INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED GENEROSO DE GALA, ILUMINADA DE GALA-SISON, PETITIONER, VS. SOCORRO MANALO, RESPONDENT.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First
Instance of Quezon, Hon. Vicente Santiago, presiding, dated
August 29, 1952, the first part of which directs the administratrix to include in her inventory of properties left by
the deceased certain pieces of jewelry described in Exhibit “Y” of oppositor Socorro Manalo, and the second,
also directing the administratrix to deposit cash in her
possession amounting to P40,938.56 with a reputable banking institution.

The
facts necessary to understand the questions involved in this appeal may
be briefly stated, thus: Generoso de Gala, a wealthy resident of
Candelaria, Quezon, died in an airplane crash on December 14, 1946 on
the slope of Mt. Banahaw, together with his son Jose de Gala. An
administratrix having been appointed in the person of Iluminada de Gala
Sison, she presented an inventory and a statement of accounts. Against
the said inventory opposition was presented by Socorro Manalo, who
claimed that certain jewelries included in a list which she presented
as Exhibit “Y” and containing a detailed statement of valuable jewelry
alleged to have been left by the deceased, should be included in the
inventory of the administratrix. After hearing the parties, the court
through Hon. Judge Vicente Santiago, declared, in the order dated
August 29, 1952, that the pieces of jewelry enumerated in Socorro
Manalo’s Exhibit “Y” were not lost and should be included in the list
of properties left by the deceased Generoso de Gala, as prayed for by
the oppositor.

The other order subject of the appeal, which requires the
administratrix to deposit the amount of P40,938.56 with a reputable
banking institution is also contained in the order of August 29, 1952 .
The order was issued upon the petition of Socorro Manalo dated June 8,
1951 .

The order of the court of August 29, 1952,
containing the orders subject of the appeal, were at first appealed, to
the Court of Appeals. This court sustained the judgment of the Court of
First Instance with respect to the jewelry to be included in the
inventory of the administratrix ; but the case has come to this Court
on a petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner assigning
various errors all of which relate to the already decided question of
the jewelry to be included in the inventory and the deposit of the
balance of the amounts in the possession of the administratrix in a
reputable banking institution.

The first two assignments of error urged in the petition for certiorari are as follows:

I

THE COURT OP APPEALS MANIFESTLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE VERSION OF
THE PETITIONER AS TO THE LOSS OF THE JEWELRY IS IMPLAUSIBLE, THERE
BEING NO BASIS FOR SUCH CONCLUSION.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION EXHIBIT “Y” OF THE RESPONDENT INSTEAD OF REJECTING THE SAME.

The main argument urged in support of the above
assignments of error is the alleged lack of evidence on
which to support the finding that the jewelry mentioned
in Exhibit “Y” of respondent Socorro Manalo were in
existence after the death of the intestate, it being claimed
that the same were lost in the airplane crash at Mt. Banahaw. This claim of the absence of evidence to support

the findings of the court is absolutely without foundation,

as witness the following findings of fact made by the trial
court in its order appealed from:

“The preponderance of evidence presented by the contending parties
establishes that the said pieces of jewelry were not brought to the
City of Manila, by the deceased, where he lived in a small nipa shack.
After the death of Generoso de Gala in the airplane crash of December
14, 1946 on the slope of Mount Banahaw of this province, together with
his son Jose de Gala, the said pieces of jewelry were exhibitedl by his
daughter Iluminada de Gala to her stepmother Felisa Alabastro, who has
refused to testify in the incident, and to her sister-in-law Socorro
Manalo, who would not have known about them had they not been shown to
her. The parties were then in good terms. The jewelry was exhibited on
the fourth day after the burial of Generoso and Jose de Gala, father
and son. Moreover, it is highly incredible that the deceased Generoso
de Gala, one of the richest man in the municipality of Candelaria, this
province, would have the necessity of bringing the jewelry to the City
of Manila. The Court is of the opinion that the pieces of jewelry
enumerated in Socorro Manalo’s Exhibit “Y” were not lost and should be
included in the inventory of the properties left by the deceased
Generoso de Gala.”

The question of the existence of the jewelry having
been brought to the Court of Appeals, this court made the
following findings confirming the finding of the trial judge
that the disputed jewelry were in existence after the death
of the intestate:

“Upon
the first issue, it is uncontaroverted that the deceased Generoso owned
jewelry at the time of his death, and that these jewelry consisted of
11 pieces. It only remains for us to resolve whether these jewelry were
lost .in the airplane crash that took the lives of Generoso and Jose,
and in the negative, whether the admmistratirx has them in her
possession.

