Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Limjoco vs. Estate of Fragante 80 Phil 776 April 27, 1948 Hilado, J.

: Facts: The Public Service Commission granted a certificate of public convenience to install, maintain and operate an ice plant in San Juan, Rizal in favour of the intestate estate of applicant Pedro Fragrante a Filipino citizen. Fragrante died intestate prior to the issuance of the certificate previously mentioned. The Commission held that his intestate estate is financially capable of maintaining the projected service and will promote convenience of the public within the municipality. Petitioner an operator and applicant also for the said certificate of public convenience alleged that the Commission erred in allowing the legal representatives of the estate of Fragrante for the latter as party applicant in the case pending before the Commission, and in subsequently granting to mentioned estate the certificate applied for. Issue: Whether or not the estate of Pedro Fragrante can be considered a person and a Filipino citizen within the purview of the Public Service Act. Held: Yes. If Fragrante had not died, there can be no question that he would have the right to prosecute his application before the commission to its final conclusion. No once would have denied him that right. As declared by the Commission, he had invested in the ice plant P35,000, and from what the commission said regarding his other properties and business, he would certainly have been financially able to maintain and operate said plant had he not died. His estate should be regarded as an artificial person and an extension of his person. There would be a failure of justice unless the estate of Fragrante is considered as a person, for quashing of the proceedings for no other reason that his death would entail prejudicial results to his investment amounting to P35,000 plus other expenses and disbursements. Among the duties of the executor or administrator, unless otherwise provided by law, any action affecting the property or rights of a deceased person which may be brought by or against him if he were alive, may likewise be instituted and prosecuted by or against the administrator, unless the action is for recovery of money, debt, interest thereon or unless by its very nature, it cannot survive, because death extinguishes the right. Hence, both the personality and citizenship of Fragrante must be deemed extended within the meaning and intent of the Public Service Act.

rcalvez

Ilustre vs. Alaras Frondosa 17 SCRA 321 November 16,1910 Johnson, J.: Facts: Sometime in December 1903, Francisco Calzado died without any relatives, descendants or ascendants but nephews, all of which being of lawful age divided the certain properties among themselves and sold it to defendant. At the time of the division of the estate, there were no debts against the estate of Calzado. Six years thereafter, a complaint is filed by petitioner as administrator of the property, however such record of appointment was not shown in court. Petitioner requests that he be allowed to recover such property already sold to defendant. Issue: Whether or not an administrator is allowed to intervene in the case at bar. Held. No. When the heirs are all of lawful age and there are no debts, there is no reason why the estate should be burdened with the costs and expenses of an administrator. The heirs may enter upon the administration of the property of their ancestors immediately if they desire to administer it jointly, they may do so, if they desire to apportion it among themselves, and they may do so by mutual agreement, the law provides them with that privilege.

rcalvez

Tomias vs. Tomias 89 Phil 216 May 30,1951 Reyes, J,: Facts: Eustaquio Tomias died intestate sometime in 1920 leaving 7 children namely: Leon, Benita, Monica,Bernabela,Toribia,Agustina and Josefa all surnamed Tomias and several grandchildren. Possessed of property at the time of his death, he was succeeded in the possession and enjoyment thereof by his 7 children. A complaint was filed by two children of deceased Leon Tomias and by their cousin Josefa daughter of deceased Josefa Tomias against their aunts for refusing to partition the property and its products. Plaintiff prayed for its partition and accounting. Other legitimate children of Leon Tomias refused to join as plaintiffs hence, they were included as defendants. The Court rendered its decision, declaring plaintiffs and defendants owners in common of the 15 parcels of land described in the complaint together with its improvements. An accounting was also ordered by the court. The decision became final as no appeal was filed in due time. After the lapse of 5 months, an alleged natural child of Leon Tomias sought to annul the decision rendered by the Court on the ground that not all the heirs were represented in the suit because Filemon Tomias, an alleged natural child of Leon Tomias had not been a party therein. Issue: Whether the decision rendered by the Court should be annulled or be voided on the allegation by Filemon Tomias. Held: No. Non-joinder of parties is not a ground to set aside decision. The judgement in a partition case may not be voided on the mere allegation that some of the parcels of land partitioned were the property of persons not made parties to the suit when none of those persons has come to court to protest. Filemon Tomias was not an indispensable party to the action in the absence of a judicial decree declaring him to be an acknowledged natural child of deceased Leon Tomias.

rcalvez

Nuguid vs. Nuguid G.R. No. L- 23445 June 23,1966 Sanchez,J.: Facts: On December 30, 1962, Rosario Nuguid died single without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. She is survived by her legitimate parents, Felix and Pas Nuguid and 6 brothers and sisters namely : Alfredo Federico, Remedios, Conrado, Lourdes, and Alberto all surnamed Nuguid. Petitioner Remedios Nuguid presented in Court in Rizal a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario Nuguid 11 years prior to her death. Petitioner prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letters of administration be issued to her. The legitimate parents of Rosario and Remedios Nuguid opposed for the probate of the will on the ground of preterition because Remedios Nuguid was the universal heir of the deceased, and the legitimate parents being compulsory heirs were omitted. Issue: Whether or not the probate court having limited authority on extrinsic validity of a will can entertain the issue of preterition which is an intrinsic aspect of the will. Held: Yes. If the case would be remanded for the probate of the will, nothing will be gained. It will be just a waste of time. The will in the case at bar does not explicitly disinherit the testratrix parents, the forced heirs. It simple omits their names altogether. Said will rather than be labelled ineffective disinheritance is clearly one in which the said forced heirs suffer from preterition. The Civil Code defines preterition as the omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator. It shall annul the institution of heirs but the legacies shall be valid in so far as they are not officious. The will presented solely provides for the institution of petitioner as universal heir and since preterition shall annul the institution of heirs, the result is, the entire will is null.

rcalvez

rcalvez