G. R. No. 43482. July 28, 1937
SERAPIN SANSON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. ISABEL ARANETA, ALFREDO SANSON, AND EVA SANSON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.
DIAZ, J,:
23, 1932, for the rescission of the agreement of partition entered into
by him and the defendants on June 10, 1927, to terminate the
testamentary proceedings of the deceased Roque Sanson, civil case No.
1055 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
The plaintiff and the defendants Alfredo Sanson and Eva Sanson,
the latter married to Antonio Yusay; are brothers and sister, all of
them being children of the deceased Roque Sanson and the defendant
Isabel Araneta.
After due hearing, the court decided the case in favor of the
plaintiff, ordering, as a consequence thereof, the rescission of the
agreement of partition in question by reason of lesion exceeding the
fourth part suffered by him. This decision was later affirmed by this
court to which the case had been brought, on appeal taken therefrom by
the defendants (G. R. No. 39697)[1].
In the decision, the defendant Isabel Araneta was ordered, among
other things, to file within thirty days a complete inventory of all
the real and personal properties, furniture, jewelry, credits and
actions left by the deceased Roque Sanson, together with the respective
values thereof, and to present within said period a project of
partition of said properties among the heirs.
Inasmuch as the defendant had failed to present the inventory of
property and the project of partition required of her, the ones
presented by her on December 3, 1934, not having been satisfactory to
the plaintiff, the latter, on January 3, 1935, asked for the
appointment of a receiver to take charge of the custody and
administration of the properties in question, which was granted by the
court on the 21st of said month and year. Sabas Gustilo, the
plaintiff’s father-in-law was appointed. After the receiver had entered
upon the performance of his duties, he encountered many difficulties in
discharging them due to the defendants’ refusal to turn over to him the
properties which formed part of the estate left by the deceased Roque
Sanson. On February 12, 1935, the court, upon motion of the plaintiff,
ordered the defendants to turn over the properties in question to the
receiver within the period of four days. Inasmuch as the defendants did
not comply with this order, the defendant Isabel Araneta having
confined herself to presenting, on the 14th of said month and year, an
amended but incomplete inventory of the properties left by the deceased
Roque Sanson, the receiver, Sabas Gustilo, on February 18, 1935,
petitioned that they be required to appear before the court to show
cause, if any, why they should not be punished for contempt of court,
for disobedience of an order thereof. Before his petition could be
acted upon, the receiver filed another on February 27, 1935, praying
the court this time to expressly order the appearance of the defendant
Alfredo Sanson to show cause, if any, why he should not be declared
guilty of contempt of court, for having ordered his tenants and farm
hands not to turn over to him the fruits of the lands in their
possession. The court, acting upon the receiver’s last petition,
ordered the defendant Alfredo Sanson to appear before it on March 4,
19&5, to be heard in connection therewith. However, before the day
set for said defendant’s appearance arrived, that is, on February 28,
1935, the court issued another order appointing the provincial sheriff
of Iloilo as judicial receiver in substitution of Sabas Gustilo, in
view of the difficulties which the latter was encountering in the
discharge of his duties as such receiver, Sabas Gustilo asked for the
reconsideration of this last order but the court, instead of directly
deciding his motion, one way or another, issued the order of March 15,
1935, (a) denying said motion for reconsideration; (b) considering the incident relative to the appointment of a receiver as terminated; (c) approving the amended inventory filed by the defendant Isabel Araneta on February 14, 1935, and (d)
ordering the parties to submit on April 1,1935, the names of persons
qualified for appointment as commissioners to proceed with the
partition of the properties stated in the inventory. The plaintiff
appealed from both this last order and that of February 28, 1935,
appointing the provincial sheriff of Iloilo as judicial receiver in
lieu of Sabas Gustilo, attributing to the lower court the seven alleged
errors assigned by him in his brief.
The plaintiff contends, by means of the first two errors assigned
by him, that the lower court erred in appointing the provincial sheriff
of Iloilo as judicial receiver in lieu of Sabas Gustilo, and in setting
aside, without any hearing, the appointment of said Sabas Gustilo.
