAN, LOREN>O CARAN'ANG, ( AN !ECA&O, FELICI'A' %IRAN'A A E%IG'IO EGI!TO, defendants-appellants. auricio 7/ (lunan for defendants)appellants/ $it& 4iscalEs Office for plaintiff)appellee/ SANCHE>, J.: Plaintiff Cit! of "anila is owner of parcels of land, forming one compact area, ordering >ansas, Kermont and )ingalong streets in "alate, "anila, and covered ! Torrens Titles #os. 49/0,, ,/8+; and ,/33+. )hortl! after li eration from .943 to .94/, defendants entered upon these premises without plaintiff's knowledge and consent. The! uilt houses of second-class materials, again without plaintiff's knowledge and consent, and without the necessar! uilding permits from the cit!. There the! lived thru the !ears to the present. %n #ovem er, .94/, the presence of defendants having previousl! een discovered, defendants 5elicidad "iranda &Dmigdio Dgipto', "odesta C. Para!no, 2enedicto <ia(, Haureano <i(o, Jose 2arrientos, Dlena 1amos, Dstefania #epacina, "odesta )anche(, 7onorio 2eriQo, Jloria Kelasco, Ana <equis Alunan and 2enedicto $fia(a &predecessor of defendant Carandang' were given ! "a!or Kaleriano D. 5ugoso written permits I each la eled Flease contractF I to occup! specific areas in the propert! upon conditions therein set forth. <efendants %sa elo $ ao and Jerardo Jarcia &in the name of "arta A. Killanueva' received their permits from "a!or "anuel de la 5uente on Januar! ;9 and "arch .+, respectivel!, oth of .94+. The rest of the ;, defendants eBhi ited none. 5or their occupanc!, defendants were charged nominal rentals. 5ollowing are the rentals due as of 5e ruar!, .90;: (rea in sq/m/ 00.88 +/./3 ,9.88 ,3.;8 34.88 ,3.88 ,9.08 /3.3; onthl& Rental P/.9; .8.3, 4.0+ 3./0 4.,; ;.+8 ,../ 9.80 (mt/ due from date of delinquenc& to 4e'/ ,<@: P.,0;+.9/ ,/9.8+ 9.,0 3/8.;4 99.,0 ;;.48 ,;,.,4 ;8+.,+
,G.phH,/IJt

N( E .. Jerardo Jarcia ;. "odesta C. Para!no ,. Juan Asperas 4. "aria Ta ia 3. Aquilino 2arrios &Heonora 1ui(' 0. Haureano <i(o /. 2erna e A!uda +. %sa elo $ ao

9. Jose 2arrientos .8. Cecilia "an(ano in lieu of *r ano 1amos &deceased' ... Dlena 1amos .;. Dstefania #epacina .,. "odesta )anche( .4. "arcial Ha(aro .3. "arciana Alano .0. 7onorio 2eriQo ./. Jloria Kelasco .+. Gilarico 1icamata .9. 2enedicto <ia( ;8. Ana <equis Alunan ;.. Horen(o Carandang ;;. Juan #. Peca!o ;,. 5elicidad "iranda

,9.3, 40.03 ,4.+8 4..+8 ,,.4+ ;;.48 ;3.+8 ;4.88 ,;.48 43.+, 48.;8 04.;0 43.8, ;3.3; 4+.8;

4./4 3.08 ;./+ ,.,4 ;.0+ ../9 ;.80 ..9; ;.39 ,.0/ 4.+; /./. 3.48 ,.80 3./0

/44..+ Paid up to 5e . .90;. .+0.;0 384.,4 444.++ 0++.,; ;33.44 .++..0 30.9+ /,9.0+ Paid up to "arch .90;. ,8.+4 4,/.48 ,8.08 .,;.4+ P/,3+8.09

Dpifanio de los )antos Dlementar! )chool is close, though not contiguous, to the propert!. Came the need for this school's eBpansionE it ecame pressing. $n )eptem er .4, .90., plaintiff's Cit! Dngineer, pursuant to the "a!or's directive to clear squatters' houses on cit! propert!, gave each of defendants thirt! &,8' da!s to vacate and remove his construction or improvement on the premises. This was followed ! the Cit! Treasurer's demand on each defendant, made in 5e ruar! and "arch, .90;, for the pa!ment of the amount due ! reason of the occupanc! and to vacate in fifteen &.3' da!s. <efendants refused. 7ence, this suit to recover possession. ; The judgment elow directed defendants to vacate the premisesE to pa! the amounts heretofore indicated opposite their respective namesE and to pa! their monthl! rentals from "arch, .90;, until the! vacate the said premises, and the costs. <efendants appealed. .. Ge are called upon to rule on the forefront question of whether the trial court properl! found that the cit! needs the premises for school purposes. The cit!'s evidence on this point is DBhi it D, the certification of the Chairman, Committee on Appropriations of the "unicipal 2oard. That document recites that the amount of P.88,888.88 had een set aside in $rdinance 4300, the .90;-.90, "anila Cit! 2udget, for the construction of an additional uilding of the Dpifanio de los )antos Dlementar! )chool. %t is indeed correct to sa! that the court elow, at the hearing, ruled out the admissi ilit! of said document. 2ut then, in the decision under review, the trial judge o viousl! revised his views. 7e there declared that there was need for defendants to vacate the premises for school eBpansionE he cited the ver! document, DBhi it D, aforesaid. %t is e!ond de ate that a court of justice ma! alter its ruling while the case is within its power, to make it conforma le to law and justice., )uch was done here. <efendants' remed! was to ring to the attention of the court its contradictor! stance. #ot having done so, this Court will not reopen the case solel! for this purpose.4 An!wa!, elimination of the certification, DBhi it D, as evidence, would not profit defendants. 5or, in reversinghis stand, the trial judge could well have taken I ecause the was dut! ound to take I judicial

notice3 of $rdinance 4300. The reason eing that the cit! charter of "anila requires all courts sitting therein to take judicial notice of all ordinances passed ! the municipal oard of "anila. 0 And, $rdinance 4300 itself confirms the certification aforesaid that an appropriation of P.88,888.88 was set aside for the Fconstruction of additional uildingF of the Dpifanio de los )antos Dlementar! )chool. 5urthermore, defendants' position is vulnera le to assault from a third direction. <efendants have a solutel! no right to remain in the premises. The eBcuse that the! have permits from the ma!or is at est flims!. The permits to occup! are recovera le on thirt! da!s' notice. The! have een asked to leaveE the! refused to heed. %t is in this factual ackground that we sa! that the cit!'s need for the premises is unimportant. The cit!'s right to throw defendants out of the area cannot e gainsaid. The cit!'s dominical right to possession is paramount. %f error there was in the finding that the cit! needs the land, such error is harmless and will not justif! reversal of the judgment elow. / ;. 2ut defendants insist that the! have acquired the legal status of tenants. The! are wrong. The! entered the land, uilt houses of second-class materials thereon without the knowledge and consent of the cit!. Their homes were erected without cit! permits. These constructions are illegal. %n a language familiar to all, defendants are squatters: )ince the last glo al war, squatting on another's propert! in this countr! has ecome a widespread vice. %t was and is a light. )quatters' areas pose pro lems of health, sanitation. The! are reeding places for crime. The! constitute proof that respect for the law and the rights of others, even those of the government, are eing flouted. >nowingl!, squatters have em arked on the pernicious act of occup!ing propert! whenever and wherever convenient to their interests I without as much as leave, and even against the will, of the owner. The! are em oldened seemingl! ecause of their elief that the! could violate the law with impunit!. The pugnaciousness of some of them has tied up the hands of legitimate owners. The latter are thus prevented from recovering possession ! peaceful means. Jovernment lands have not een spared ! them. The! know, of course, that intrusion into propert!, government or private, is wrong. 2ut, then, the mills of justice grind slow, mainl! ecause of law!ers who, ! means, fair or foul, are quite often successful in procuring dela! of the da! of reckoning. 1ampanc! of forci le entr! into government lands particularl!, is a etted ! the apath! of some pu lic officials to enforce the government's rights. $ stinac! of these squatters is difficult to eBplain unless it is spawned ! official tolerance, if not outright encouragement or protection. )aid squatters have ecome insensi le to the difference etween right and wrong. To them, violation of law means nothing. Gith the result that squatting still eBists, much to the detriment of pu lic interest. %t is high time that, in this aspect, sanit! and the rule of law e restored. %t is in this environment that we look into the validit! of the permits granted defendants herein. These permits, erroneousl! la eled FleaseF contracts, were issued ! the ma!ors in .94/ and .94+ when the effects of the war had simmered down and when these defendants could have ver! well adjusted themselves. Two decades have now elapsed since the unlawful entr!. <efendants could have, if the! wanted to, located permanent premises for their a ode. And !et, usurpers that the! are, the! preferred to remain on cit! propert!. <efendants' entr! as aforesaid was illegal. Their constructions are as illegal, without permits. + The cit! charter enjoins the ma!or to Fsafeguard all the landsF of the Cit! of "anila. 9 )urel! enough, the permits granted did not FsafeguardF the cit!'s land in question. %t is our considered view that the "a!or of the Cit! of "anila cannot legali(e forci le entr! into pu lic propert! ! the simple eBpedient of giving permits, or, for that matter, eBecuting leases. )quatting is unlawful and no amount of acquiescence on the part of the cit! officials will elevate it into a lawful act. %n principle, a compound of illegal entr! and official permit to sta! is o noBious to our concept of proper official norm of conduct. 2ecause, such permit does not serve social justiceE it fosters moral decadence. %t does not promote pu lic welfareE it a ets disrespect for the law. %t has its roots in viceE so it is an infected argain. $fficial approval of squatting should not, therefore, e permitted to o tain in this countr! where there is an orderl! form of government.

Ge, accordingl!, rule that the "anila ma!ors did not have authorit! to give permits, written or oral, to defendants, and that the permits herein granted are null and void. ,. Het us look into the houses and constructions planted ! defendants on the premises. The! clearl! hinder and impair the use of that propert! for school purposes. The courts ma! well take judicial notice of the fact that housing school children in the elementar! grades has een and still is a perennial pro lem in the cit!. The selfish interests of defendants must have to !ield to the general good. The pu lic purpose of constructing the school uilding anneB is paramount. .8 %n the situation thus o taining, the houses and constructions aforesaid constitute pu lic nuisance per se. And this, for the reason that the! hinder and impair the use of the propert! for a adl! needed school uilding, to the prejudice of the education of the !outh of the land. .. The! shackle the hands of the government and thus o struct performance of its constitutionall! ordained o ligation to esta lish and maintain a complete and adequate s!stem of pu lic education, and more, to ?provide at least free pu'lic primar& instructionF..; 1eason dictates that no further dela! should e countenanced. The pu lic nuisance could well have een summaril! a ated ! the cit! authorities themselves, even .ithout the aid of the courts.., 4. <efendants challenge the jurisdiction of the Court of 5irst %nstance of "anila. The! sa! that the case should have een started in the municipal court. The! prop up their position ! the averment that notice for them to vacate was onl! served in )eptem er, .90., and suit was started in Jul!, .90;. Their legal ground is )ection ., 1ule /8 of the 1ules of Court. Ge have reached the conclusion that their forci le entr! dates ack to the period from .943 to .94/. That entr! was not legali(ed ! the permits. Their possession continued to remain illegal from incipienc!. )uit was filed long after the one-!ear limitation set forth in )ection . of 1ule /8. And the "anila Court of 5irst %nstance has jurisdiction. .4 *pon the premises, we vote to affirm the judgment under review. Costs against defendants-appellants. )o ordered.

Case /3
August 31, 1963 G.R. No. L-18247 FLORENTINO GALLEGO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THECOURT OF APPEALS, respondents. K. V. Faylona for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. Regala, J.: Petitioner w s senten!ed "# t$e %ourt o& 'irst (nst n!e o& ()oi)o to p # &ine o& P1* nd t$e !osts nd, in ! se o& person in inso)ven!#, to su&&er su"sidi r# i+prison+ent, &o))owing his!onvi!tion o& s)ig$t diso"edien!e o& n gent o& ut$orit#. ,e ppe )ed to t$e %ourt o& Appe )s w$i!$ &&ir+ed $is senten!e. ,e now ppe )s to t$is %ourt. -$e %ourt o& Appeals &ound t$e & !ts s &o))ows. . . . -$ t in t$e +orning o& / r!$ 1*, 1907, ppe)) nt nd $is !o+p nions were "out to $o)d ppe)) nt nd in4uired o& $i+ w$et$er $e $ d po)i!e2s inti+ tion, ppe)) nt, in +eeting o& t$e 1e$ov $2s 3itnesses in &ront o& t$e public market o& L +"un o, ()oi)o. -$e chief of police, Ave)ino L rros , ppro !$ed per+it to $o)d s id +eeting. As ppe)) nt !ou)d not produ!e n#, t$e !$ie& o& po)i!e en5oined $i+ &ro+ so pro!eeding wit$ t$e +eeting "ut inste d o& desisting in o"edien!e to t$e !$ie& o& !$ ))enging vein, ddressed $is &o))owers, 67ou +ust !ontinue t$ t, we wi)) see w$ t t$e# 8re&erring to t$e !$ie& o& po)i!e nd $is po)i!e+en9 ! n do &or us.: 3$ereupon, t$e !$ie& o& po)i!e w rned ppe)) nt i& $e !ontinued wit$ t$e +eeting, $e w s to p) !e $i+ under rrest. ,owever, ppe)) nt, disreg rding t$e w rning, !ontinued t$e +eeting &or t )e st 3* +inutes +ore ; w$ereupon, $e w s rrested nd !$ rged !!ording)#. (n $o)ding petitioner gui)t# o& s)ig$t diso"edien!e, t$e %ourt o& Appe )s st ted. -$ t t$ere w s diso"edien!e on ppe)) nt2s p rt is se)&-evident &ro+ $is i++edi te re !tion to t$e !$ie& o& po)i!e2 w rning &or $i+ to dis!ontinue t$e +eeting ; $is e<$orting $is &o))owers 6to !ontinue t$e +eeting s t$e# were prep red to see w$ t ! n t$e po)i!e do &or t$e+.: And t$ese words were &o))owed "# t$e overt !t o& !ontinuing t$e +eeting &or t )e st 3* +inutes s su&&i!ient)# est ")is$ed "# t$e eviden!e. And it ppe rs t$ t, !ontr r# to ppe)) nt2s !ontention, t$ere w s n e<isting +uni!ip ) ordin n!e t t$e ti+e 8=rdin n!e No. 2, >eries o& 19079 providing &or re)igious +eeting in pu")i! p) !es. Arti!)e 101 o& t$e Revised Penal Code provides. -$e pen )t# o& arresto mayor nd &ine not e<!eeding 0** pesos s$ )) "e i+posed upon n# person w$o not "eing in!)uded in t$e provisions o& t$e pre!eding rti!)es s$ )) resist or serious)# diso"e# n# person in ut$orit# or t$e gents o& su!$ person, w$i)e eng ged in t$e per&or+ n!e o& o&&i!i ) duties. 3$en t$e diso"edien!e to n gent o& person in ut$orit# is not o& serious n ture t$e pen )t# o& arresto menor or &ine r nging &ro+ 1* to 1** pesos s$ )) "e i+posed. -$ere is no 4uestion $ere t$ t petitioner, in de&i n!e o& t$e order o& t$e !$ie& o& po)i!e, $e)d proo& o& t$e e<isten!e o& n ordin n!e in &or!e on / r!$ 1*, 1907, re4uiring +eeting o& $is re)igious +eeting. 'or se!t. ,e !ontends, $owever, t$ t $e ! nnot "e !onvi!ted o& )ig$t diso"edien!e "e! use, !!ording to $i+, t$ere is no per+it &or t$e $o)ding o& previous per+it &or t$e $o)ding on

t$is purpose, petitioner ss i)s t$e %ourt o& Appe )s &or t ?ing 5udi!i ) noti!e o& =rdin n!e No. 2, series o& 1907 o& L +"un o, ()oi)o, w$en t$e trial court itse)& ))eged)# did not t ?e !ogni@ n!e o& t$e ordin n!e. -$ere is no +erit in t$e de&ense. -$ere is not$ing in t$e ) w t$ t pro$i"its t ?ing !ogni@ n!e o& !ourt, )i?e t$e %ourt o& Appe )s, &ro+ +uni!ip ) ordin n!e. =n t$e !ontr r#, >e!tion 0 o& Ru)e 123 o& t$e Ru)es o& %ourt en5oins

