INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DECEASED PEDRO ROYO. AMPARO M. VDA. DE ROYO, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF PEDRO ROYO AND PEDRO ROYO, JR., MOVANTS AND APPELLANTS, VS. N. T. DEEN …

This is a reconstituted case, originating in the Court of First
Instance of Cebu as Special Proceeding No. 850 of said court, entitled
Intestate of Pedro Royo, Amparo Vda. de Royo, Administratrix and Pedro
Royo, Jr., Movants versus N. T. Deen and Tomas Delgado,
Oppositors, wherein oppositors’ bond in favor of the administrator of
the estate of Pedro Royo, Pantaleon del Rosario, is sought to respond
for the sum of P17,610.00 which said administrator allegedly failed to
account for in his capacity as administrator of the estate. Motion was
filed on November 6, 1940. In a decision dated May 17, 1941 Justice
Felix Martinez, then presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of
Cebu, denied the motion holding:

“Se pide la ejecucion de una fianza por valor de
P25,000.00 otorgada por Tomas Delgado y N. T. Deen, para que pueda
hacerse efectiva contra la misma la cantidad de P17,610.00, por la
cual, segun las alegaciones, en responsable el finado Pantaleon E. del
Rosario como administrador de los bienes relictos del finado Pedro
Royo. Delgado y Deen son fiadores para responder de cualesquier
obligaciones resultantes de las gestiones de Pantaleon E. del Rosario
como administrador del intestado de Pedro Royo.

“No se
discute que Pantaleon E. del Rosario fue nombrado administrador de los
bienes del finado Pedro Royo el dia 11 de Octubre de 1924, en
sustitucion de Jose Vano; asi como de que, como tal, paso a sus manos
la suma de P43,500.00 procedente del importe de venta de dos casas de
materiales fuertes y planchas de zinc de la propiedad del intestado de
que es administrador. De dicha suma, del Rosario desembolso, mediante
comprabantes, la cantidad de P24,890.00, en pago de las reclamaciones
contra la administracion, quedando, por tanto, un saldo de P17,610.00.
No hay informacion en el record que uso se hizo de este saldo por el
administrador. Este se limito a hacer ultimamente una manifestacion, de
fecha 8 de Septiembre de 1928, * * *”.

* * * * * * *

“2.—Que a consecuencia de ciertos
arreglos que los herederos del finado Pedro Royo habian hecho con
ciertos acreedores suyos, los primeros han dispuesto de bastantes
fondos que pertenecian a la administracion, por ser ya mayores de edad,
y se han reservado solamente en poder del Administrador aquellas
cantidades que se han creido necesarias para el pago de las deudas del
difunto; pero en la computacion de estos pagos no se han tenido en
cuenta varios gastos y obligaciones de la administracion, que no se han
podido considerar cuando dichos herederos hicieron uso de los fondos
que se creian que iban a corresponderles, habiendo resultado, al
verificarse la venta ordenada por el Juzgado el 7 de Enero de 1928 de
las fincas del finado, que habia un deficit de unos P600.00 para la
administracion que no se podrian cubrir, en razon de que todas las
deudas ya habian sido pagadas, y los herederos tomaron para si todo el
remanente de la administracion.”

* * * * * *

“Con todo, se ve claramente que Del Rosario, desde
el ano 1928, hizo constar que la administracion a su cargo ya noposeia
bienes. Por otra parte, los herederos de Pedro Royo, que eran ya de
edad legal desde el ano 1924, nunca han impugnado la manifestacion
citada, como tampoco han dado paso alguno para averiquar si existian o
no todavia bienes en la administracion. Esto constituye, naturalmente,
una tacita admision de lo manifestado por Del Rosario en su escrito ya
aludido.

“Esto, a un lado, y, por otro, Del Rosario murio el
25 de Noviembre de 1930, y se instituyo despues un expediente de
administracion de los bienes dejado por el mismo. No hay informacion en
el record del expediente de administracion de los bienes de Pedro Royo,
ni se ha aportado prueba alguna en el juicio de la mocion bajo
consideracion, que los herederos de dicho Pedro Royo han presentado
reclamacion alguna en la administracion de los bienes de Pantaleon E.
del Rosario por cualesquier obligaciones en que este haya incurrido o
por la cantidad de P17,610.00. De modo que, el escrito de constancia y
mocion de fecha 6 de noviembre de 1940 se presento muy tarde. * * *”.

* * * * * * *

“* * * el articulo 6 de la Regla No. 87 del nuevo Codigo de Procedimiento Civil, como sigue:

‘”Cuando
la obligacion del difunto fuere solidaria y de mancomun con otro deudor
la reclamacion debera presentarse contra el difunto como si este fuera
el unico deudor, sin perjuicio del derecho de la testamentaria o del
intestado a recobrar del otro deudor la parte que a este le
correspondiere en dicha obligacion.’

“No se
ha presentado reclamacion por la obligacion de que son responsables
mancomunada y solidariamente Pantaleon E. del Rosario, Tomas Delgado y
N. T. Deen, en el expediente del intestado del primero (Pantaleon E.
del Rosario). Ello, dado el tiempo transcurrido, constituye impedimento
para exigir cualesquier responsabilidad en que haya podido incurrir Del
Rosario, en vida, en relacion con sus gestiones en la administracion de
los bienes del finado Pedro Royo, por prescripcion o, tan siquiera, por
‘estoppel by laches’. El articulo 1148 del Codigo Civil dice lo
siguiente:

” ‘El deudor solidario podra
utilizar contra las reclamaciones del acreedor, todas las excepciones
que se deriven de la naturaleza de la obligacion y las que le sean
personales.’