By means of the 3d, 4th, 5th and 6th assignments of error, the
plaintiff contends that the lower court erred: (1) In approving the
amended inventory presented by the defendant Isabel Araneta on February
14, 1935, without taking into account: (a) that property
exclusively belonging to the deceased Roque Sanson has been stated
therein as conjugal partnership property of said deceased and the
defendant; (b) that several parcels of land subject to
partition, being conjugal partnership property of said spouses, have
been omitted therefrom; (c) that the jewelry referred to in Exhibits M and N has likewise been omitted therefrom; and (d)
that the inventory in question fails to state not only the proceeds.of
the sale of lands belonging to the conjugal partnership of the deceased
and the defendant Isabel Araneta, which were sold by the latter and her
co-defendants, but also the fruits of the lands actually in the
possession of the three; (2) in failing to order the defendant Isabel
Araneta to again amend the inventory presented by her on February 14,
1935, for the purpose of including therein all other properties of the
deceased Roque Sanson, subject to partition; and (3) in failing to
order the defendants to bring to collation a part of the properties
turned over to them as inheritance.
By means of the 7th error, the plaintiff contends that the court
erred in failing to order the sale at public auction of all the
properties left by the deceased Roque Sanson to facilitate the
partition thereof among the heirs, notwithstanding the fact that it had
been so agreed upon by all the interested parties.
The first two errors attributed to the court are unfounded. Under
sections 173 and 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appointment of
a receiver lies within the sound discretion of the court, it not being
a matter of strict right to ask for and obtain it, nor an imperative
duty to grant it when it is sought (Sanson vs. Barrios, 63
Phil., 198). It follows from the foregoing that the judge who has made
the appointment may very well set it aside, as was done by the
respondent judge, when in his opinion it is not justified by the facts
and circumstances of the easel The respondent judge, in acting as he
did, was undoubtedly guided by the consideration that the properties
sought to be placed in the hands of a receiver were already in the
possession of the defendants and the plaintiff himself; that it would
be of no benefit to them to place the properties in the hands of a
receiver inasmuch as in case of lesion, there is the remedy of
collation provided for by the Civil Code; that the greater part of said
properties consists in real estate which cannot be easily lost; and
that the parties could very well protect their respective rights by
merely recording in the registry of deeds of notice of lis pendens, in accordance with the provisions of section 401 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
As to the 3d, 4th, 5th and 6th errors, the record shows that the
respondent judge really erred in approving the amended inventory
presented by the defendant Isabel Araneta on February 14, 1935, because
he failed to take into consideration: (1) That said defendant stated
therein that the land appearing in the record as lot No. 1525 is
conjugal property belonging to her and the deceased Roque Sanson, when
it is very clear, according to Exhibit F, No. 1, that it exclusively
belongs to the deceased Roque Sanson, so much so that it is stated in
the original certificate of title No. 2538, covering it, that it
belongs to Roque Sanson, married to Isabel Araneta; (2) that lots Nos.
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 21, 25, 26, 30, 32, 36 and 38 of plan 11-12490,
more particularly described in original certificate of title No. 28970
issued in the name of Isabel Araneta and her children Alfredo
Sanson/Serafin Sanson and Eva Sanson, who are the same parties
litigant, have not been stated in said inventory; since, although it is
alleged in Exhibit F, page 10, that said original certificate of title
was later cancelled and substituted by transfer certificate of title
No. 8044 issued in the name of Isabel Araneta and Eva Sanson, by order
of the court, it does not mean that the plaintiff and the defendant
Alfredo Sanson have lost their right to participate in said properties,
it being admitted by the litigants that they constitute part of the
conjugal partnership property of the defendant Isabel Araneta and of
the deceased Roque Sanson. Furthermore, the alleged transfer of the
lots in question made by the defendant Isabel Araneta in favor of
Eugenio Badilla, is neither evidenced by any document nor authorized by
the court and it appears from Exhibit F that a notice of lis pendens affecting
them was recorded in the registry of deeds from the beginning; (3) that
lots Nos. 22, 23 and 27 described in original certificate of title No.