!ourts to t ?e 5udi!i ) noti!e o& + tters w$i!$ re ! p ")e o& un4uestion ")e de+onstr tion. -$is is e< !t)# w$ t t$e %ourt o& Appe )s did in t$is ! se in $o)ding t$ t 6!ontr r# to ppe)) nt2s 8petitioner2s9 !ontention, t$ere w s n e<isting +uni!ip ) ordin n!e t t$e ti+e 8=rdin n!e No. 2, >eries o& 19079 providing &or $o)ding o& re)igious +eeting in pu")i! p) !es.: Aesides, it is not true, s !) i+ed "# petitioner, t$ t t$e tri ) !ourt did not t ?e noti!e o& t$e ordin n!e in 4uestion. 'or t$e )ower !ourt +entioned petitioner2s 6& i)ure to se!ure t$e ne!ess r# per+it: wit$ o"vious re&eren!e to =rdin n!e No. 2, >eries o& 1907. (n Peop)e vs. Ge"une, 87 P$i). 727, 3e $e)d t$ t !ourts o& &irst inst n!e s$ou)d t ?e 5udi!i ) noti!e o& +uni!ip ) ordin n!es wit$in t$eir respe!tive 5urisdi!tions. (t +ust "e in !o+p)i n!e wit$ t$is ru)ing t$ t t$e tri ) !ourt too? noti!e o& =rdin n!e No. 2, >eries o& 1907 o& t$e /uni!ip )it# o& L +"un o. (t is )so !ontended t$ t t$e order o& t$e !$ie& o& po)i!e w s i))eg ) nd, t$ere&ore, not entit)ed to o"edien!e "e! use t$e ordin n!e pp)ies on)# to +eetings $e)d in p) !es w$ere t$e tr &&i! is $e v#. ,ere, it is !) i+ed, t$ere is no proo& t$ t t$e tr &&i! w$ere t$e +eeting w s $e)d w s $e v#. Petitioner dds t$ t $e w s given )t$oug$ t t$e ti+e $e !ou)d not produ!e it "e! use it w s given or ))#. (t s$ou)d not "e )ost sig$t o& t$ t t$is is diso"e#ing $i+ nd in ssu+ing prose!ution &or s)ig$t diso"edien!e, not &or vio) tion o& t$e ordin n!e. per+it "# t$e + #or previous per+it &or t$e

A)t$oug$ petitioner + # $ ve )egiti+ te re son to protest t$e order o& t$e !$ie& o& po)i!e, $e w s not 5usti&ied in "e))i!ose ttitude "# e<$orting $is &o))owers to pro!eed wit$ t$eir +eeting, s in & !t proper ! se &or protest. t$e ) tter did. As 5usti!e / )!o)+ on!e s id, 6-o ut$ori@e resist n!e 8 )so diso"edien!e9 to t$e gents o& t$e ut$orit#, t$e i))eg )it# o& t$e inv sion +ust "e !)e r)# + ni&est. ,ere, t$ere w s possi")# 8Aut,9 t$ere w s no ! se o& e<!essive vio)en!e to en&or!e de&end nt2s ide o& Be)oso, 48 P$i). 1699. L st)#, petitioner invo?es t$e !onstitution ) gu r nt# o&&i!e sse+")# to 5usti&# $is !t. -$e rig$ts to &reedo+ o& spee!$ nd to pe !e ")# sse+")e nd petition t$e govern+ent &or redress o& griev n!es re &und +ent ) person ) rig$ts o& t$e peop)e re!ogni@ed nd gu r nteed "# t$e !onstitutions o& de+o!r ti! !ountries. Aut it is sett)ed prin!ip)e growing out o& t$e n ture o& we))-ordered !ivi) so!ieties t$ t t$e e<er!ise o& t$ese rig$ts is not "so)ute &or it + # "e so regu) ted t$ t it s$ )) not "e in5urious to t$e e4u ) en5o#+ent o& ot$ers $ ving e4u ) rig$ts, nor in5urious to t$e rig$ts o& t$e !o++unit# or so!iet#. -$e power to regu) te t$e e<er!ise o& su!$ ot$er !onstitution ) rig$ts is ter+ed t$e sovereign 6po)i!e power,: w$i!$ is t$e power to pres!ri"e regu) tions to pro+ote t$e $e )t$, +or )s, pe !e, edu! tion, good order o& s &et# nd t$e gener ) we)& re o& t$e peop)e. -$is power is e<er!ised "# t$e govern+ent t$roug$ its )egis) tive "r n!$ "# t$e en !t+ent o& ) ws regu) ting t$ose nd ot$er !onstitution ) nd !ivi) rig$ts nd it + # "e de)eg ted to po)iti! ) su"divisions, su!$ s +uni!ip )ities nd !ities, "# ut$ori@ing t$eir )egis) tive "odies ! ))ed +uni!ip ) nd !it# !oun!i)s to en !t ordin n!es &or t$e purpose. 8Pri+i!i s v. 'ugoso, 8* P$i). 719. -$e ordin n!e in t$is ! se is re son ")e regu) tion o& t$e use o& pu")i! streets. -$ere is no !) i+ t$ t it gives t$e ut$orities r"itr r# power to gr nt or den# per+itC in & !t t$ere is no !) i+ t$ t petitioner w s r"itr ri)# denied per+it. 3,DRD'=RD, t$e de!ision o& t$e %ourt o& Appe )s is &&ir+ed, !osts g inst petitioner. de" t ")e )eg ) 4uestion.: 8Peop)e v.

Case /0
G.R. No. +5)23 %ay *, 1991 (OSE TA- ENA, petitioner, vs. CO RT OF A!!EALS a"# E%ILIANO TA-ERNILLA, (R., respondents. Ramon #imen for petitioner/ #ionisio (/ Hernandez for private respondent/

CR >, J.:p The petitioner faults the decision of the trial court, as affirmed ! the respondent court, for lack of asis. %t is argued that the lower courts should not have taken into account evidence not su mitted ! the private respondent in accordance with the 1ules of Court. The su ject of the dispute is a parcel of residential land consisting of a out 448 square meters and situated in Po lacion, "akato, Aklan. %n .9/,, an action for recover! of ownership thereof was filed in the 1egional Trial Court of Aklan ! the estate of Alfredo Ta ernilla against Jose Ta uena, the herein petitioner. After trial, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant was required to vacate the disputed lot. 1 As the trial court found, the lot was sold ! Juan Peralta, Jr. sometime in .9;0 to Alfredo Ta ernilla while the two were in the *nited )tates. Ta ernilla returned to the Philippines in .9,4, and <amasa Timtiman, acting upon her son Juan's instruction, conve!ed the su ject land to Ta ernilla. At the same time, she requested that she e allowed to sta! thereon as she had een living there all her life. Ta ernilla agreed provided she paid the realt! taBes on the propert!, which she promised to do, and did. )he remained on the said land until her death, following which the petitioner, her son and half- rother of Juan Peralta, Jr., took possession thereof. The complaint was filed when demand was made upon Ta uena to surrender the propert! and he refused, claiming it as his own. The trial court rejected his defense that he was the a solute owner of the lot, which he inherited from his parents, who acquired it even efore Gorld Gar %% and had een living thereon since then and until the! died. Also dis elieved was his contention that the su ject of the sale etween Peralta and Ta ernilla was a different piece of land planted to coconut trees and ounded on three sides ! the "akato 1iver. Ta uena appealed to the respondent court, complaining that, in arriving at its factual findings, the trial court motu proprio took cogni(ance of DBhi its FAF, F2F and FCF, which had een marked ! the plaintiff ut never formall! su mitted in evidence. The trial court also erred when, to resolve the ownership of the su ject lot, it considered the proceedings in another case involving the same parties ut a different parcel of land. The said eBhi its are referred to in the pre-trial order as follows: Plaintiff proceeded to mark the following eBhi its: DBh. FAF, letter dated $cto er 4, .9;. addressed in "akato, Capi(, PhilippinesE DBh. FA-.F, paragraph ; of the letter indicating that the amount of P088.88Ithe first P,88.88 and then another P,88.88 as interest since $cto er 4, .9;.E DBh. FA-;F, is paragraph , of the letterE DBh. F2F, a )panish documentE DBh. FCF, deed of conve!ance filed ! Tomasa Timtiman and Alfredo Ta ernilla in .9;,E and DBh. FC-.F, paragraph 4 of DBh. FCF. %n sustaining the trial court, the respondent court held that, contrar! to the allegations of the appellant, the said eBhi its were in fact formall! su mitted in evidence as disclosed ! the transcript of stenographic notes, which it quoted at length. 2 The challenged decision also upheld the use ! the trial court of testimon! given in an earlier case, to olster its findings in the second case. Ge have eBamined the record and find that the eBhi its su mitted were not the a ove-descri ed documents ut DBhi its FOF and FTF and their su -markings, which were the last will and testament of Alfredo Ta ernilla and the order of pro ate. %t is not at all denied that the list of eBhi its does not include DBhi its FAF, F2F and FCF. %n fact, the

trial court categoricall! declared that FDBhi its FA-., FA-;F, F2F, FCF and FC-l,F were not among those documents or eBhi its formall! offered for admission ! plaintiff-administratriB.F This is a clear contradiction of the finding of the appellate court, which seems to have confused DBhi its FA,F F2F and FCF with DBhi its FOF and F=F, the evidence mentioned in the quoted transcript. 1ule .,; of the 1ules of Court provides in )ection ,3 thereof as follows: )ec. ,3. Offer of evidence.IThe court shall consider no evidence which has not een formall! offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must e specified. The mere fact that a particular document is marked as an eBhi it does not mean it has there ! alread! een offered as part of the evidence of a part!. %t is true that DBhi its FA,F F2F and FCF were marked at the pre-trial of the case elow, ut this was onl! for the purpose of identif!ing them at that time. The! were not ! such marking formall! offered as eBhi its. As we said in "nterpacific Transit, "nc. vs. (viles, 3 FAt the trial on the merits, the part! ma! decide to formall! offer &the eBhi its' if it elieves the! will advance its cause, and then again it ma! decide not to do so at all. %n the latter event, such documents cannot e considered evidence, nor can the! e given an! evidentiar! value.F Chief Justice "oran eBplained the rationale of the rule thus:
. . . The offer is necessar! ecause it is the dut! of a judge to rest his findings of facts and his judgment onl! and strictl! upon the evidence offered ! the patties at the trial. )

Ge did sa! in *eople vs. Napat)a 5 that even if there e no formal offer of an eBhi it, it ma! still e admitted against the adverse part! if, first, it has een dul! identified ! testimon! dul! recorded and, second, it has itself een incorporated in the records of the case. 2ut we do not find that these requirements have een satisfied in the case efore us. The trial court said the said eBhi its could e validl! considered ecause, even if the! had not een formall! offered, one of the plaintiffs witnesses, Cunegunda 7ernande(, testified on them at the trial and was even cross-eBamined ! the defendant's counsel. Ge do not agree. Although she did testif!, all she did was identif! the documents. #owhere in her testimon! can we find a recital of the contents of the eBhi its. Thus, her interrogation on DBhi it FAF ran: HDJA)P%: That is this DBh. FAF a out N A The translation of the letter. P Ghat is the content of this DBh. FAF, the letter of the sister of Juan Peralta to Alfredo Ta ernillaN
Court: The est evidence is the document. Proceed.
*

)he also did not eBplain the contents of the other two eBhi its. The respondent court also held that the trial court committed no reversi le error in taking judicial notice of Ta uena's testimon! in a case it had previousl! heard which was closel! connected with the case efore it. %t conceded that as a general rule Fcourts are not authori(ed to take judicial notice, in the adjudication of cases pending efore them, of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have een tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that oth cases ma! have een heard or are actuall! pending efore the same judge. 7 #evertheless, it applied the eBception that:
. . . in the a sence of o jection, and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court ma! properl! treat all or an! part of the original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending efore it, when, with the knowledge of the opposing part!, reference is made to it for that purpose, ! name and num er or in some other manner ! which it is sufficientl! designatedE or when the original record of the former case or an! part of it, is actuall! withdrawn from the archives ! the court's direction,

at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending. +

%t is clear, though, that this eBception is applica le onl! when, Fin the a sence of o jection,F Fwith the knowledge of the opposing part!,F or Fat the request or with the consent of the parties,F the case is clearl! referred to or Fthe original or part of the records of the case are actuall! withdrawn from the archivesF and Fadmitted as part of the record of the case then pending.F These conditions have not een esta lished here. $n the contrar!, the petitioner was completel! unaware that his testimon! in Civil Case #o. .,;/ was eing considered ! the trial court in the case then pending efore it. As the petitioner puts it, the matter was never taken up at the trial and was Funfairl! sprungF upon him, leaving him no opportunit! to counteract. The respondent court said that even assuming that the trial court improperl! took judicial notice of the other case, striking off all reference thereto would not e fatal to the plaintiff's cause ecause Fthe said testimon! was merel! corro orative of other evidences su mitted ! the plaintiff.F Ghat Fother evidencesFN The trou le with this justification is that the eBhi its it intends to corro orate, to wit, DBhi its FAF, F2F and FCF, have themselves not een formall! su mitted. Considering the resultant paucit! of the evidence for the private respondent, we feel that the complaint should have een dismissed ! the trial court for failure of the plaintiff to su stantiate its allegations. %t has failed to prove that the su ject lot was the same parcel of land sold ! Juan Peralta, Jr. to Alfredo Ta ernilla and not another propert!, as the petitioner contends. Dven assuming it was the same lot, there is no eBplanation for the sale thereof ! Juan Peralta, Jr., who was onl! the son of <amasa Timtiman. According to the trial court, Fthere is no question that efore .9,4 the land in question elonged to <amasa Timtiman.F Juan Peralta, Jr. could not have validl! conve!ed title to propert! that did not elong to him unless he had appropriate authori(ation from the owner. #o such authori(ation has een presented. %t is true that taB declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, as we have held in man! cases. 7owever, that rule is also not a solute and !ields to the accepted and well-known eBception. %n the case at ar, it is not even disputed that the petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest have possessed the disputed propert! since even efore Gorld Gar %%. %n light of this uncontroverted fact, the taB declarations in their name ecome weight! and compelling evidence of the petitioner's ownership. As this Court has held:
Ghile it is true that ! themselves taB receipts and declarations of ownership for taBation purposes are not incontroverti le evidence of ownership the! ecome strong evidence of ownership acquired ! prescription when accompanied ! proof of actual possession of the propert!. 9 %t is onl! where pa!ment of taBes is accompanied ! actual possession of the land covered ! the taB declaration that such circumstance ma! e material in supporting a claim of ownership. 1, The taB receipts accompanied ! actual and continuous possession of the su ject parcels of land ! the respondents and their parents efore them for more than ,8 !ears qualif! them to register title to the said su ject parcels of land. 11