“y. por tanto, la prescripcion o ‘estoppel by laches’ puede ser invocado por Delgado y Deen.”

On appeal to the Court of Appeals by movants, this Court endorsed
the case to Us for the reason that all the issues raised in movants’
brief involve questions of law.

The assignment of errors in appellants’ brief are as follows:

FIRST ERROR

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DENYING THE
MOVANTS-APPELLANTS’ MOTION DATED NOVEMBER 6, 1940, AND, CONSEQUENTLY,
IN NOT ORDERING THE EXECUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR’S BOND FOR THE SUM
OF P17,610.00 WHEREBY THE BONDSMEN N. T. DEEN AND TOMAS DELGADO
(OPPOSITORS-APPELLEES) ARE JOINTLY AND SOLIDARILY LIABLE.

SECOND ERROR

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRINCIPLE
OR DOCTRINE OF PRESCRIPTION AND ESTOPPEL BY LACHES ARE APPLICABLE IN
THE PRESENT CASE.

THIRD ERROR

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
TO THE PLEADING ENTITLED “MANIFESTACION” FILED BY THE FORMER
ADMINISTRATOR PANTALEON E. DEL ROSARIO DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 1928.
(APPEARING IN THE RECORD PAGE 1164—PIEZA SEXTA)

FOURTH ERROR

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ORDERING THE CLOSURE OF THE PRESENT CASE.

The last assignment of error attacks as error on the part of the
trial judge that of having considered the “Manifestaciones” of the
administrator dated September 8, 1928 as true and valid notwithstanding
the fact that said manifestations were not sworn to as intended by the
signer (the administrator).

The material statements contained in the “Manifestaciones” of the administrator are as follows:

“2.—Que a consecuencia de ciertos arreglos que los
herederos del finado Pedro Royo habian hecho con ciertos acreedores
suyos, los primeros han dispuesto de bastantes fondos que pertenecian a
la administracion, por ser ya mayores de edad, y se han reservado
solamente en poder del Administrador aquellas cantddades que se han
creido necesarias para el pago de las deudas del difunto; pero en la
computation de estos pagos no se han tenido en cuenta varios gastos y
obligaciones de la administracion, que no se han podido considerar
cuando dichos herederos hicieron uso de los fondos que se creian que
iban a corresponderles, habiendo resultado, al verificarse la venta
ordenada por el Juzgado el 7 de Enero de 1928 de las fincas del finado,
que habia un deficit de unos P600.00 para la administracion que no se
podrian cubrir, en razon de que todas las deudas ya habian sido
pagadas, y los herederos tomaron para si todo el remanente de la
administracion.”

Appellants argue that the “Manifestaciones” is not to and is
irregular and the parties or heirs were not furnished copies thereof.
It should be borne in mind that an administrator, before assuming his
duties as such, must furnish a bond wherein he undertakes to faithfully
perform his duties. (Sec. 1, Rule 82). Having been previously sworn to
faithfully perform his duties, no further swearing is necessary as to
the reports that he submits in the course of administration.

It does not appear that any opposition to the above-quoted report of
the administrator was ever filed by the heirs. Section 9 of Rule 86
provides that if examined on his accounts, the examination shall be
under oath. No opposition having been filed examination under oath was
not necessary. (Ibid) In the report it is stated (1) that the
administrator was ordered to retain only P2,900 to respond for the
claim of the Lyric Films; (2) that the heirs of the estate, being
already of age, have disposed of a great portion of the funds of the
estate, the administrator retaining only sums necessary to pay debts;
(3) that the court had ordered the sale of properties of the estate on
January 1928 because the debts had all been paid. From these
statements, which do not appear controverted in the record of the
proceedings, it can clearly be deduced that the P17,600, subject to the
present suit had already been used up either to pay debts or taken by
the heirs themselves who have already reached the age of majority.

The above statements do not appear to have ever been contradicted by
the heirs of the estate, nor have objections thereto ever been filed by
the heirs, according to the record of the proceedings, otherwise the
judge below would have noted said objections, and the plaintiff would
have indicated where and when the objections were made. Note that the
report (Manifestaciones) is dated September 8, 1928, whereas the
present action was filed on November 6, 1940, or twelve years and two
months thereafter.

The complaint alleges that the deceased administrator never
presented an account of his administration, especially after the sale
of properties was authorized. We declare in reply that the
“Manifestaciones” is virtually the report on the state of his accounts.
The absence of any opposition thereto on the part of the heirs in the
administration proceedings shows that they acquiesed therein, and in
all that is alleged therein. Any action to contest the correctness of
said report or its contents should have been presented promptly by the
heirs. Their continued silence— no action until now has been brought by
the heirs of the estate—can only mean their conformity therein or
acquiescence thereto. Such silence or acquiescence is a patent denial
of the existence of any malfeasance on the part of the administrator
Del Rosario in his administration and is competent proof that he did
not retain the sum claimed but had actually used it in the payment of
debts, or had delivered it to the heirs.

In its decision the court below found that notwithstanding the fact
that the report of Del Rosario is dated September 8, 1928 and he died
on November 25, 1930, and administration proceedings for the settlement
of his estate were instituted, it does not appear that the heirs of
Pedro Royo had ever presented a claim for any liability that he may
have contracted as administrator, especially with respect to the amount
of P17,610, subject of the present suit. No such claim was ever
presented either against Del Rosario singly or jointly with his
bondsmen Deen and Delgado. Under these circumstances, the court below
held, the heirs of Pedro Royo or their administratrix are prevented by
estoppel or laches from instituting the present action. We find these
conclusions of fact and law to be well-founded.

For the foregoing considerations the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against the movants-appellants.

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