28970 and in transfer certificate of title No. 8044 have been stated in
the inventory as properties subject to partition, when it appears from
Exhibit E that they had been sold for the sum of P30,000 to Delfin
Mahinay on December 16,1933, and it does riot conclusively appear that
such sale has been rescinded for failure of Mahinay to pay the
stipulated price. Said price, which must be in the possession of the
defendant Isabel Araneta, must at least be stated in the Inventory to
be distributed among the litigants; (4) that lot No. 461, described in
transfer certificate of title No. 8157, has been stated in the
inventory as sold to Herminio Maravilla for the sum of P12,000 and
therefore not subject to partition, when such transfer was declared
fictitious and null and void by the lower court in a judgment rendered
in this same case on March 3, 1933, and in a judgment rendered by this
court in case G. R. No. 39697. Said land should be included in the
inventory; (5) that the lands referred to in tax declarations Nos.
3849, 3850 and 3851 (Exhibits A, B and C), have not been stated in the
inventory,. since the only mention made of them, therein is that they
are in the possession of Alfredo Sanson, having been allotted to him in
the partition, but this is no reason for not including them because, as
the agreement of partition by virtue of which Alfredo Sanson took
possession of said properties was rescinded, they should necessarily
be included in the inventory so that they may be taken into account
when the partition is carried out; (6) that neither have the lands
referred to in tax declarations Nos. 3434, 3740 and 3743 been stated in
the inventory, the only mention made therein of the land referred to in
the first declaration being that it was stated in the original
inventory presented on December 3, 1934, which cannot now be taken into
consideration because it was substituted. by the amended one of
February 14, 1935; (7) that the sum of P3,000 representing the selling
price of the two parcels of land described in Exhibit U, has not been
stated in the inventory as assets subject to partition; (8) that
neither have the 17 parcels of land situated in the municipality of
Banate of the Province of Iloilo, valued at P9,000, which constitute
part of the conjugal partnership property of the deceased Roque Sanson
and the defendant Isabel Araneta, been stated in the inventory, the
only mention made thereof in said inventory being that they were sold
by the defendant Isabel Araneta to one Victoriano Arroyo for the sum of
P4,500 on May 21, 1924; and while it is true that said sale was made,
it has not been authorized by thecourt, and is therefore null and void;
(9) that neither has the proceeds of the sale of several parcels of
land sold by the defendant Isabel Araneta to Evaristo Cuenca, amounting
to P6,000 been stated in the inventory, which amount should be included
in the inventory because it form a part of the assets subject to
partition; (10) that neither have the various sums amounting to P12,500
admitted by the defendant Isabel Araneta to have been collected by her
from Domingo Arcosa as rents of certain lands belonging to the deceased
Roque Sanson (t. s. n., pages 341, 342), been stated in the inventory;
and (11) that neither have the income and fruits of the lands which are
in the possession of the parties litigant by virtue of the rescinded
agreement of partition, been stated in the inventory. At least the
products and fruits of said properties, received by each of the parties
from the time they were notified of the judgment rescinding their
agreement of partition, should be stated in the inventory for purposes
of the collation which will be made in due time, it being clear that
those derived prior thereto should not be included therein, because
fruits received by possessors in good faith become their own, until
their good faith ceases (article 451, in connection with article 483 of
the Civil Code), and the parties were, theretofore, possessors in good
faith.