The Court can onl! wonder wh!, if Alfredo Ta ernilla did purchase the propert! and magnanimousl! allowed <amasa Timtiman to remain there, he did not at least require her to pa! the realt! taBes in his name, not hers. The eBplanation given ! the trial court is that he was not much concerned with the propert!, eing a achelor and fond onl! of the three dogs he had ought from America. That is specious reasoning. At est, it is pure conjecture. %f he were reall! that unconcerned, it is curious that he should have acquired the propert! in the first place, even as dacion en pago. 7e would have demanded another form of pa!ment if he did not have the intention at all of living on the land. $n the other hand, if he were reall! interested in the propert!, we do not see wh! he did not have it declared in his name when the realt! taBes thereon were paid ! <amasa Timtiman or wh! he did not o ject when the pa!ments were made in her own name. %n comparison, all the acts of <amasa Timtiman and Jose Ta uena indicate that the! were the owners of the disputed propert!. <amasa Timtiman and her fore ears had een in possession thereof for more than fift! !ears and, indeed, she herself sta!ed there until she died. 12 )he paid the realt! taBes thereon in her own name. 13Jose Ta uena uilt a house of strong materials on the lot. 1) 7e even mortgaged the land to the <evelopment 2ank of the Philippines and to two private persons who acknowledged him as the owner. 15 These acts denote ownership and

are not consistent with the private respondent's claim that the petitioner was onl! an overseer with mere possessor! rights tolerated ! Ta ernilla. %t is the polic! of this Court to accord proper deference to the factual findings of the courts elow and even to regard them as conclusive where there is no showing that the! have een reached ar itraril!. The eBception is where such findings do not conform to the evidence on record and appear indeed to have no valid asis to sustain their correctness. As in this case. The conclusions of the trial court were ased mainl! on DBhi its FAF, F2F and FCF, which had not een formall! offered as evidence and therefore should have een totall! disregarded, conforma l! to the 1ules of Court. The trial court also erred when it relied on the evidence su mitted in Civil Case #o. .,;/ and took judicial notice thereof without the consent or knowledge of the petitioner, in violation of eBisting doctrine. Thus vitiated, the factual findings here challenged are as an edifice uilt upon shifting sands and should not have een sustained ! the respondent court. $ur own finding is that the private respondent, as plaintiff in the lower court, failed to prove his claim of ownership over the disputed propert! with evidence properl! cogni(a le under our adjudicative laws. 2! contrast, there is su stantial evidence supporting the petitioner's contrar! contentions that should have persuaded the trial judge to rule in s favor and dismiss the complaint. G7D1D5$1D, the petition is J1A#TD<. The appealed decision is 1DKD1)D< and )DT A)%<D, with costs against the private respondent. %t is so ordered.

Case //

5%1)T <%K%)%$#

CG.R. No. 1192++. Au9us5 1+, 1997D

RE! -LIC OF THE !HILI!!INES, re;rese"5e# LAN'S, petitioner, vs. HON. C$*1T $5 GACOT, respondents. RESOL
=IT G, J.E

by THE 'IRECTOR OF APPDAH) a"# (OSEFA

TION

The 1epu lic of the Philippines, represented ! the <irector of Hands, pra!s in the instant petition for review on certiorari for the annulment of the decision, dated ;; 5e ruar! .993, of the Court of Appeals affirming the .;th August .99, judgment of the 1egional Trial Court of Palawan &2ranch 38-Puerto Princesa' which has adjudicated Hot #o. 3,0/ in Cadastral Case #o. .,, JH1$ Cadastral 1ecord #o. ..,,, to herein private respondent, now deceased Josefa Jacot, the claimant in the cadastral case. The antecedents are ampl! summari(ed in the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals, viz: "The entire lot !"# is bein$ claimed b% &osefa 'acot as per ans(er she filed on &une #) *+#*, -t appears from the record that the lot is located in .aran$a% Los An$eles) /a$sa%sa%) Pala(an but the area (as not indicated, -t also appeared that Ceferino Sabenacio is her co0o(ner, 1This case (as set for hearin$ on Au$ust +) *++2 and the petitioner (as represented b% Assistant Pro3incial Prosecutor Re%naldo 'ua%co and Ro$elio Pa$lina(an) Communit% En3ironment and 4atural Resources Officer 5CE4RO6 of Puerto Princesa Cit% (hile the claimant appeared (ithout counsel, -n 3ie( thereof) the hearin$ (as reset to Au$ust *!) *++2, .efore the scheduled hearin$ on Au$ust *!) *++2) the Court recei3ed a report from the Land Re$istration Authorit% callin$ the Court7s attention of the decision rendered b% &ud$e Loren8o 'arlitos on October 92) *+ 2 declarin$ this lot as propert% of the Republic of the Philippines, :espite this declaration ho(e3er) the petitioner nor the $o3ernment did not bar the claimant from filin$ her ans(er) possessin$ and occup%in$ the lot and in fact accepted her ta; pa%ments and issuin$ her ta; declaration on the same, 1The claimant presented herself as (itness as (ell as her son) <icente :antic) &r, The (itnesses testified that &osefa 'acot (as married to <icente :antic) Sr, in *+=2 and (ere in actual possession of the propert% for more than !2 %ears) ha3in$ bou$ht the same from Cipriana :antic0Llanera as per deed of sale dated April 99) *+ in Cu%ono dialect 5E;hibit >* and *0A6, Since she ac?uired the propert% from Cipriana Llanera) she continued her occupation and introduced impro3ements thereon as (ell as declared Lot !"# for ta;ation purposes in her name 5E;hibit 96 and paid the

correspondin$ ta;es thereon up to the present time 5E;hibit !6, That claimant is no( a (ido( and has children namel%) @ernando :antic) Antero :antic) Felipe :antic) Fe :antic and <icente :antic) &r, 1Cipriano Sabenacio) the alle$ed co0o(ner of claimant &osefa 'acot appeared in Court and manifested that he is (ai3in$ his claim o3er Lot !"# in fa3or of &osefa 'acot (ho is in actual possession of the propert% as he is onl% a boundar% o(ner, 1After the presentation of claimant and her son) the% offered their e;hibits and rested their case, Thereafter) the petitioner thru counsel manifested that it is not presentin$ contro3ertin$ e3idence and is submittin$ the case for resolution ,A
B*C

$n 83 )eptem er .998, the trial court rendered judgment adjudicating Hot #o. 3,0/ to Josefa Jacot, thus "D@EREFORE) this Court finds the claim of &osefa 'acot :antic to be in order, Accordin$l%) Lot !"# is hereb% adEudicated to &osefa 'acot0:antic) (ido( and a resident of .aran$a% Los An$eles) /a$sa%sa%) Pala(an (ith all the impro3ements thereon) subEect to the estate ta; as pro3ided b% la(," "SO OR:ERE:,"
B9C

The 1epu lic, through the )olicitor Jeneral, elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. <uring the pendenc! of the appeal, the $ffice of the )olicitor Jeneral was a le to verif! that Hot 3,0/ was earlier declared to e the propert! of the 1epu lic in a decision rendered ! Judge Horen(o Jarlitos on ;8 $cto er .938 following an order of general default. The )olicitor Jeneral thus filed a motion with the appellate court to have the case reopened and remanded to the court a quo to allow the 1epu lic of the Philippines to present the decision of Judge Jarlitos. %n its resolution, dated ;0 <ecem er .99., the Court of Appeals granted the motion. Ghat transpired thereafter was narrated decisionE viz: ! the trial court in its .;th August .99,

1This case (as set for hearin$ se3eral times for the $o3ernment to present its e3idence and for the parties to submit their respecti3e memorandum in support of their respecti3e stand on the matter, The claimant submitted her memorandum (hile the $o3ernment represented b% the Assistant Pro3incial Prosecutor assi$ned to this sala has not presented an% (itness to support the $o3ernmentFs claim) neither has he submitted an% memorandum to support the $o3ernmentFs stand on this matter, 1Dith the fore$oin$ de3elopment) the Court is of the opinion that the subse?uent application or claim of &osefa 'acot0:antic on Lot !"# (hich became part of the public domain (here her occupation thereto ha3in$ been open to the (hole (orld) public and notorious in the concept of an o(ner since !G %ears a$o (as (ell taken and therefore entitled to the la(ful adEudication of Lot !"# in her name, .esides) the $o3ernment represented b% the Assistant Pro3incial Prosecutor and the Communit% En3ironment and 4atural Resources Officer 5CE4RO6 for Puerto Princesa Cit%

and Cu%o) Pala(an ha3e not made an% protest nor interposed an% obEection on the claim of &osefa 'acot durin$ the hearin$s, 4either (as there a manifestation of protest or claim of $o3ernment use comin$ from the municipal officials of /a$sa%sa%) Pala(an despite notice sent to them of the cadastral hearin$, And the sad part (as that the $o3ernment had accepted (ithout an% protest all the ta;es due the propert% paid b% the claimant reli$iousl%, This is not to sa% that this order has been considered in the pre3ious decision of this Court (hich is hereunder ?uoted as follo(sH RB B B BBB BBB

1Dith this findin$ of the Court) it is its considered opinion and so holds) that there is no reason to disturb its pre3ious decision afore?uoted,"
B!C

An appeal was taken ! the 1epu lic from the decision of the trial court. %n its now assailed decision of ;; 5e ruar! .993, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the judgment of the trial court. The appellate court ratiocinated: 1-n its brief) the Office of the Solicitor 'eneral claims that >records of the re0hearin$ sho( that on October 92) *+ 2) an order (as) indeed) issued b% &ud$e Loren8o C, 'arlitos of the Court of First -nstance of Pala(an) #th &udicial :istrict) declarin$ that Lot 4o, !"# (as amon$ lots declared as propert% of the Republic of the Philippines,F 5p, !) AppellantFs .riefI p, *+) Rec,6 -t no( in3okes Republic Act 4o, +!*) appro3ed on &une !2) *+ ! and Republic Act 4o, 92"*) (hich took effect on &une !2) *+ G) both la(s settin$ the time limits for the filin$ of applications) amon$ other thin$s) for the reopenin$ of Eudicial proceedin$s on certain lands (hich (ere declared public land, Under R,A, 92"*) the time for filin$ an application shall not e;tend be%ond :ecember !*) *+"G, Thus) petitioner0appellant ar$ues that since claimant0appellee &osefa 'acot filed her ans(er onl% on 2# &une *+#*) the court a quo did not ac?uire Eurisdiction o3er the instant claim since she did not file her ans(er (ithin the period fi;ed b% R,A, 4o, 92"*, 1This (ould be true) if the Order dated 92 October *+ 2 of &ud$e Loren8o 'arlitos declarin$ Lot 4o, !"# as propert% of the Republic of the Philippines) (as presented as e3idence in the rehearin$ of this case, Unfortunatel%) the Republic of the Philippines failed to offer as its e;hibit the said order, There is no basis for the appellant) therefore) to in3oke R,A, 92"*) to support its claim that claimant0appellee &osefa 'acot filed her ans(er be%ond the period fi;ed b% said la( and therefore the court a quo did not ac?uire Eurisdiction o3er the case, 1Precisel%) the purpose of the rehearin$ (as to enable the Republic of the Philippines) thru the Office of the Solicitor 'eneral) to present in e3idence the said order, The Solicitor 'eneral) in its /otion dated 9* /a% *++*) pra%ed that (ith re$ards to Lot 4o, !"# >the proceedin$s therein be ordered reopened and the same be remanded to the court a quo to enable the Republic of the Philippines to present the Eud$ment dated October 92) *+ 2 of &ud$e Loren8o 'arlitos declarin$ Lot 4o, !"# as $o3ernment propert%,F 5pp, !20!*) Rollo6 BUnderlines OursC 1This Court $ranted the motion and ordered the records of the case remanded to the court a quo for further proceedin$s Jto enable the $o3ernment to present in e3idence the Eud$ment dated October 92) *+ 2) declarin$ Lot 4o, !"# as $o3ernment propert% ; ; ;,F 5p, =9) Rollo6 BUnderlines OursC

1:urin$ the rehearin$) ho(e3er) the 'o3ernment failed to present the said order of &ud$e 'arlitos in e3idence, Thus) the court a quo said in its appealed decisionH 1FThis case (as set for hearin$ se3eral times for the $o3ernment to present its e3idence and for the parties to submit their respecti3e memoranda in support of their respecti3e stand on the matter, The claimant submitted her memorandum (hile the $o3ernment represented b% the Assistant Pro3incial Prosecutor has not presented an% (itness to present the $o3ernmentFs claim neither has he submitted an% memorandum to support the $o3ernmentFs stand on this matter,F 5see p, +9) Rollo6 BUnderlines OursC 1-t is the rule that >The court shall consider no e3idence (hich has not been formall% offered,F 5Rule *!9) Sec, !=6 -t is true that the Order of 92 October *+ 2 has been appended to the records of this case 5see p, *+) Rec,6, .ut it is misleadin$ on the part of the Solicitor 'eneral to state that >Records of the rehearin$ sho( that on October 92) *+ 2) an order (as) indeed) issued b% &ud$e Loren8o C, 'arlitos ; ; ;,F For) durin$ the rehearin$) as reflected in the appealed decision) the $o3ernment did not present an% e3idence nor an% memorandum despite ha3in$ been ordered b% the court a quo, 14either can De take Eudicial notice of the Order of &ud$e 'arlitos, As a $eneral rule) courts are not authori8ed to take Eudicial kno(led$e of the contents of the record of other cases) in the adEudication of cases pendin$ before them) e3en thou$h the trial Eud$e in fact kno(s or remembers the contents thereof) or e3en (hen said other cases ha3e been heard or are pendin$ in the same court and not(ithstandin$ the fact that both cases ma% ha3e been heard or are reall% pendin$ before the same Eud$e, 5/unicipal Council vs, Cole$io de San &ose) et al,) ',R, 4o, L0= ="2I !* C,&,S, "9!0"9=I cited in p, 9 ) E3idence) Second Ed,I R,&, Francisco6 -ndeed) the 'o3ernment missed its opportunit% to ha3e the claim of &osefa 'acot) the herein appellee) declared as a nullit%) considerin$ that no e3idence (as presented b% it in opposition thereto,A
B=C

%n the instant petition, the 1epu lic, assigning a sole error, contends that 1T@E @O4ORA.LE COURT OF APPEALS 5@AS6 ERRE: -4 RUL-4' T@AT T@ERE -S 4O .AS-S FOR PET-T-O4ER TO -4<OKE R,A, 4o, 92"* TO SUPPORT -TS CLA-/ T@AT &OSEFA 'ACOT F-LE: @ER A4SDER .ELO4: T@E PER-O: F-ME: .L T@E SA-: LAD A4: T@EREFORE T@E TR-AL COURT :-: 4OT ACNU-RE &UR-S:-CT-O4 O<ER T@E CASE) S-4CE -T 5@AS6 FA-LE: TO OFFER AS -TS EM@-.-T T@E OR:ER) :ATE: OCTO.ER 92) *+ 2 OF &U:'E LORE4OO 'ARL-TOS,A
B C

The )olicitor Jeneral eBplains that the records of the reopened case would show that a certified cop! of the decision, dated ;8 $cto er .938, of Judge Jarlitos has een appended to page .9 thereof. %t is not evident, however, wh! the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor and the Communit! Dnvironment and #atural 1esources $fficer &FCD#1$F' for Puerto Princesa, representing the government during the rehearing, did not present it. The )olicitor Jeneral, nevertheless, invokes the rule that the 1epu lic is not estopped ! the mistake or error on the part of its officials or agents. %n the meantime, Josefa Jacot passed awa!. The )olicitor Jeneral thereupon moved that the heirs of Josefa Jacot e impleaded part! respondents in su stitution for the

deceased. The motion was granted, and the heirs were directed to comment on the governmentSs petition. To this da!, private respondents have not su mitted their comment. The Court, however, cannot allow the case to remain pending and unresolved indefinitel!. %t must now dispense, as it here ! dispenses, with such comment in order not to undul! dela! the remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Het it initiall! e said that, indeed, the Court reali(es the points o served ! the appellate court over which there should e no quarrel. 5irstl!, that the rules of procedure and jurisprudence, do not sanction the grant of evidentiar! value, in ordinar! trials, of evidence which is not formall! offered, and secondl!, that adjective law is not to e taken lightl! for, without it, the enforcement of su stantive law ma! not remain assured. The Court must add, nevertheless, that technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves ut primaril! devised and designed to help in the proper and eBpedient dispensation of justice. %n appropriate cases, therefore, the rules ma! have to e so construed li erall! as to meet and advance the cause of su stantial justice.
?0@ ?/@ ?+@ ?9@ ?.8@