*              *               *            *               *                 *            *

“This version of Iluminada is, to say the least, implausible. Generoso
was admittedly one of the richest inhabitants of Candelaria. It does not stand to reason that he would come to Manila without bringing any cash with him. * * *

“The version of the oppositor is substantially to the effect that after
death of Generoso, Iluminada returned to Candelaria, obtained the key
to the safe of her father from her step-mother Felisa, opened the safe
and took therefrom the jewelry in question, exhibited them to her
step-mother and the oppositor, and then brought them away with her. The
court a quo stated that the preponderance of evidence is in
favor of the oppositor’s version, and we agree. There is nothing in the
record that indicates any error on the part of the lower court in
appreciating the credibility of the opposing witnesses. And since in
our view, the incidents after Generoso’s death narrated by the
oppositor are not only a natural aftermath but as well took place when
all the parties involved were in still cordial terms, we hesitate to
disturb or modify in any manner the findings of fact made by the court a quo. The lower court did not therefore err in ordering the administratrix to file an amended inventory to include these jewelry.

“With respect to the second issue, which has reference to the order of
the court directing the administratrix to deposit the cash in her
possession amounting to P40,938.56, with a reputable banking
institution, it is obviously fair for the protection of all the parties
concerned that this amount should be properly secured, and withdrawn
only upon orders of the court. It is a trust fund which the
administratrix cannot use for her own personal purposes. The duty of
the administratrix is to safeguard it. The order directing her to
deposit it with a reputable banking institution is within the
discretionary power of the court to issue, and under the circumstances
is the only proper step to take.”

The above findings of the courts below as contained in tne decision of
the Court of Appeals which disprove petitioner’s contention, are
binding on us and can no longer be disturbed on this appeal.

The third assignment of error is as follows:

III

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE DOCTRINES OF
RES ADJUDICATA AND/OR ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE RESPONDENT WITH
RESPECT TO THE LOSS OF THE JEWELRY.

The claim of the supposed existence of estoppel is sought
to be justified by the fact that after the airplane crash
in which the deceased and his son were killed, money and
jewelry were found in the wreckage of the plane and
claim was presented on behalf of the administratrix for
this money and jewelry as belonging to the intestate. The
mere presentation of the claim and the fact that money
as well as jewelry were recovered from the debris, some
of which money and jewels were given to the “administratrix as belonging to the intestate, do not prove that the
jewelry and money found were the very jewelry and money
that the intestate had which are supposed to be described
in oppositor’s Exhibit “Y”. That they are not the same
as the jewelry belonging to the intestate is conclusively
demonstrated by the fact that the jewelry recovered were
very small pieces of small value, whereas the jewelry
owned by the deceased were big and valuable pieces of
precious stones, some of which were “solitarios” valued
at P5,000 and a “collar” with a big stone worth P9,000
as described in respondent Socorro Manalo’s Exhibit “Y”.

The jewelry found among the wreckage of the plane were
only four pieces, the value of which is entirely disproportionate to the value of the pieces of jewelry mentioned in
Exhibit “Y”. With respect to the money found in the
wreckage amounting to P12,000, the administratrix secured amount of P778.00 and the balance of the sum found
in the debris consisting of P12,423 was divided among
the claimants to the properties found in the wreckage.
Consequently, the jewelry and the money found in the
wreckage could not all have been the jewels and money
of the deceased intestate.
The fourth assigned error reads:

IV

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL
COURT DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO FILE AN AMENDED INVENTORY
INCLUDING THE PIECES OF JEWELRY LISTED IN EXHIBIT “Y” OF THE
RESPONDENT.

This is a consequence of the first and second errors.
The fifth assignment of error reads as follows:

V

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE
COURT OF ORIGIN REQUIRING THE DEPOSIT OF P40,938.56 WITH ANY
REPUTABLE BANKING INSTITUTION.

The order of the court requiring the deposit of the balance of the cash in her possession at the time the order
was issued is sought to be set aside in the petition, first,
on the ground that the amount of P1,698.41 was spent
by the petitioner and this expense was approved by the
court on August 2, 1950. We find this contention to be’
well founded and so the amount ordered to be deposited
should be reduced by P1,698.41 to P39,240.15.

The order is sought to be modified also on the ground
that on July 7, 1950, the petitioner was ordered to deliver to the widow Felisa Alabastro and the respondent
Socorro Manalo their shares after deducting the allowances
and advances made to them. The order dated July 7, 1950
referred to is as follows:

“Se
ordena a la administradora a entregar a Socorro Manalo, esta en su
capacidad de administradora en la Actuacion Especial No. 2937 de este
mismo Juzgado, y a Felisa viuda del difunto Generoso de Gala, la de
esta en usufiructo, sus rtespectivas participaciones en el saldo arriba
indicado, previa deduccion de las cantidades que cada una de ellas ya
han recibido de la administradora, uniiendo a este expedients el recibo
o recibos de dicha entrega; * * *”

Considering that the balance of P40,938.56 existing at the time of the
issuance of the order appealed from, dated August 29, 1952, may no
longer exist by virtue of the fact that the administratrix must have
already paid to the heirs their respective allowances and shares in the
inheritance, the disputed order should be modified to include only such
balance of the original amount of P40,938.56 as may be in the
possession of the administratrix, after deducting the expenses approved
by the court and the allowances and ; inheritances authorized by the
court to be given to the widow and the heirs.

Wherefore, the first order appealed from is hereby affirmed, but the second order is hereby modified as above , indicated. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala JJ., concur.