The plaintiff contends that the jewelry referred to in Exhibits M,
N, 0, P and R should have been and should even now also be included in
the inventory. This court has reviewed the evidence relative to this
question and is of the opinion that the explanations given by the
defendant Isabel Araneta are entirely satisfactory. Between the
plaintiff’s averment and that of said defendant, this court chooses to
believe the latter’s because her explanations are convincing. Many of
the jewels in question, as those indicated by Nos. 1, 4, 9, 10, 14, 15,
16, 17 and 18 in Exhibit M, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36
and 38 in Exhibit N, the necklace and the rings described in Exhibit 0,
the crown, the necklace and the bracelets described in Exhibit P, and
the jewels described in Exhibit R, do not belong to her. Others, as
those indicated by Nos. 3, 7,11,12,13 and 19 in Exhibit M, 20 27 and 37
in Exhibit N, the bracelet described in Exhibit 0, and the bird-shaped
necklace, the bracelet without diamonds and the bracelet with a diamond
cluster described in Exhibit P, exclusively belong to her. The rest,
some of which have already been distributed among the heirs, belong to
her conjugal partnership (Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 8 of Exhibit M, 24, 29, 33
and 35 of Exhibit N, and the three solitaire rings and the ring with a
diamond cluster described in Exhibit P),
With respect to the last error attributed to the lower court, it
should be said that, taking into consideration the circumstances to be
stated hereinafter, the agreement entered into by the parties,
allegedly approved by said court on February 25, 1935, to sell all the
properties left by the deceased Roque Sanson at public auction for the
purpose of distributing the proceeds thereof among themselves, is not
of the nature of a compromise having a binding force under the
provisions of the Civil Code (articles 1809 et seq. of the
Civil Code). The lower court, in issuing the appealed order of March
15, 1935, failed to order the sale of said properties, as agreed upon
by the parties, for the purpose of facilitating the distribution
thereof, which proves that the court revoked the approval thereof given
by it on February 25th of said year. On the other hand, the partition
of the properties left by the deceased Roque Sanson may be made without
necessity of selling them at public auction; and to so sell them would
be to openly disregard the orders of the deceased contained in his
probated will.
In view of all the foregoing, the order appealed from is modified
by affirming it in so far as it sets aside the appointments of the
receivers Sabas Gustilo and the provincial sheriff of Iloilo, and
reversing it in so far as it approves the amended inventory of February
14, 1935, presented by the defendant Isabel Araneta; and said defendant
is ordered to present, within the period of thirty days, a new
inventory of all the properties left by the deceased, whether or not
they be in her possession or in that of the other litigants, stating
therein the respective values thereof and their income and fruits from
the time each and every one of said litigants, including the defendant
herself, was notified of the judgment rescinding said agreement of
partition. Said properties are those stated in the aforesaid amended
inventory of February 14, 1935, which were not the subject matter of an
opposition upheld by the court, plus those omitted therefrom which are
no other than the ones expressly enumerated in this decision. It is
ordered, furthermore, that as soon as the required inventory is
presented, and unless said defendant and the other litigants present a
project of partition satisfactory to everybody, the lower court should
proceed with the appointment of partition commissioners, in accordance
with the provisions relative thereto contained in Act No. 190; and when
said partition takes place, the necessary collations and compensations
should be made in order that it may be the most equitable and just
possible, in conformity with the provisions of the will of the deceased
Roque Sanson. Let the costs be taxed against the appellees. So ordered.
Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
[1] Samson vs. Araneta, 60 Phil,, 27.
RESOLUTION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DIAZ, J.:
The defendants and appellees have filed in two separate pleadings a
motion for reconsideration of the decision rendered in this case,
alleging: (1) That there is no evidence of record to the effect that
Delfin Mahinay has paid to the defendant and appellee Isabel Araneta
the sum of P30,000 for parcels 22, 23 and 27 described in original
certificate of title No. 28970 and in transfer certificate of title No.
8044; (2) that neither is there evidence in support of the court’s
conclusion that the parcels of land described in tax declarations Nos.
3849, 3850, 3851, 3740 and 3743 were not included in the amended
inventory presented by the defendant-appellee Isabel Araneta; (3) that
neither is there evidence in support of the court’s finding that Isabel
Araneta did not sell the 17 parcels of land situated in the
municipality of Bariate, Province of Iloilo, to Victorians Arroyo, for
the sum of P4,500, and that at all events, what should be done is to.
order the inclusion of the P4,500 in the inventory to form part of the
assets subject to partition.; (4) that while the new partition ordered
by the court is not carried out the heirs are entitled to continue in
the possession of the lands turned over, to them and,, consequently, to
receive the fruits thereof, invoking therefor the provisions of article
1077 of the Civil Code; and (5) that the court should order the
deduction of the sum of P19,463, advanced;by the defendant and appellee
Isabel Araneta while she was administratrix of the testate estate.of
the deceased Roque; Sanson, from the various sums which ought to be
included in the inventory to be prepared by virtue of the decision
rendered in the case.