5urthermore, )ection ., 1ule .;9, of the 1ules of Court provides: 1SECT-O4 *, Judicial notice, when mandatory, 0 A court shall take Eudicial notice) (ithout the introduction of e3idence) of the e;istence and territorial e;tent of states) their political histor%) forms of $o3ernment and s%mbols of nationalit%) the la( of nations) the admiralt% and maritime courts of the (orld and their seals) the political constitution and histor% of the Philippines) the official acts of the le$islati3e) e;ecuti3e and Eudicial departments of the Philippines) the la(s of nature) the measure of time) and the $eo$raphical di3isions,A "r. Justice Ddgardo H. Paras opined:
?..@

1A court (ill take Eudicial notice of its o(n acts and records in the same case) of facts established in prior proceedin$s in the same case) of the authenticit% of its o(n records of another case bet(een the same parties) of the files of related cases in the same court) and of public records on file in the same court, -n addition Eudicial notice (ill be taken of the record) pleadin$s or Eud$ment of a case in another court bet(een the same parties or in3ol3in$ one of the same parties) as (ell as of the record of another case bet(een different parties in the same court, &udicial notice (ill also be taken of court personnel,A
B*9C

The remand of the case would likewise seem to e unavoida le. The area of Hot #o. 3,0/ claimed and awarded to the late Josefa Jacot had not een specified in the records. %ndeed, on the asis of the Certification of the 5orest "anagement )ervices of the <epartment of Dnvironment and #atural 1esources, Hot #o. 3,0/, per Hand Classification &HC' #o. .;40 of .3 Januar! .9,0, would appear to contain an area of ,94,84, square meters, ,88,888 square meters of which were classified as Aliena le and <isposa le land and 94,84, square meters as Tim erland, which under Proclamation #o. ;.3;, dated ;9 <ecem er .9+., had een included to form part of the "angrove )wamp 5orest 1eserve, closed for entr!, eBploitation and settlement.
?.,@

%t ehooves all concerned that the a ove matters e carefull! looked into, al eit with reasona le dispatch, for the final resolution of this case. WHEREFORE, the case is 1D"A#<D< to the trial court for further proceedings for it to ascertain and resolve the conflicting claims of the parties conforma l! with the foregoing opinion of the Court. #o costs. SO OR'ERE'.

Case /+
G.R. No. 122)+, A;r47 12, 2,,,

-!I/FA%IL& SA=INGS -AN2, I"0., petitioner, vs. CO RT OF A!!EALS, CO RT OF TAF A!!EALS a"# 51e CO%%ISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE=EN E,respondents.

!ANGANI-AN, J.: %f the )tate eBpects its taBpa!ers to o serve fairness and honest! in pa!ing their taBes, so must it appl! the same standard against itself in refunding eBcess pa!ments. Ghen it is undisputed that a taBpa!er is entitled to a refund, the )tate should not invoke technicalities to keep mone! not elonging to it. #o one, not even the )tate, should enrich oneself at the eBpense of another. The $ase 2efore us is a Petition for 1eview assailing the "arch ,., .993 <ecision of the Court of Appeals. &CA' in CA-J1 )P #o. ,4;48, which affirmed the <ecem er ;4, .99, <ecision ; of the Court of TaB Appeals &CTA'. The CA disposed as follows: G7D1D5$1D, foregoing premises considered, the petition is here ! <%)"%))D< for lack of merit. , $n the other hand, the dispositive portion of the CTA <ecision affirmed ! the CA reads as follows: G7D1D5$1D, in ?view of@ all the foregoing, Petitioner's claim for refund is here ! <D#%D< and this Petition for 1eview is <%)"%))D< for lack of merit.4 Also assailed is the #ovem er +, .993 CA 1esolution3 den!ing reconsideration. The 4acts The facts of this case were summari(ed ! the CA in this wise: This case involves a claim for taB refund in the amount of P..;,49..88 representing petitioner's taB withheld for the !ear .9+9. %n its Corporate Annual %ncome TaB 1eturn for the !ear .9+9, the following items are reflected: %ncome P.,8./,9,.,+,..88 <eductions P.,8;0,;.+,/9..88 #et %ncome &Hoss' &P+,;+0,908.88' TaBa le %ncome &Hoss' &P+,;+0,908.88' Hess: .9++ TaB Credit P.+3,88..88

.9+9 TaB Credit P..;,49..88 T$TAH A"$*#T P;9/,49;.88 1D5*#<A2HD %t appears from the foregoing .9+9 %ncome TaB 1eturn that petitioner had a total refunda le amount of P;9/,49; inclusive of the P..;,49..88 eing claimed as taB refund in the present case. 7owever, petitioner declared in the same .9+9 %ncome TaB 1eturn that the said total refunda le amount of P;9/,49;.88 will e applied as tax credit to the succeeding taBa le !ear. $n $cto er .., .998, petitioner filed a written claim for refund in the amount of P..;,49..88 with the respondent Commissioner of %nternal 1evenue alleging that it did not appl! the .9+9 refunda le amount of P;9/,49;.88 &including P..;,49..88' to its .998 Annual %ncome TaB 1eturn or other taB lia ilities due to the alleged usiness losses it incurred for the same !ear. Githout waiting for respondent Commissioner of %nternal 1evenue to act on the claim for refund, petitioner filed a petition for review with respondent Court of TaB Appeals, seeking the refund of the amount of *,,:!K<,/FF. The respondent Court of TaB Appeals dismissed petitioner's petition on the ground that petitioner failed to present as evidence its corporate Annual %ncome TaB 1eturn for .998 to esta lish the fact that petitioner had not !et credited the amount of P;9/,49;.88 &inclusive of the amount P..;,49..88 which is the su ject of the present controvers!' to its .998 income taB lia ilit!. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, however, the same was denied ! respondent court in its 1esolution dated "a! 0, .994.0 As earlier noted, the CA affirmed the CTA. 7ence, this Petition. / Ruling of the $ourt of (ppeals %n affirming the CTA, the Court of Appeals ruled as follows: %t is incum ent upon the petitioner to show proof that it has not credited to its .998 Annual income TaB 1eturn, the amount of P;9/,49;.88 &including P..;,49..88', so as to refute its previous declaration in the .9+9 %ncome TaB 1eturn that the said amount will e applied as a taB credit in the succeeding !ear of .998. 7aving failed to su mit such requirement, there is no asis to grant the claim for refund. . . . TaB refunds are in the nature of taB eBemptions. As such, the! are regarded as in derogation of sovereign authorit! and to e construed strictissimi Curis against the person or entit! claiming the eBemption. %n other words, the urden of proof rests upon the taBpa!er to esta lish ! sufficient and competent evidence its entitlement to the claim for refund. + "ssue %n their "emorandum, respondents identif! the issue in this wise: The sole issue to e resolved is whether or not petitioner is entitled to the refund of P..;,49..98, representing eBcess credita le withholding taB paid for the taBa le !ear .9+9. 9 The $ourt's Ruling The Petition is meritorious.

ain "ssue: *etitioner Entitled to Refund %t is undisputed that petitioner had eBcess withholding taBes for the !ear .9+9 and was thus entitled to a refund amounting to P..;,49.. Pursuant to )ection 09 .8 of the .9+0 TaB Code which states that a corporation entitled to a refund ma! opt either &.' to o tain such refund or &;' to credit said amount for the succeeding taBa le !ear, petitioner indicated in its .9+9 %ncome TaB 1eturn that it would appl! the said amount as a taB credit for the succeeding taBa le !ear, .998. )u sequentl!, petitioner informed the 2ureau of %nternal 1evenue &2%1' that it would claim the amount as a taB refund, instead of appl!ing it as a taB credit. Ghen no action from the 2%1 was forthcoming, petitioner filed its claim with the Court of TaB Appeals. The CTA and the CA, however, denied the claim for taB refund. )ince petitioner declared in its .9+9 %ncome TaB 1eturn that it would appl! the eBcess withholding taB as a taB credit for the following !ear, the TaB Court held that petitioner was presumed to have done so. The CTA and the CA ruled that petitioner failed to overcome this presumption ecause it did not present its .998 1eturn, which would have shown that the amount in dispute was not applied as a taB credit. 7ence, the CA concluded that petitioner was not entitled to a taB refund. Ge disagree with the Court of Appeals. As a rule, the factual findings of the appellate court are inding on this Court. This rule, however, does not appl! where, inter alia, the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts, or when the appellate court failed to notice certain relevant facts which if considered would justif! a different conclusion. .. This case is one such eBception. %n the first place, petitioner presented evidence to prove its claim that it did not appl! the amount as a taB credit. <uring the trial efore the CTA, "s. =olanda Dsmundo, the manager of petitioner's accounting department, testified to this fact. %t likewise presented its claim for refund and a certification issued ! "r. Jil Hope(, petitioner's vicepresident, stating that the amount of P..;,49. Fhas not een andCor will not e automaticall! creditedCoffset against an! succeeding quarters' income taB lia ilities for the rest of the calendar !ear ending <ecem er ,., .998.F Also presented were the quarterl! returns for the first two quarters of .998. The 2ureau of %nternal 1evenue, for its part, failed to controvert petitioner's claim. %n fact, it presented no evidence at all. 2ecause it ought to know the taB records of all taBpa!ers, the C%1 could have easil! disproved petitioner's claim. To repeat, it did not do so. "ore important, a cop! of the 5inal Adjustment 1eturn for .998 was attached to petitioner's "otion for 1econsideration filed efore the CTA. .; A final adjustment return shows whether a corporation incurred a loss or gained a profit during the taBa le !ear. %n this case, that 1eturn clearl! showed that petitioner incurred P3;,4+8,./, as net loss in .998. Clearl!, it could not have applied the amount in dispute as a taB credit. Again, the 2%1 did not controvert the veracit! of the said return. %t did not even file an opposition to petitioner's "otion and the .998 5inal Adjustment 1eturn attached thereto. %n den!ing the "otion for 1econsideration, however, the CTA ignored the said 1eturn. %n the same vein, the CA did not pass upon that significant document. True, strict procedural rules generall! frown upon the su mission of the 1eturn after the trial. The law creating the Court of TaB Appeals, however, specificall! provides that proceedings efore it Fshall not e governed strictl! ! the technical rules of evidence.F ., The paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth. Keril!, the quest for orderl! presentation of issues is not an a solute. %t should not ar courts from considering undisputed facts to arrive at a just determination of a controvers!.
,-.phi,

%n the present case, the 1eturn attached to the "otion for 1econsideration clearl! showed that petitioner suffered a net loss in .998. Contrar! to the holding of the CA and the CTA, petitioner could not have applied the amount as a taB credit. %n failing to consider the said 1eturn, as well as the other documentar! evidence presented during the trial, the appellate court committed a reversi le error. %t should e stressed that the rationale of the rules of procedure is to secure a just determination of ever! action. The! are tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. .4 2ut there can e no just determination of the present action if we ignore, on grounds of strict technicalit!, the 1eturn su mitted efore the CTA and even efore this

Court. .3 To repeat, the undisputed fact is that petitioner suffered a net loss in .998E accordingl!, it incurred no taB lia ilit! to which the taB credit could e applied. Consequentl!, there is no reason for the 2%1 and this Court to withhold the taB refund which rightfull! elongs to the petitioner. Pu lic respondents maintain that what was attached to petitioner's "otion for 1econsideration was not the final adjustment 1eturn, ut petitioner's first two quarterl! returns for .998. .0 This allegation is wrong. An eBamination of the records shows that the .998 5inal Adjustment 1eturn was attached to the "otion for 1econsideration. $n the other hand, the two quarterl! returns for .998 mentioned ! respondent were in fact attached to the Petition for 1eview filed efore the CTA. %ndeed, to re ut respondents' specific contention, petitioner su mitted efore us its )urrejoinder, to which was attached the "otion for 1econsideration and DBhi it FAF thereof, the 5inal Adjustment 1eturn for .998. ./ $T( $ase No/ KL<> Petitioner also calls the attention of this Court, as it had done efore the CTA, to a <ecision rendered ! the TaB Court in CTA Case #o. 4+9/, involving its claim for refund for the !ear .998. %n that case, the TaB Court held that Fpetitioner suffered a net loss for the taBa le !ear .998 . . . .F .+ 1espondent, however, urges this Court not to take judicial notice of the said case. .9 As a rule, Fcourts are not authori(ed to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have een tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that oth cases ma! have een heard or are actuall! pending efore the same judge.F ;8 2e that as it ma!, )ection ;, 1ule .;9 provides that courts ma! take judicial notice of matters ought to e known to judges ecause of their judicial functions. %n this case, the Court notes that a cop! of the <ecision in CTA Case #o. 4+9/ was attached to the Petition for 1eview filed efore this Court. )ignificantl!, respondents do not claim at all that the said <ecision was fraudulent or noneBistent. %ndeed, the! do not even dispute the contents of the said <ecision, claiming merel! that the Court cannot take judicial notice thereof. To our mind, respondents' reasoning underscores the weakness of their case. 5or if the! had reall! elieved that petitioner is not entitled to a taB refund, the! could have easil! proved that it did not suffer an! loss in .998. %ndeed, it is noteworth! that respondents opted not to assail the fact appearing therein I that petitioner suffered a net loss in .998 I in the same wa! that it refused to controvert the same fact esta lished ! petitioner's other documentar! eBhi its. %n an! event, the <ecision in CTA Case #o. 4+9/ is not the sole asis of petitioner's case. %t is merel! one more it of information showing the stark truth: petitioner did not use its .9+9 refund to pa! its taBes for .998. 5inall!, respondents argue that taB refunds are in the nature of taB eBemptions and are to e construed strictissimi Curis against the claimant. *nder the facts of this case, we hold that petitioner has esta lished its claim. Petitioner ma! have failed to strictl! compl! with the rules of procedureE it ma! have even een negligent. These circumstances, however, should not compel the Court to disregard this cold, undisputed fact: that petitioner suffered a net loss in .998, and that it could not have applied the amount claimed as taB credits. )u stantial justice, equit! and fair pla! are on the side of petitioner. Technicalities and legalisms, however eBalted, should not e misused ! the government to keep mone! not elonging to it and there ! enrich itself at the eBpense of its law-a iding citi(ens. %f the )tate eBpects its taBpa!ers to o serve fairness and honest! in pa!ing their taBes, so must it appl! the same standard against itself in refunding eBcess pa!ments of such taBes. %ndeed, the )tate must lead ! its own eBample of honor, dignit! and uprightness. G7D1D5$1D, the Petition is here ! J1A#TD< and the assailed <ecision and 1esolution of the Court of Appeals 1DKD1)D< and )DT A)%<D. The Commissioner of %nternal 1evenue is ordered to refund to petitioner the amount of P..;,49. as eBcess credita le taBes paid in .9+9. #o costs.
,-.phi,/n0t

)$ $1<D1D<

Case /9

T7%1< <%K%)%$#

CG.R. No. 151+57. A;r47 2+, 2,,5D

CALA%-A STEEL CENTER, INC. :6or3er7y C$1P$1AT%$#<, petitioner, vs. CO%%ISSIONER OF RE=EN E,respondent. 'ECISION
!ANGANI-AN, J.E

(S )TDDH INTERNAL

A taB refund ma! e claimed even 'e&ond the taBa le !ear following that in which the taB credit arises. 7ence, eBcess income taBes paid in .993 that have not een applied to or used in .990 ma! still e the su ject of a taB refund in .99/, provided that the claim for such refund is filed with the internal revenue commissioner within two !ears after pa!ment of said taBes. As a caveat, the Court stresses that the recognition of the entitlement to a taB refund does not necessaril! mean the automatic pa!ment of the sum claimed in the final adjustment return of the taBpa!er. The amount of the claim must still e proven in the normal course. T1e Case 2efore us is a Petition for 1eview ?.@ under 1ule 43 of the 1ules of Court, assailing the Januar! .8, ;88; <ecision?;@ of the Court of Appeals &CA' in CA-J1 )P #o. 3++,+. The assailed <ecision disposed as follows: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DISMISSED and the assailed Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED !osts a"ainst #etitioner $?,@ T1e Fa05s Puoting the Court of TaB Appeals &CTA', the CA narrated the antecedents as follows: 1Petitioner is a domestic corporation en$a$ed in the manufacture of steel blanks for use b% manufacturers of automoti3e) electrical) electronics in industrial and household appliances, 1Petitioner filed an Amended Corporate Annual -ncome Ta; Return on &une =) *++" declarin$ a net ta;able income of P+)="*) +#,22) ta; credits of P")=#*)9=",22 and ta; due in the amount ofP!)!**) +,22,

1Petitioner also reported ?uarterl% pa%ments for the second and third ?uarters of *++ in the amounts of P9)!9G)#=#,9" and P*)2G9)*2G,22) respecti3el%, 1-t is the proposition of the BpCetitioner that for the %ear *++ ) se3eral of its clients (ithheld ta;es from their income pa%ments to BpCetitioner and remitted the same to the .ureau of -nternal Re3enue 5.-R6 in the sum of P!)* +)"G#,22, Petitioner further alle$ed that due to its incomePloss positions for the three ?uarters of *++") it (as unable to use the e;cess ta; paid for and in its behalf b% the (ithholdin$ a$ents, 1Thus) an administrati3e claim (as filed b% the BpCetitioner on April *2) *++# for the refund of P!)* +)"G#,22 representin$ e;cess or unused creditable (ithholdin$ ta;es for the %ear *++ , The instant petition (as subse?uentl% filed on April *G) *++#, 1Respondent) in his Ans(er) a3erred) amon$ others) thatH J*6 Petitioner has no cause of actionI of

J96 Petitioner failed to compl% (ith the procedural re?uirements set out in Section Re3enue Re$ulations 4o, B5RR6C *90+=I

J!6 -t is incumbent upon BpCetitioner to pro3e b% competent and sufficient e3idence that the ta; refund or ta; credit bein$ sou$ht is allo(ed under the 4ational -nternal Re3enue Code and its implementin$ rules and re$ulationsI and J=6 Claims for ta; refund or ta; credit are construed strictl% a$ainst the ta;pa%er as the% partake the nature of ta; e;emption, 1To buttress its claim) BpCetitioner presented documentar% and testimonial e3idence, Respondent) on the other hand) presented the BrCe3enue BoCfficer (ho conducted the e;amination of BpCetitionerFs claim and found petitioner liable for deficienc% 3alue added ta;, Petitioner also presented rebuttal e3idence, 1The sole issue submitted for BoCur determination is (hether or not BpCetitioner is entitled to the refund of P!)* +)"G#,22 representin$ e;cess or o3erpaid income ta; for the ta;able %ear *++ ,A ?4@ Ru74"9 o6 51e Cour5 o6 A;;ea7s %n den!ing petitionerSs refund, the CA reasoned out that no evidence other than that presented efore the CTA was adduced to prove that eBcess taB pa!ments had een made in .993. 5rom the inception of the case to the formal offer of its evidence, petitioner did not present its .990 income taB return to disclose its total income taB lia ilit!, thus making it difficult to determine whether such eBcess taB pa!ments were utili(ed in .990. 7ence, this Petition.?3@

T1e Issue Petitioner raises this sole issue for our consideration: 1Dhether the Court of Appeals $ra3el% erred (hen) (hile purportedl% re?uirin$ petitioner to submit its *++" annual income ta; return to support its claim for refund) nonetheless i$nored the e;istence of the ta; return e;tant on the record the authenticit% of (hich has not been denied or its admissibilit% opposed b% the Commissioner of -nternal Re3enue,A ?0@ T1e Cour5Gs Ru74"9 The Petition is partl! meritorious. So7e IssueE Entitlement to Tax Refund )ection 09 of the #ational %nternal 1evenue Code &#%1C'?/@ provides: 1Sec, "+, Final adEustment return, 00 E3er% corporation liable to ta; under Section 9= shall file a final adEustment return co3erin$ the total ta;able income for the precedin$ calendar or fiscal %ear, -f the sum of the ?uarterl% ta; pa%ments made durin$ the said ta;able %ear is not e?ual to the total ta; due on the entire ta;able net income of that %ear the corporation shall eitherH J5a6 J5b6 Pa% the e;cess ta; still dueI or .e refunded the e;cess amount paid) as the case ma% be,

1-n case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the e;cess estimated ?uarterl% income ta;es paid) the refundable amount sho(n on its final adEustment return ma% be credited a$ainst the estimated ?uarterl% income ta; liabilities for the ta;able ?uarters of the succeedin$ ta;able %ear,A Tax Refund Allowed by NIRC A perusal of this provision shows that a taxa'le corporation is entitled to a tax refund when the sum of the quarterl! income taxes it paid during a taBa le !ear eBceeds its totalincome tax due also for that !ear. Consequentl!, the refunda le amount that is shown on its final adCustment return ma! e credited, at its option, against its quarterl! income tax lia'ilities for the neBt taxa'le &ear. Petitioner is a corporation lia le to pa! income taxes under )ection ;4 of the #%1C. 7ence, it is a taxa'le corporation. %n .993, it reported that it had eBcess income taxes that had een paid for and on its ehalf ! its .ithholding agentsE and that, appl!ing the

a ove-quoted )ection 09, this eBcess should e credited against its income tax lia'ilities for .990. 7owever, it claimed in .99/ that it should get a refund, ecause it was still una le to use the eBcess income taxes paid in .993 against its tax lia'ilities in .990. %s this possi leN )tating the argument otherwise, ma! eBcess income taxes paid in .993 that could not e applied to taBes due in .990 e refunded in .99/N The answer is in the affirmative. 7ere are the reasons: Claim of Tax Refund eyond t!e "u##eedin$ Taxable %ear 4irst! a tax refund ma! which the tax credit arises. e claimed even e!ond the taxa'le &ear following that in

#o provision in our taB law limits the entitlement to such a refund, other than the requirement that the filing of the administrative claim for it e made ! the taBpa!er within a two-!ear prescriptive period. )ection ;84&,' of the #%1C states that no refund of taBes Rshall e allowed unless the taBpa!er files in writing with the Commissioner ?the@ claim for B B B refund within two !ears after the pa!ment of the taB.T Appl!ing the aforequoted legal provisions, if the eBcess income taxes paid in a given taxa'le &ear have not een entirel! used ! a taxa'le corporation against its quarterl! income taB lia ilities for the neBt taxa'le &ear, the unused amount of the eBcess ma! still e refunded, provided that the claim for such a refund is made within two !ears after pa!ment of the taB. Petitioner filed its claim in .99/ -- well within the two-!ear prescriptive period. Thus, its unused tax credits in .993 ma! still e refunded. Dven the phrase Rsucceeding taxa'le &earT in the second paragraph of the said )ection 09 is a limitation that applies onl! to a tax credit, not a tax refund. Petitioner herein does not claim a tax credit, ut a tax refund. Therefore, the statutor! limitation does not appl!. In#ome &ayments 'erely (e#lared &art of )ross In#ome Second, to e a le to claim a tax refund, a taBpa!er onl! needs to declare the income pa!ments it received as part of its gross income and to esta'lish the fact of withholding. )ection 3 of 11 .;-94?+@ states: ;;; ;;; ;;;

15a6 Claims for Ta; Credit or Refund of income ta; deducted and (ithheld on income pa%ments shall be $i3en due course onl% (hen it is sho(n on the return that the income pa%ment recei3ed has been declared as part of the $ross income and the fact of (ithholdin$ is established b% a cop% of the

Dithholdin$ Ta; Statement dul% issued b% the pa%or to the pa%ee sho(in$ the amount paid and the amount of ta; (ithheld therefrom, 15b6 E;cess Credits, 00 A ta;pa%er7s e;cess e;panded (ithholdin$ ta; credits for the ta;able ?uarterPta;able %ear shall automaticall% be allo(ed as a credit for purposes of filin$ his income ta; return for the ta;able ?uarterPta;able %ear immediatel% succeedin$ the ta;able ?uarterPta;able %ear in (hich the aforesaid e;cess credit arose) pro3ided) ho(e3er) he submits (ith his income ta; return a cop% of his income ta; return for the aforesaid pre3ious ta;able period sho(in$ the amount of his aforementioned e;cess (ithholdin$ ta; credits, 1-f the ta;pa%er) in lieu of the aforesaid automatic application of his e;cess credit) (ants a cash refund or a ta; credit certificate for use in pa%ment of his other national internal ta; liabilities) he shall make a (ritten re?uest therefor, Upon filin$ of his re?uest) the ta;pa%er7s income ta; return sho(in$ the e;cess e;panded (ithholdin$ ta; credits shall be e;amined, The e;cess e;panded (ithholdin$ ta;) if an%) shall be determined and refundedPcredited to the ta;pa%er0applicant, The refundPcredit shall be made (ithin a period of si;t% 5"26 da%s from date of the ta;pa%er7s re?uest pro3ided) ho(e3er) that the ta;pa%er0applicant submitted for audit all his pertinent accountin$ records and that the aforesaid records established the 3eracit% of his claim for a refundPcredit of his e;cess e;panded (ithholdin$ ta; credits,A That petitioner filed its amended .993 income tax return in .990 is uncontested. %n addition, the resulting investigation ! the 2%1 on August .3, .99/, reveals that the income accounts were Rcorrectl! declared ased on the eBisting supporting documents.T ?9@ Therefore, there is no need for petitioner to show again the income pa!ments it received in .993 as part of its gross income in .990. That petitioner filed its .990 final adjustment return in .99/ is the cruB of the controvers!. 7owever, as will e demonstrated shortl!, the lack of such a return will not defeat its entitlement to a refund. Tax Refund &rovisions: *uestion of +aw Third, it is a cardinal rule that Ronl! legal issues ma! e raisedT ?.8@ in petitions for review under 1ule 43.?..@ The proper interpretation of the provisions on tax refund is a question of la. that Rdoes not call for an eBamination of the pro ative value of the evidence presented ! the partieslitigants.T?.;@ 7aving een una le to use the eBcess income taBes paid in .993 against its other tax lia'ilities in .990, petitioner clearl! deserves a refund. %t cannot ! an! sweeping denial e deprived of what rightfull! elongs to it. The truth or falsit! of the contents of or entries in the .990 final adCustment return, which has not een formall! offered in evidence and eBamined ! respondent, involves, however, a question of fact. This Court is not a trier of facts. #either is it a collection agenc! for the government. Although we rule that petitioner is entitled to a tax refund, the

amount of that refund is a matter for the CTA to determine judiciousl! ased on the records that include its own cop! of petitionerSs .990 final adjustment return. +iberal Constru#tion of Rules 4ourth, ordinar! rules of procedure frown upon the su mission of final adCustment returns after trial has een conducted. 7owever, oth the CTA law and jurisprudence mandate that the proceedings efore the taB court Rshall not e governed strictl! ! technical rules of evidence.T?.,@ As a rule, its findings of fact ?.4@ &as well as that of the CA' are final, inding and conclusive?.3@ on the parties and upon this CourtE however, as an eBception, such findings ma! e reviewed or distur ed on appeal?.0@ when the! are not supported ! evidence.?./@ $ur 1ules of Court appl! R ! analog! or in a suppletor!?.+@ character and whenever practica le and convenientT?.9@ and Rshall e li erall! construed in order to promote their o jective of securing a just, speed! and ineBpensive disposition of ever! action and proceeding.T?;8@ After all, R?t@he paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth.T?;.@ %n the present case, the .990 final adCustment return was attached as AnneB A to the 1epl! to Comment filed ! petitioner with the CA. ?;;@ The return shows a negative amount for its taxa'le income that !ear. Therefore, it could not have applied or used the eBcess taB credits of .993 against its tax lia'ilities in .990. Judi#ial Noti#e of Atta#!ed Return 4ifth, the CA and CTA could have taken judicial notice of the .990 final adCustment return which had een attached in CTA Case #o. 3/99. RJudicial notice takes the place of proof and is of equal force.T?;,@ As a general rule, courts are not authori(ed to take judicial notice of the contents of records in other cases tried or pending in the same court, even when those cases were heard or are actuall! pending efore the same judge. 7owever, this rule admits of eBceptions, as when reference to such records is sufficientl! made without o jection from the opposing parties: J1, , , B-Cn the absence of obEection) and as a matter of con3enience to all parties) a court ma% properl% treat all or an% part of the ori$inal record of a case filed in its archi3es as read into the record of a case pendin$ before it) (hen) (ith the kno(led$e of the opposin$ part%) reference is made to it for that purpose) b% name and number or in some other manner b% (hich it is sufficientl% desi$natedI or (hen the ori$inal record of the former case or an% part of it) is actuall% (ithdra(n from the archi3es b% the court7s direction) at the re?uest or (ith the consent of the parties) and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pendin$,FA ?;4@

Prior to rendering its <ecision on Januar! .;, ;888, the CTA was alread! well-aware of the eBistence of another case pending efore it, involving the same su ject matter, parties and causes of action.?;3@ 2ecause of the close connection of that case with the matter in controvers!, the CTA could have easil! taken judicial notice ?;0@ of the contested document attached in that other case. 5urthermore, there was no o jection raised to the inclusion of the said .990 final adCustment return in petitionerSs 1epl! to Comment efore the CA. <espite clear reference to that return, a reference made with the knowledge of respondent, the latter still failed to controvert petitionerSs claim. The appellate court should have cast aside strict technicalities?;/@and decided the case on the asis of such uncontested return. Keril!, it had the authorit! to Rtake judicial notice of its records and of the facts ?that@ the record esta lishes.T?;+@ )ection ; of 1ule .;9 provides that courts Rma! take judicial notice of matters B B B ought to e known to judges ecause of their judicial functions.T ?;9@ %f the lower courts reall! elieved that petitioner was not entitled to a tax refund, the! could have easil! required respondent to ascertain its veracit! and accurac!?,8@ and to prove that petitioner did not suffer an! net loss in .990. Contrar! to the contention of petitioner, B*")4amil& Savings Ban% v/ $(?,.@ &on which it rests its entire arguments' is not on all fours with the facts of this case. Ghile the petitioner in that case also filed a written claim for a tax refund, and likewise failed to present its .998 corporate annual income tax return, it nonetheless offered in evidence its top-ranking officialSs testimon! and certification pertaining to onl! t.o taxa'le &ears &.9+9 and .998'. The said return was attached onl! to its "otion for 1econsideration efore the CTA. Petitioner in this case offered documentar! and testimonial evidence that eBtended beyo"# t.o taxa'le &ears, ecause the eBcess credits in the first &.993' taxa'le &ear had not een used up during the second &.990' taxa'le &ear, and ecause the claim for the refund of those credits had een filed during the third &.99/' taxa'le &ear. %ts final adCustment return was instead attached to its 1epl! to Comment filed efore the CA. "oreover, in B*")4amil& Savings Ban%, petitioner was a fact: that petitioner had suffered a net loss in .998 B B B.T?,;@ %n such Rundisputed factT as !et. The mere admission into .990 final adCustment return is not a sufficient proof of the entries in that return. le to show Rthe undisputed the instant case, there is no the records of petitionerSs truth of the contents of or

%n addition, the 2%1 in B*")4amil& Savings Ban% did not controvert the veracit! of the return or file an opposition to the "otion and the return. <espite the fact that the return was ignored ! oth the CA and the CTA, the latter even declared in another case &CTA Case #o. 4+9/' that petitioner had suffered a net loss for taxa'le &ear .998. Ghen attached to the Petition for 1eview filed efore this Court, that <ecision was not at all claimed ! the 2%1 to e fraudulent or noneBistent. The 2ureau merel! contended that this Court should not take judicial notice of the said <ecision.