- The first allegation of the defendants is contradicted by
Exhibit E, which is a certified copy of a notarial certificate the
validity of which has never been questioned. Said document shows that
on December 16, 1933, the defendants and appellees Isabel Araneta and
Eva Sanson, and the latter’s husband named Antonio Yusay, sold parcels
22, 23 and 27 described in plan 11-42490 and in transfer certificate of
title No. 8044, to Delfin Mahinay for the sum of P30,000 which they
admitted to have received as follows: P21,112.40 upon the execution of
said document, and the assumption by said Delfin Mahinay of the
obligation to pay to the Philippine National Bank a certain loan in the
sum of P8,887.60, for which said properties were mortgaged.
Consequently, the contention that this court should not have declared
that the price thereof had been paid because, according to Isabel
Araneta’s testimony, she received only about P4,000 from Mahinay (t. s.
n., page 303), is unfounded. Isabel Araneta as one of the makers of the
notarial deed of transfer could not and cannot impugn it except under
the circumstances prescribed in section 285 of Act No. 190, which are
certainly not those which were present herein (Weidman vs.
Macasero, G. R. No. 24505, December 28, 1925, not reported). The fact
that, subsequent to the promulgation of the decision of this court,
Alfredo Sanson agreed with the purchaser Mahinay to rescind the
contract of sale Exhibit E, according to Annex I of the motion for
reconsideration, cannot alter said decision, much less set aside said
contract. Neither can Annex I nor the documents and promissory notes
attached to said motion for reconsideration as Annex B, G, D, E, F, G
and H be taken into consideration, because neither are they new
evidence which may be admitted with the formalities required by law,
nor have they been previously admitted as such, nor is the first one
(Annex I) subscribed by all the parties who executed the deed of sale
sought to be affected thereby, that is Exhibit E. They apparently have
all the earmarks of having been intentionally prepared solely to
support the motion for reconsideration. It was well settled in the
decision that the sum of P80,000, and not parcels 22, 23 and 27, should
have been and should be stated in the inventory to be subject to
partition. - As to the second proposition
of the defendants and appellees, it should be stated that, with the
exception of( their allegations contained on pages 20 and 21 of their
brief to the effect that the lands described in tax declarations Nos.
3434, 3740 and 3743 have been consolidated to form the parcel described
in tax declaration No. 3844, there is nothing of record to prove such
fact. What the evidence clearly shows is that said lands and those
described in tax declarations Nos. 3849, 3850 and 3851 belonged to the
conjugal partnership of the deceased Roque Sanson and Isabel Araneta.
Such being the fact, there is no doubt that they should be included in
the new inventory to be presented in accordance with the decision,
inasmuch as the contract by virtue of which Alfredo Sanson took
possession thereof has been rescinded. - The
third proposition is untenable. If the 17 parcels in question were not
sold, it is just that they be included in the new inventory in order to
form part of Roque Sanaon’s hereditary estate subject to partition. The
alleged proceeds of their sale (P4,500) should not be stated in the
inventory in lieu thereof, because said amount is less by one-half than
the value given by the same defendant Isabel Araneta in the inventory
submitted by her to the court while she was administratrix of the
testate estate of Roque Sanson, and because to do so would be
equivalent to sanctioning1 an act which could not have been approved by
the court. - With respect to the fourth
proposition, it should be stated that, as the agreement of partition
under consideration was declared rescinded by this court, the parties
were bound to return the properties which were the subject matter of
the partition, with all their fruits and income or the equivalent
thereof in money (article 1295, Civil Code), in conformity with the
provisions of articles 451, and 433 to 436 of said Code, from the date
of the rescission. - As to the last
proposition, this court holds that the matter referred to therein is a
question that must be submitted to the consideration of the lower
court, which will be the one to determine how and to what extent the
set-offs will have to be made when it orders the partition of the
properties subject thereto.
For all the foregoing considerations, this court decides to deny as
it hereby denies the defendant’s motion for reconsideration. So ordered.
Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.