%n this case, however, the 2%1 has not een given the chance to challenge the veracit! of petitionerSs final adCustment return. #either has the CTA decided an! other case categoricall! declaring a net loss for petitioner in taxa'le &ear .990. After this return was attached to petitionerSs 1epl! to Comment efore the CA, the appellate court should have required the filing of other responsive pleadings from respondent, as was necessar! and proper for it to rule upon the return. Admissibility ,ersus -ei$!t %ndeed, R?a@dmissi ilit! B B B is one thing, weight is another.T ?,,@ RTo admit evidence and not to elieve it are not incompati le with each other B B B.T ?,4@ "ere allegations ! petitioner of the figures in its .990 final adCustment return are not a sufficient proof of the amount of its refund entitlement. The! do not even constitute evidence?,3@ adverse to respondent, against whom the! are eing presented.?,0@ Ghile it seems that the R?non-production@ of a document which courts almost invaria l! eBpect will e produced Uunavoida l! throws a suspicion over the cause,ST ?,/@ this is not reall! the conclusion to e arrived at here. Ghen petitioner purportedl! filed its administrative claim for a tax refund on April .8, .99/, the deadline for filing the .990 final adCustment return was not !et over. 7ence, it could not have attached this return to its claim. 5or reasons unknown even to this Court, petitioner failed to offer such return as evidence during the trial phase of this case. 5or its negligence, petitioner Rcannot e allowed to seek refuge in a li eral application of the ?r@ulesT?,+@ ! giving it a lanket approval of the total refund it claims. RGhile in certain instances, we allow a relaBation in the application of the rules, we never intend to forge a weapon for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunit!. The li eral interpretation and application of rules appl! onl! in proper cases of demonstra le merit and under justifia le causes and circumstances.T?,9@ %t would not e proper to allow petitioner to simpl! prevail and compel a refund in the amount it claims, without affording the government a reasona le opportunit! to contest the formerSs allegations.?48@ #egligence consisting of the uneBplained failure to offer the eBhi it should not e rewarded with undeserved lenienc!. Petitioner still ears the urden of proving the amount of its claim for tax refund. After all, R?t@aB refunds are in the nature of taB eBemptionsT and are to e construed strictissimi Curis against the taBpa!er.
?4.@

5inall!, even in the a sence of a final adCustment return or an! claim for a tax refund, respondent is authori(ed ! law to eBamine an! ook, paper, record or other data that ma! e relevant or material to such inquir!. ?4;@ 5ailure to make an assessment of petitionerSs proper taB lia ilit! or to contest the return could e errors or omissions of administrative officers that should never e allowed to jeopardi(e the governmentSs financial position. Keril!, Rthe officers of the 2ureau of %nternal 1evenue should receive the support of the courts when these officers attempt to perform in a conscientious and lawful manner the duties imposed upon them ! law.T?4,@ $nl! after it is shown that Rif something is received

when there is no right to demand it, and it was dul! delivered through mistake, the o ligation to return it arises.T
?44@

%n rief, we hold that petitioner is entitled to a refundE however, the amount must still e proved in proper proceedings efore the CTA. WHEREFORE, the Petition is here ! *(RT29 +R(NTE#, and the assailed <ecision SET (S"#E. The case is RE (N#E# to the Court of TaB Appeals for the proper and immediate determination of the amount to e refunded to petitioner on the asis of the latterSs .990 final adjustment return. #o pronouncement as to costs. SO OR'ERE'.

Case +8
G.R. No. L/5)++* Se;5e3ber 1,, 19+1 RE! -LIC OF THE !HILI!!INES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORA-LE CO RT OF A!!EALS :S;e04a7 Se0o"# '4H4s4o"<, CO RT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF - LACAN, T RAN'OT, TRA=IATA, %ARCELITA, %ARLENE, !ACITA, %ATTHEW, =ICTORIA a"# ROSAR&, a77 sur"a3e# AL'A-A, respondents.

%A2ASIAR, J.: Petitioner, through this petition for review ! certiorari, seeks to annul and set aside the respondent Court of Appeals' April ;9, .9+8 decision and August .3, .9+8 resolution in CA J.1. #o. .88+.-)P, entitled F1epu lic of the Philippines versus 7on. 1oque Tama!o, et al. F I a special action for certiorari, prohi ition and mandamus I sustaining the lower court's action in dismissing petitioner's appeal as not having een perfected on time. The root case is an eBpropriation proceedings initiated ! the petitioner over a .3,888 square meter lot of private respondents situated in 2arrio Tika!, "alolos, 2ulacan, docketed in the lower court as Civil Case #o. 3;3, entitled F 1epu lic of the Philippines vs. Turandot Alda a, et al. F The su ject parcel of land is needed ! the petitioner to set up a permanent site for the 2ulacan Area )hop, 2ureau of Dquipment, <epartment of Pu lic 7ighwa!s, a pu lic purpose authori(ed ! law to e undertaken ! the "inistr! of Pu lic 7ighwa!s. $n "arch ;, .9/+, the lower court issued a writ of possession placing the petitioner in possession of the land in question, upon its deposit of the amount of P/,;88.88 as provisional value. $n "arch ,., .9/+, counsel for private respondents filed a motion pra!ing for the creation of a three &,'- man committee in accordance with )ection 3, 1ule 0/ of the 1ules of Court, to stud! and su mit a report as to the just and reasona le compensation for the parcel of land su ject of eBpropriation. $n Jul! ,., .9/+, the lower court issued an order naming the chairman and mem ers of the committee of three. $n #ovem er ./. .9/+, the three-man committee su mitted a joint report to the lower court, recommending that the just compensation of the eBpropriated land e fiBed at P38.88 per square meter. %n this petition, the )olicitor Jeneral claims that he was not served copies of the aforementioned "arch ,., .9/+ motion of private respondents, Jul! ,., .9/+ order of the respondent lower court and the #ovem er ./, .9/+ report of the three-man committee. The records reveal that the )olicitor Jeneral authori(ed the provincial fiscal of 2ulacan to represent him in that proceedings &pp. ..-.;, C.A. rec.'. Parentheticall!, private respondents in their comment to this petition, alleged Fthat the Provincial 5iscal, eing dul! authori(ed ! the office of the )olicitor Jeneral to represent the latter in this case, the court merel! furnished the office of the Provincial 5iscal with all the pleadings and other papers of the case,, &p. 3,, rec.'. $n <ecem er .+, .9/+, the )olicitor Jeneral received a cop! of the lower court's order dated <ecem er +, .9/+. The order reads in part: The joint report filed ! the three-man committee charged with the determination of the just compensation of the propert! herein sought to e condemned is here ! APP1$KD<, such that the just compensation of the land descri ed in Paragraph .. of the Complaint is fiBed at Thirt! Pesos &P,8.88' per square meter. The defendant ma! now withdraw from the Philippine #ational 2ank, "alolos, 2ranch, the sum of P/,;88.88 deposited ! the Third 1egional Dquipment )ervices, <epartment of Pu lic 7ighwa!s under Account #o, ,3.89, said sum to e part of the total amount of P438,888.88 &.3,888 square meters at P,8.88 per square meter', which the <epartment of Pu lic 7ighwa!s, Third 1egional Dquipment )ervices, "alolos, 2ulacan, shall, and is here ! ordered, to pa! to the herein defendants as just compensation for the su ject propert!.

$n <ecem er ;;, .9/+, the )olicitor Jeneral filed through the mail a notice of appeal as well as a first motion for extension of time of ;F da&s from Januar! ./, .9/9 within which to file record on appeal. The eBtension sought for was granted ! the lower court in its order dated Januar! ./, .9/9. $n 5e ruar! .,, .9/9, the lower court, acting upon petitioner's manifestation filed on Januar! 9, .9/9 and motion filed on 5e ruar! +, .9/9, allowed the )olicitor Jeneral to orrow the records of the eBpropriation case Funder proper receipt, the Clerk of Court taking the necessar! steps to indeB and num er the pages thereof and to ensure its integrit!E and granted a second eBtension of thirt! &,8' da!s from 5e ruar! ./, .9/9, within which to file the record on appeal of the 1epu lic of the PhilippinesF &p. /9, C.A. rec.'. Again, on "arch ;;, .9/9, the lower court granted petitioner's third motion for an eBtension of thirt! &,8' da!s from "arch .9, .9/9 within which to file its record on appeal &p. +8, C.A. rec.'. )u sequentl!, the lower court, in an order dated April ;4, .9+8, acted favora l! upon petitioner's motion for a fourth eBtension of thirt! &,8' da!s from April .9, .9/9 within which to file its record on appeal and petitioner's request that the records of the eBpropriation case e forwarded to the )olicitor Jeneral &p. +., C.A. rec.'. %n a motion dated "a! ./, .9/9, the petitioner, invoking heav! pressure of work, asked for a fifth eBtension of thirt! &,8' da!s from "a! .+, .9/9 or until June ./, .9/9, within which to file its record on appeal &pp. +;-+,, C.A. rec.'. $n June /, .9/9, when its motion for a fifth eBtension has not !et een acted upon ! the lower court, petitioner filed its record on appeal &p. .,, rec.'. $n June .3, .9/9, eight &+' da!s after petitioner had filed its record on appeal, private respondents filed an opposition to the aforesaid fifth motion for eBtension &pp. +3-+/, C.A. rec.', and an o jection to petitioner's record on appeal &pp. ++-+9, C.A. rec.', on the ground that the same was filed e!ond the reglementar! period, ecause petitioner's motion dated "a! ./, .9/9 for eBtension to file record on appeal was mailed onl! on "a! ;., .9/9 &pp. .,-.4, rec.'. $n June ;/, .9/9, petitioner filed its opposition to the aforesaid o jection to its record on appeal, contending that the said "a! ./, .9/9 motion for eBtension of time was actuall! mailed on "a! .+, .9/9, which was the last da! of the eBtended period allowed ! the lower court's order of April ;4, .9/9 &p. .4, rec.'. %n an order dated August .,, .9/9 ut received ! the )olicitor Jeneral onl! on )eptem er .8, .9/9, the lower court dismissed the appeal of petitioner on the ground that the fifth motion for extension of time dated a& ,>!,<>< .ithin .hich to file the record on appeal and the record on appeal were filed out of time. The lower court found that the said fifth motion for eBtension of time was actuall! mailed on "a! ;., .9/9 and not on "a! .+, .9/9 as claimed ! petitioner &pp. .4, ,4-,3, rec.'. The order of dismissal reads: *pon consideration of the approval of the record on appeal filed ! the 1epu lic and acting on the manifestation filed on Jul! ;3, .9/9 ! the defendants thru counsel, the Court finds no merit in the same. The last motion of the $ffice of the )olicitor Jeneral for eBtension of time to file record on appeal was on "a! ./, .9/9, seeking for an additional eBtension of thirt! &,8' da!s from April .+, .9/9. The thirt!-da! period requested ! the )olicitor Jeneral from "a! .+, .9/9 therefore eBpired on June ./, .9/9. 2ut this last request for eBtension was not acted upon ! the court. The 1epu lic of the Philippines had therefore onl! up to "a! ./, .9/9, within which to file record on appeal. The record on appeal was filed onl! on June .., .9/9 &should e June /', which is well e!ond the period to file record on appeal "oreover, the last motion for eBtension which was not acted upon ! the Court had onl! een filed on "a! ;., .9/9 as shown ! the stamp of the "anila Post $ffice, the date of the mailing which should e reckoned with in computing periods of mailed pleadings, and received ! the Court on June ;;, .9/9. 2oth the motion for eBtension filed on "a! ;., .9/9 and the record on appeal filed on June .., .9/9 &should e June /', have therefore een filed e!ond the reglementar! period of ,8 da!s from April .+, .9/9, or up to "a! .+,.9/9.

BBB BBB BBB &pp. ,4-,3, rec.'. $n $cto er 4, .9/9, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that Fl' there is merit in plaintiff's appeal from tills 7onora le Court's order of <ecem er +, .9/+, a cop! of which was received on <ecem er .+, .9/+E ;' plaintiff's "a! ./, .9/9 motion for ,8 da!s eBtension from "a! ./, .9/9 to file 1ecord on Appeal, was actuall! filed on "a! .+, .9.9E and ,' the 7onora le Court denied plaintiff's appeal without first resolving plaintiff's motion for a ,8-da! eBtension, from "a! .+, .9/9 to file 1ecord on AppealF &pp. .4-.3, rec.E pp. 3;-00, C.A. rec.'. 1elative to the timeliness of the filing of its fifth motion for eBtension of time, petitioner su mitted a certification of the Postmaster of the Central $ffice of the 2ureau of Posts, "anila, that registered letter #o. ,;/, containing the aforesaid motion addressed to the Clerk of Court of the Court of 5irst %nstance of "alolos, 2ulacan ... was received ! this $ffice late 5rida! afternoon, "a! .+, .9/9. The letter was not included in the onl! morning dispatch of "a! .9 to 2ulacan and was dispatched "a! ;., .9/9, "onda! &"a! ;8, eing a )unda!' under the "anila I "alolos 2ill #o. ;8;, page ., line .3F &p. 00, C.A. rec.'. $n the merits of the dismissed appeal, petitioner stressed that the creation of a three-man committee to fiB the just compensation of the eBpropriated lot was without legal asis, ecause )ection 3, 1ule 0 of the 1ules of Court upon which the same was anchored had alread! een repealed ! the provisions of Presidential <ecree #o. /0 which took effect on <ecem er 0, .9/; I under which the court has no alternative ut to ase the just compensation of eBpropriated propert! upon the current and fair market value declared ! the owner or administrator. or such market value as determined ! the assessor, whichever is lower. $n $cto er ,., .9/9, the lower court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit &pp. ,0-48, rec.E pp. ;+,;, C.A. rec.', thus: The grounds advanced ! the plaintiff 1epu lic of the Philippines have een full! taken into account ! the Court in its order of August .,, .9/9, particularl! the late filing of the record on appeal. Plaintiff's counsel should not have assumed that the motion for eBtension of the period for filing of the record on appeal would e granted.
The plaintiff's counsel's elief that their "a! ./, .9/9 motion would e granted cannot e the asis for the plaintiff to e a solved of the effect of late filing of the record on appeal considering that the Court had li erall! eBtended for five times @, each for thirt! &,8' da!s, the filing of said record. This Court considers said eBtensions as sufficient time for the counsel for plaintiff to prepare its record on appeal. Plaintiff's counsel, with all the resources it has to protect its client's interests, should have een vigilant enough not to assume and should not eBpect that their motion for eBtension would e granted. %t is not correct therefore that onl! three da!s had elapsed after the reglementar! period to perfect appeal ecause the reglementar! period ended not on June ./, .9/9, ut on "a! ./, .9/9, ecause the last motion for eBtension was not granted ! the Court.

The Court deplores the insinuation of plaintiff's counsel that it took hook, line and sinker, defendant's allegation a out the fact of mailing. % t has carefull! gone over the record and found that the date of mailing of the motion for eBtension is "a! ;., .9/9, as shown ! the stamp '1egistered, "anila, Philippines, "a! ., .9/9 appearing on the covering envelope containing the motion for eBtension. Therefore, the eBplanation contained in AnneB 2 of the motion for reconsideration to the effect that registered Hetter #o. ,;/,, addressed to the Clerk of Court, Court of 5irst %nstance of "alolos, 2ulacan, was received ! the "anila Post $ffice late 5rida! afternoon, "a! .+, .9/9, ut was not included in the Fonl!F morning dispatch of "a! .9 to 2ulacan and was dispatched "a! ;., .9/9, "onda! &"a! ;8 eing a )unda!', under the "anilaI"alolos 2ill #o. ;8;, page ., line .3', can not overturn the fact of date of actual mailing which is "a! ;., .9/9, ecause it is of judicial knowledge that a registered letter when posted is immediatel! stamped with the date of its receipt, indicating therein the num er of the registr!, oth on the covering envelope itself and on the receipt delivered to the person who delivered the letter to the post office. The letter AnneB 2 of the motion therefore lacks sufficient weight and persuasiveness to prove the fact that the letter asking for another eBtension was actuall! filed on "a! .+, .9/9, and not "a! ;., .9/9.

1egarding the creation of a three-man committee which according to plaintiff the Court sorel! lacked the prerogative to create pursuant to )ec. 3, 1ule 0/ of the 1ules of Court ecause it has een superseded ! the provisions of P< /0 which definitel! fiBed the guidelines for the determination of just compensation of private propert! acquired ! the )tate for pu lic use, the Court had to resort to this old method of determining fair market value, which is defined as: The Fcurrent and fair market valueF shall e understood to mean the Fprice of which a willing seller would sell and a willing u!er would u! neither eing under a normal pressureF, ecause, firstl!E the plaintiff failed to show evidence thereof as declared ! the owner or administrator of the propert! under the provisions of P< /0, or the valuation or assessment of the value as determined ! the assessor, whichever is lower. 7ence, for all intents and purposes, the findings of the three-man committee have ecome the asis of the evaluation, Paragraph %ll of the complaint notwithstanding, ecause allegation in the complaint, unless proved, are not inding as evidence. Presidential <ecree #o. 4;, from its ver! caption, which reads: P1D)%<D#T%AH <DC1DD #$. 4; A*T7$1%L%#J T7D PHA%#T%55 %# D"%#D#T <$"A%# P1$CDD<%#J) T$ TA>D P$))D))%$# $5 T7D P1$PD1T= %#K$HKD< *P$# <DP$)%T%#J T7D A))D))D< KAH*D 5$1 P*1P$)D) $5 TAOAT%$# does not fiB the value of the propert! to e eBpropriated, ut rather for the purpose of taking possession of the propert! involved, the assessed value for purposes of taBation is required to e deposited in the Philippine #ational 2ank or an! of its ranches or agencies. This is orne out ! the first Whereas of the decree which finds the eBisting procedure for the eBercise of the right of eminent domain not eBpeditious enough to ena le the plaintiff to take or enter upon the possession of the real propert! involved, when needed for pu lic purposes. The second Whereas states that the measure is in the national interest in order to effect the desired changes and reforms to create a new societ! and economic order for the enefit of the countr! and its people. The od! of the law does not specif! the valuation of the propert!, ut rather the method ! which sei(ure of the propert! could e done immediatel!, and that is ! the act of depositing with the Philippine #ational 2ank, in its main office or an! of its ranches or agencies, an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the propert! for purposes of taBation, to e held ! said ank su ject to the orders and final disposition of the Court. $nl! in this respect are the provisions of 1ule 0/ of the 1ules of Court and or an! other eBisting law contrar! to or inconsistent therewith repealed. %f at an, the decree, P< 4;, fiBes onl! a provisional value of the propert! which does not necessaril! represent the true and correct value of the land as defined in P< /0. %t is onl! provisional or tentative to serve as the asis for the immediate occupanc! of the propert! eing eBpropriated ! the condemnor. This is in line with the recent decision of the 7onora le )upreme Court promulgated on $cto er .+, .9/9, in the case of the "unicipalit! of <aet, Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Hi )eng Jiap 6 Co., %nc., 1espondents, J.1. #o. H-43+0., which states in part: ..., it can alread! e gleaned that said decree fiBes onl! the provisional value of the propert!. As a provisional value, it does not necessaril! represent the true and correct value of the land. The value is onl! FprovisionalF or FtentativeF to serve as the asis for the immediate occupanc! of the propert! eing eBpropriated ! the condemnor. BBB BBB BBB &pp. ;+-,;, rec.'.

<issatisfied with the aforesaid orders of the lower court, petitioner on <ecem er ,, .9/9 filed with the respondent Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohi ition and mandamus with preliminar! injunction in CA-J.1. #o. .88+.-)p, entitled: 1epu lic of the Philippines versus Court of 5irst %nstance of 2ulacan, 2ranch K%, presided over ! 7on. 1oque Tama!o, et al., where ! it pra!ed that: .' This petition e given due courseE ;' A writ of preliminar! injunction andCor temporar! retraining order e issued eB-parte restraining respondent court from eBecuting, enforcing andCor implementing its $rder dated <ecem er +, .9/+, ... and its orders dated August .,, .9/9 and $cto er ,., .9/9 ...E ,' After hearing on the merits, judgment e rendered: ?a@ annulling and setting aside respondent court's $rders of August .,, .9/9 ... : ? @ <irecting and compelling respondent court to allow and approve petitioner's record on appeal and to certif! and elevate the same to this 7onora le CourtE ?c@ <eclaring the writ of preliminar! injunction andCor restraining order herein pra!ed for to e made permanent and perpetualF and for such other relief as the Court ma! deem just and equita le in the premises. $n <ecem er .4, .9/9, respondent Court of Appeals issued a temporar! restraining order to maintain the status quo, and required private respondents to file their comment &pp. 0/-0+, C.A. rec.'. $n Januar! ;, .9+8, private respondents filed the required comment &pp. 09-9., C.A. rec.'. $n April ;9, .9+8, respondent Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's action and set aside its <ecem er .4, .9/9 restraining order. The respondent Court of Appeals ruled that FA review of the whole record convinces *s that the challenged orders are not a capricious and whimsical eBercise of judgment as to constitute a grave a use of discretion ...F &pp. 44-43, rec.'. The )olicitor Jeneral received a cop! of the aforesaid decision on "a! .9, .9+8. $n "a! ,8, .9+8, the )olicitor Jeneral sought a thirt!-da! eBtension from June ,, .9+8 within which to file a motion for reconsideration &pp. .80-.8/, C.A. rec.'. $n June ;8, .9+8, the respondent Court of Appeals granted the eBtension sought &p. .8+, C.A. rec.'. $n June ;,, .9+8, the )olicitor Jeneral filed his motion for reconsideration on the ground that, FThe 7onora le Court of Appeals was misled ! private respondents' counsel in holding that petitioner's motion for eBtension of time to file record on appeal dated "a! ./, .9/9 ... was filed on "a! ;., .9/9, not on "a! .+, .9/9 &which was the last da! within which to file petitioner's record on appeal'E hence, this 7onora le Court was not correct in A11%K%#J AT T7D C$#CH*)%$# T7AT PDT%T%$#D1') A5$1D)A%< "$T%$# 5$1 DOTD#)%$# was filed e!ond the reglementar! periodF &pp. .89-..+, C.A. rec.'. Petitioner also moved to set the case for oral argument &p. ..9, C.A. rec.'. Petitioner vehementl! insisted as it did in the main action &pp. .8-.;, C.A. rec.', that it is erroneous to conclude that its ... motion for eBtension dated "a! ./, .9/9 ... was filed on "a! ;., .9/9 and not on "a! .+, .9/9 which is the last da! of the eBtended period fiBed ! respondent court for petitioner to file its record on appeal. %t is su mitted that the motion for eBtension dated "a! ./, .9/9 ... was actuall! filed on "a! .+,.9/9 as there is incontroverti le proof that the same was in fact mailed on "a! .+, .9/9 via registered mail &1egistr! Hetter ,;/,' at the "anila Central $ffice of the 2ureau of Posts. A letter dated )eptem er ;0, .9/9 of <elfin Celis, postmaster of Central Post $ffice, "anila, to the Chief of the 1ecords )ection of the $ffice of the )olicitor Jeneral shows that the envelope containing the "a! ./, .9/9 motion was received ! the Post $ffice of "anila on "a! ./, .9/9. )aid letter states: %n compliance to !our request in !our letter dated )eptem er ;8, .9/9 in connection with registered letter #o. ,;/, addressed to the Clerk of Court, Court of 5irst %nstance "alolos, 2ulacan, please e informed that it was received ! this $ffice late 5rida! afternoon, "a! .+, .9/9. The letter was not included in the onl! morning dispatch of "a! .9 to 2ulacan and was dispatched "a! ;., .9/.9, "onda! &"a! ;8, eing a )unda!' under the "anila- "alolos 2ill #o. ;8;, page ., line .3. Thus, it is conceded that the envelope containing the registered letter of petitioner's motion for eBtension to file record on appeal dated "a! ./, .9/9 has on its face the date "a! ;., .9/9 stamped thereon ... . %f the aforesaid proof of mailing presented ! private respondent is taken into account solel! without taking into consideration the letter of postmaster <elfin Celis dated )eptem er ;3, .9/9 ... , then it could e said that petitioner's motion for eBtension to file record on appeal dated "a! ./, .9/9 was filed out of time. 7owever, the certification of the Postmaster stating

that the letter was actuall! received in the Post $ffice on "a! .+, .9/9 conclusivel! shows that such date is the date of mailing, and the date "a! ;., was thus wrongl! stamped thereon ! an emplo!ee of the Post $ffice. Petitioner should not e lamed for the mistake committed ! the personnel of the Post $ffice of stamping "a! ;., .9/9 on the envelope of said 1egistered Hetter #o. ,;/,. Petitioner's counsel had nothing to do with the aforesaid mistake that had een committed ! the personnel of the Post $ffice. %n resume it can e said with certaint! that the records of the $ffice of the )olicitor Jeneral and the Post $ffice of "anila clearl! show that the petitioner's motion for eBtension dated "a! ./, .9/9 was seasona l! filed on "a! .+, .9/9 as the latter was actuall! the date of its mailing and therefore said date should e deemed as the actual date of its filing efore respondent court. At this juncture, it ma! e stated that undersigned counsel were constrained to seek eBtension to file record on appeal ecause of the pressure of work and their need to orrow the records of the case from the trial court. Thus, as earl! as Januar! 9, .9-i 9, the! were orrowing the eBpediente of the case so as to ena le them to prepare an accurate record on appeal. Petitioner in its motion and manifestation of Januar! 9, .9/9 stated wh! it wanted to orrow the eBpediente of the case at ar, as follows: ,. The records of the undersigned counsel ma! not e complete as it had authori(ed the Provincial 5iscal of 2ulacan to appear in the hearings efore this honora le Court, thus it is possi le that the $ffice of the )olicitor Jeneral ma! not have een furnished copies of $rders of this honora le Court, as well as pleadings that ma! have een furnished the provincial 5iscal of 2ulacan. 4. This eing the case, undersigned counsel can not prepare an accurate and concise record on appeal, hence it is necessar! that the records of the case e lent to the undersigned counsel pursuant to )ec. .4, 1ule .:,0, of the 1evised 1ules of Court' &pp. 0-/ "otion for 1econsideration ?in the C5% of 2ulacan@E see pp. 3;, 3/-3+, C.A. rec.', $n April .8, .9/9, undersigned counsel reiterated their desire to orrow said expediente ut it was not until "a! ,, .9/9 that the expediente of the case consisting of .04 pages were received ! the <ocket )ection of the $ffice of the )olicitor Jeneral. %t was onl! on "a! .0, .9/9 that said expedientewere delivered to undersigned )olicitor, thus compelling him to prepare the "a! ./, .9/9 motion. And for the same reasons, it was onl! on June /, .9/9 that the record on appeal was filed, which was well within the ,8 da!s eBtension from "a! .+, .9/9 pra!ed for in petitioner's motion of "a! ./, .9/9. BBB BBB BBB &pp. .89-..,, C.A. rec.'. $n Jul! .4, .9+8, respondent Court of Appeals resolved to require private respondents to comment on the motion for reconsideration within ten &.8' da!s from receipt of the resolution &p. .; ., C.A. rec.'. Darlier, however, or on Jul! +, .9+8, private respondents mailed their opposition to the motion for reconsideration and their waiver to appear for oral argument &pp. .;;-.;,, C.A. rec.', 2oth were received ! the Court of Appeals on Jul! .4, .9+8, the ver! da! the resolution requiring private respondents to comment on the motion for reconsideration, was released ! the Court of Appeals. %n the petition efore this $ourt, the )olicitor Jeneral laments the fact that no copies of the aforesaid pleadings of the private respondents were ever served on and received ! him &p. .+, rec.'. %ndeed, said pleadings of the private respondents do not show nor indicate that copies thereof were served on the )olicitor Jeneral &pp. .;.-.;,, C.A. rec.'. %n the aforesaid opposition of private respondents, the! claimed that

The undersigned counsel merel! stated that the date of filing the fifth motion for eBtension to file record on appeal ! the office of the )olicitor Jeneral was on "a! ;., .9/9, as shown on the envelope earing the stamp of the "anila Post $ffice, which clearl! reads ' a& :,! ,<>< and the undersigned counsel rought to the attention of the lower court that the date of filing of this fifth eBtension was the date shown when the mailing was made as stamped on the envelope. That there can e no other date than the date stamped on the envelope made ! the "anila Post $ffice when the fifth request for eBtension of filing the record on appeal was mailed. This fact of the date of mailing, "a! ;., .9/9, was stamped on the envelope. The office of the )olicitor Jeneral further alleged: %f ... taken into account solel! without taking into consideration the letter of the Post "aster <elfin Cells, dated )eptem er ;3, .9/9 B B, then it could e said that petitioner's motion for eBtension to file record on appeal, dated "a! ./, .9/9, was filed out of time. 5rom the a ove statement of the $ffice of the )olicitor Jeneral there can never e an! a use in the eBercise of judgment as to constitute a grave a use of discretion. the lower court chose to rel! on the date stamped on the envelope ! the "anila Post $ffice rather than considering as paramount a mere letter from the "anila Post $ffice emplo!ee, <elfin Cells. BBB BBB BBB %f we are to elieve that the stamped date, "a! ;., .9/9, was wrongl! stamped ! an emplo!ee of the "anila Post $ffice, then thousands of mails received and or mailed on that date were all wrongl! stamped. 7ow can the lower court elieve that the date "a! ;., .9/9, was merel! erroneousl! stamped on the envelopeN The lower court's finding of facts on this regard, must also e sustained. The other reason given ! the $ffice of the )olicitor Jeneral was that the! have asked for the complete record of the case ut that it was onl! forwarded to their office sometime on "a! ,, .9/9. The record of the case cannot e easil! forwarded to the )olicitor Jeneral ecause there was the case of motion for intervention filed in connection with the case. The failure on the part of the court to immediatel! compl! with the request of the office of the )olicitor Jeneral cannot e a justif!ing reason for failure to compl! with the rules of court and of the order of filing the record on appeal within the reglementar! period, or time given ! the court. The office of the )olicitor Jeneral gave the Provincial 5iscal of 2ulacan the power to handle the case for &them' and the office of the Provincial 5iscal was furnished with all pleadings, orders and other papers of the case. The record therefore of the $ffice of the Provincial 5iscal can easil! e availa le to them. 2esides no less than five &3' eBtensions of time had een requested and the last one was not acted upon ! the Court and !et the $ffice of the )olicitor Jeneral filed the 1ecord on Appeal onl! on June ./, .9/9 should e June /, .9/9', which is far e!ond the reglementar! period which was "a! ./, .9/9 &should e "a! .+, .9/9'. BBB BBB BBB &pp. .;,-.;3, C.A. rec.'. $n August .3, .9+8, respondent Court of Appeals issued a resolution den!ing the motion for reconsideration, thus: Acting on the "otion for 1econsideration dated June ;,, .9+8 filed ! the )olicitor Jeneral and the opposition thereto filed on Jul! +, .9+8 ! the respondents and considering that the said motion does not cite new matters which have not een considered in the decision promulgated on April ;9, .9+8, the said motion is here ! denied.

Petitioner's "otion to )et Case for $ral Argument' dated June ;,, .9+8 is likewise <D#%D<. Aforesaid resolution was received ! the )olicitor Jeneral on August ;8, .9+8. 7ence, this recourse. Petition was filed on $cto er ;4, .9+8E two eBtensions of time of thirt! &,8' da!s each having een previousl! asked ! and granted to petitioner 1epu lic of the Philippines. $n $cto er ;9, .9+8, GD resolved to require respondents to comment on the petition within ten &.8' da!s from notice of the resolution and at the same time issued a temporar! restraining order enjoining respondents from eBecuting, enforcing andCor implementing the decision dated April ;+, .9+8 issued in CA J.1. #o. )P-.88+., entitled F1epu lic of the Philippines, Petitioner, versus 7on. 1oque Tama!o, etc., et al., 1espondentsF of the Court of Appeals, and the $rder dated <ecem er +, .9/+ issued in Civil Case #o. 3;3/-", entitled F1epu lic of the Philippines. Plaintiff, versus Turandot Alda a, et al., <efendantsF of the Court of 5irst %nstance of 2ulacan, 2ranch K% at "alolos, 2ulacan, &pp. 49-3., rec.'. $n #ovem er .4, .9+8, private respondents filed their comment to the petition contending that no a use of discretion or act in eBcess of jurisdiction eBists as to require a review ! this honora le Court &pp. 3;-04, rec.'. $n #ovem er ;4, .9+8, GD resolved to give due course to the petition and to declare the case su mitted for decision &p. 03, rec.'. 2ut on <ecem er ;;, .9+8, private respondent filed a motion, pra!ing for the outright dismissal of the instant petition on the main ground that the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals sought to e reviewed has alread! ecome final and eBecutors hence, unappeala le, ecause this petition was filed out of time as the petitioner's motion for reconsideration iii the Court of Appeals was pro forma &pp. 00-0/, rec.'. The main issue to e resolved in this case is whether or not respondent Court of Appeals itself committed a grave a use of discretion in not finding that the respondent trial court committed a grave a use of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal. The questioned orders should e set aside. %. %t must e underscored that the asic provisions of the 1ules of Court asis of the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal ! the Court of 5irst %nstance of 2ulacan as sustained ! the respondent Court of Appeals are )ection .,, 1ule 4.E Ghere the notice of appeal, appeal ond or record on appeal are not filed within the period of time herein provided, the appeal shall e dismissedE and )ection .4, 1ule 4.E A motion to dismiss an appeal on an! of the grounds mentioned in the preceding section ma! e filed in the Court of 5irst %nstance prior to the transmittal of the record to the appellate court. The Court of 5irst %nstance of 2ulacan dismissed herein petitioner's appeal on the ases of the foregoing provision upon its finding that the record on appeal of petitioner was filed out of time as it was filed onl! on June /, .9/9 or twent! &;8' da!s after "a! .+, .9/9, the last da! of the appeal period s eBtended petitioner fifth eBtension of time of thirt! da!s from "a! .+, .9/9, not having een favora l! acted upon ! the Court of 5irst %nstance of 2ulacan upon its finding that the same was also filed late or three da!s after the last da! of the eBtended appeal period. The implication of the questioned orders of the Court of 5irst %nstance is that since the fifth eBtension of time was filed out of time, no action ma! e taken thereon ! itE hence, petitioner 1epu lic had onl! up to "a! .+, .9/9 within which to file the record on appeal. Consequentl!, the filing thereof onl! on June /, .9/9 was too late. The petitioner, however, herein contends as it did efore the Court of 5irst %nstance of 2ulacan and efore the respondent Court of Appeals, that its fifth eBtension of time was actuall! filed on "a! .+, .9/9, not on "a! ;., .9/9 as found out ! the Court of 5irst %nstance and Court of Appeals and in support thereof, pointed to the certification of the postmaster of the Central $ffice of the 2ureau of Posts, dated )eptem er ;3, .949 &P. 4/, rec.' to the effect that the said motion for eBtension of time as contained in registered mail #o. ,;/, addressed to the Clerk of Court of 5irst %nstance of 2ulacan &"alolos' ... was received ! this office late 5rida! afternoon, "a! +, .9/9. The letter was not included in the onl! morning dispatch of "a! .9, to 2ulacan and was dispatched "a! ;., .9/9, "onda! &"a! ;8 eing a )unda!' under the "anila-"alolos 2ill #o. ;8; page ., line .3.F

2ut the Court of 5irst %nstance of 2ulacan opined that said certification cannot override the prevailing practice in post offices Fthat a registered letter when posted is immediatel! stamped with the date of its receipt, indicating therein the num er of the registr!, oth on the covering envelope itself and on the receipt delivered to the person who delivered the letter to the officeF of which it took judicial notice. GD entertain grave dou ts that the aforesaid post office practice is a proper su ject of judicial notice. )ection . of 1ule .;9 on judicial notice provides that FThe eBistence and territorial eBtent of states, their forms of government and s!m ols of nationalit!, the law of nations, the admiralt! and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and histor! of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, eBecutive, and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, the geographical divisions and political histor! of the world and all similar matters which are of pu lic knowledge, or are capa le of unquestiona le demonstration, or ought to e known to judges ecause of their judicial functions, shall e judiciall! recogni(ed ! the court without the introduction of proofE ut the court ma! receive evidence upon an! of the su jects in this section stated, when it shag find it necessar! for its own information, and ma! resort for its aid to appropriate ooks or documents or reference.F *ndou tedl!, the post office practice of which the Court of 5irst %nstance took judicial notice is not covered ! an! of the specific instances cited a ove. #either can it e classified under Fmatters which are of pu lic knowledge, or are capa le of unquestiona le demonstration, or ought to e known to judges ecause of their judicial functions ... . F 5or a matter to e taken judicial notice of ! the courts of law, it must e a su ject of common and general knowledge. %n other words, Judicial notice of facts is measured ! general knowledge of the same facts. A fact is said to e generall! recogni(ed or known when its eBistence or operation is accepted ! the pu lic without qualification or contention. The test is whether the 'act involved is so notoriousl! known as to make it proper to assume its eBistence without proof. The fact that a elief is not universal, however, is not controlling for it is ver! seldom that an! elief is accepted ! ever!one. %t is enough that the matters are familiarl! known to the majorit! of mankind or those persons f with the particular matter in question &;8 Am Jur 49-38E "artin, 1ules of Court ,/, )econd Ddition'. 5urthermore, a matter ma! e personall! known to the judge and !et tot e a matter of judicial knowledge and vice versa, a matter ma! not e actuall! known to an individual judge, and nevertheless e a proper su ject of judicial cogni(ance. The post office practice herein involved is not tested ! the aforestated considerations, a proper matter of judicial notice. "oreover, the certification issued ! the ver! postmaster of the post office where the letter containing the questioned motion for eBtension of time was posted, is a ver! clear manifestation that the said post office practice is not of unquestiona le demonstration. %ndeed, the doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to e eBercised ! the courts with cautionE care must e taken that the requisite notoriet! eBistsE and ever! reasona le dou ts upon the su ject should e promptl! resolved in the negative &,. CJ) 3;;E "artin, 1ules of Court ,+, )econd Ddition'. %t is therefore manifest from the foregoing that the Court of 5irst %nstance of 2ulacan committed a palpa le error amounting to a grave a use of discretion in rel!ing on the alleged post office practice aforementioned over the uncontroverted certification of the postmaster earlier referred to. That eing so, the dismissal of petitioner's appeal therefore lacks factual asis. %t should have acted on petitioner's fifth motion for eBtension of time which GD find to have een filed on time. The records reveal that a favora le action on the aforesaid fifth motion for eBtension of time is warranted ! the following circumstances: &.' the record on appeal was filed ! petitioner even efore the lower court could consider the questioned motion for eBtension of timeE and private respondents o jected to the said motion onl! after petitioner had filed the record on appealE &;' the order of the lower court granting the fourth eBtension of time did not contain an! caveat that no further eBtension shall e allowedE &,' the fact that the C5% records of the case were sent to the )olicitor Jeneral onl! on "a! ,, .9/9 and ostensi l! handed to the )olicitor assigned to the case onl! on "a! ..0, .9/9 or arel! two &;' da!s efore the eBpiration of the eBtended appeal periodE and &4' pressure of work in the undermanned $ffice of the )olicitor Jeneral who is the counsel of the #ational Jovernment and all other governmental agencies and instrumentalitiesE and &3' and the unconsciona le amount of P438,888.88 for a parcel of ..3 hectares situated in a arrio of "alolos, 2ulacan, with onl! a provisional value of P/,;88.88 o viousl! ased upon its assessed value appearing on its taB declaration. #o sugar, rice or coconut land of onl! .3,888 square meters could command such a fa ulous price.

GD therefore rule that the respondent Court of Appeals gravel! a used its discretion in affirming the disputed orders of the Court of 5irst %nstance of 2ulacan. %%. 2ut even assuming that the motion for eBtension to file record on appeal dated "a! ./, .9/9 was filed not on "a! .+, .9/9 ut on "a! ;., .9/9 as claimed ! private respondents, which is a dela! of onl! one &.' working da!, "a! .9 and ;8 eing )aturda! and )unda!, respectivel!, that circumstance alone would not justif! the outright dismissal of the appeal of petitioner 1epu lic of the Philippines, especiall! so in the light of the undisputed fact that petitioner had alread! filed with the lower court the record on appeal at the time the questioned dismissal order was issued ! the lower court. 5or, as ruled in one case, F... the dela! of four da!s in filing a notice of appeal and a motion for an extension of time to file a record on appeal can 'e excused on the 'asis of equit& and considering that the record on appeal is no. .ith the respondent Cudge/ & 1amos vs. 2agasao, et al., J.1. #o. 3.33;, 5e ruar! ;+, .9+8, )econd <ivisionE emphasis supplied'. "oreover, GD have alread! li erali(ed in a num er of cases the jurisprudence on the matter of perfection of appeals. 5or one, in <e Has Alas vs. Court of Appeals &+, )C1A ;88;.0 ?.9/+.', GD ruled that: ... litigation should, as much as possi le, e decided on their merits and not on technicalit!, and under the circumstances o taining in this case, Ge said in the case of Jregorio vs. Court of Appeals &H-4,3. ., Jul! ;,, .9/0, /; )C1A .;8, .;0', thus: ... <ismissal of appeals purel! on technical grounds is frowned upon where the polic! of the courts is to encourage hearing of appeals on their merits. The rules of procedure ought not to e applied in a ver! rigid, technical senseE rules of procedure are used onl! to help secure, not override, su stantial justice. %f a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would e defeated. BBB BBB BBB %%%. "oreover, a special circumstance which is the su ject of one of the main issues raised ! petitioner in its appeal warrants *) to eBercise once more $*1 eBclusive prerogative to suspend $*1 own rules or to eBempt a particular case from its operation as in the recent case of 1epu lic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. &+, )C1A 439, 4/+-4+8 ..9/+.', thus: ... The 1ules have een drafted with the primar! o jective of enhancing fair trials and eBpediting justice. As a corollar!, if their application and operation tend to su vert and defeat instead of promote and enhance it, their suspension is justified. %n the words of Justice Antonio P. 2arredo in his concurring opinion in Dstrada vs. )to. <omingo, '&T'his Court, through the revered and eminent "r. Justice A ad )antos, found occasion in the case of C. Kiuda de $rdover(a v. 1a!mundo, to la! down for recognition in holding that ' F it is al.a&s in the po.er of the court ASupreme $ourtB to suspend its o.n rules or to except a particular case from its operation .henever the purposes of Custice require it . . . . .' F &Dmphasis supplied'. As emphasi(ed ! the )olicitor Jeneral, if the questioned orders are not annulled and set aside, its enforcement and implementation will result to the prejudice of, and irrepara le injur! to, pu lic interest.F This is so ecause the Jovernment would lose its opportunit! to assail the order of the lower court dated <ecem er +, .9/+, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows: BBB BBB BBB The joint report filed ! the three-man committee charged with the determination of the just compensation of the propert! herein sought to e condemned is here ! approved, such that the just compensation of the land descri ed in Paragraph .. of the Complaint is fiBed at Thirt! Pesos &P,8.88' per square meter. The defendant ma! now withdraw from the Philippine #ational 2ank, "alolos 2ranch, the sum of P/,;88.88 deposited ! the Third 1egional Dquipment )ervices, <epartment of Pu lic 7ighwa!s under Account #o. ,3.89, said sum to e part of the total amount of P438,888.88 &.3,888 square meters at P,8.88 per square meter', which the <epartment of Pu lic 7ighwa!s, Third 1egional Dquipment )ervices, "alolos, 2ulacan, shall, and is here ! ordered, to pa! to the herein defendants as just compensation for the su ject propert!. )$ $1<D1D< &pp. ,-4, $rder dated <ecem er +, .9/+'.

%t must e stressed at this stage that the Jovernment would lose no less than P4;3,888.88 if the lower court's order of <ecem er +, .9/+ is not scrutini(ed on appeal. %t must e stated that the lower court was without jurisdiction to create a three-man committee ecause )ec. 3, 1ule 0/ of the 1evised 1ules of Court was repealed ! P.<. /0 which took effect on <ecem er 0, .9/;, the salient features of which read, as follows: The Fcurrent and fair market valueF shall e understood to mean the price of which a willing seller would sell and a willing u!er would u! neither eing under a normal pressure. 5or purposes of just compensation in cases of private propert! acquired ! the government for pu lic use, the asis shall e the current and fair market value declared ! the owner or administrator or such market value as determined ! the assessor, whichever is lower. Thus, from <ecem er 0, .9/;, the effectivit! date of P< /0, the just compensation to e paid for private propert! acquired ! the government for pu lic use is the current and fair market value declared ! the owner or administrator or such market value as determined ! the Assessor whichever is lower. Pursuant to said <ecree, the government's o ligation to private respondent would onl! e P;4,,/0.88. The lower court thus had no jurisdiction to fiB an amount of just compensation higher than P;4,,/0.88. %t follows therefore that the joint report su mitted ! the three-man committee created ! the lower court could not serve as a legal asis for the determination of the just compensation of the propert! sought to e condemned. BBB BBB BBB &pp. .9-;., rec.'. %K. Gith respect to the motion to dismiss filed on <ecem er ;;, .9+8 ! private respondents, GD find no merit therein. The contention of private respondents that the June ;,, .9+8 motion for reconsideration of petitioner with the Court of Appeals was pro forma is elied ! the results o tained in this petition efore *). G7D1D5$1D, PDT%T%$# %) 7D1D2= J1A#TD<E T7D <DC%)%$# <ATD< AP1%H ;9, .9+8 A#< T7D 1D)$H*T%$# <ATD< A*J*)T .3, .9+8 $5 T7D 1D)P$#<D#T C$*1T $5 APPDAH) A1D 7D1D2= A##*HHD< A#< )DT A)%<DE A#< T7D 1D)P$#<D#T C$*1T $5 5%1)T %#)TA#CD $5 2*HACA# %) 7D1D2= <%1DCTD< T$ APP1$KD PDT%T%$#D1') 1DC$1< $# APPDAH A#< T$ DHDKATD T7D )A"D T$ T7D 7$#$1A2HD C$*1T $5 APPDAH). #$ C$)T. )$ $1<D1D<.