BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. ESTATE OF NICOLAS CARRANCEJA, DECEASED, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

By reason of certain commercial relations existing between them it was found
upon making a settlement on the 31st day of May, 1902, that Nicolas Carranceja
was indebted to Francisco Reyes in the sum of $53,721.04 Mexican. Carranceja
died in the pueblo of Daet in the same year the settlement was made. His widow,
Josef a Pavon, continued the business relations which her husband had maintained
with Francisco Reyes before his death, the business after the death of the
husband being conducted in the name of the widow and children of the deceased
Nicolas Carranceja. From these relations the said widow became indebted to Reyes
in the sum of P6,671.18 conant.

On the 5th day of December, 1905, Francisco Reyes sold to the plaintiff in
this case the claim which he held against the estate of Nicolas Carranceja. On
the 31st of March the bank presented said claim to the commission on claims
which had been duly named for the estate of the said Carranceja. The
commissioners, on the 30th of July, 1906, disapproved the claim of the bank and
the latter appealed to the Court of First Instance. On the 2d of January, 1907,
the Court of First Instance affirmed the decision of the commissioners, which
judgment is now final. Later the bank sued Josef a Pavon personally for the
amount of the claim which it held against the estate and against her personally
and obtained a judgment against her for both amounts, and on the 20th of
August,, 1909, sold out under said judgment her interest in the estate of her
husband, the bank itself purchasing the same for the sum of P37,500. On the 31st
of January, 1912, the bank petitioned the court in which the estate of
Carranceja was pending to be allowed to intervene in the proceed ings for the
settlement of that estate in the place and stead of the widow, of whose interest
therein the bank was the owner.

The appellant in this case presents, both in his printed record and in his
brief, as the only error the following:

“The court erred in overruling the motion of the Bank of the Philippine
Islands praying that the P45,000, or there-abouts, be made a part of the estate
and that it be divided among the heirs and creditors thereof.”

In the printed record appears this statement on the part of the appellant,
directed to the clerk of the Supreme Court:

“In conformity with the rule of the Supreme Court, we have the honor to send
herewith the only error which is alleged as the basis of the appeal in the
above-entitled proceedings, and to inform you that the following documents found
in the record are the only ones necessary for the determination of this
appeal:

“1. The testimony of the witness Nemesio Reyes.

“2. The judgment of the Court of First Instance of the 2d of January,
1907.

“3. The order of said court of the 20th of August, 1908.

“4. The order of the 24th of August, 1909, of the same
court.”

From the record it appears that the judgment of the 2d of January, 1907, is
one of the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines, Hon. Grant T. Trent
presiding, which decides that “according to the evidence presented the
commission had no jurisdiction to approve the claim of $53,721.04 Mexican
against this estate. This being the conclusion, it is not absolutely necessary
to decide at this time whether or not the estate is responsible for all or part
of the debt of P60,382.22 conant transferred by Francisco Reyes to the
bank.”

The order of the 20th of August, 1908, is an order entered by the same court,
presided over by the same judge, approving the final account rendered by the
executrix of the estate, declaring who the heirs were and their respective
shares, appointing Josefa Pavon guardian of certain minors, declaring that
claims not theretofore presented against the estate were barred, and naming
three commissioners to divide the estate among the persons entitled thereto.
This order set a date for a hearing upon the partition to be made by the
commissioners therein appointed.

The order of the 24th of August, 1909, was one entered by the same court,
presided over by the same judge. The questions presented on the motion in which
the order was entered were stated by the judge as follows:

“1. Has the bank sufficient interest in the final settlement of this estate
to authorize it to intervene in the same?

“2. Should the court approve the partition made by the
commissioners?”

In reference to the first question the court in the order referred to
stated:

“The judgment obtained by the bank against Josefa Pavon in the Court of First
instance of Manila, was not against the widow as administratrix of the estate of
her deceased husband but was against her personally. The widow still had an
interest in the rights which were sold at public sale for the reason that she
could have redeemed them within a year, and as administratrix and guardian of
the minors she also had an interest in the partition of the property of the
estate. The bank purchased at public sale and was declared the owner of all the
right, title, and interest which the widow had in this estate; and I am of the
opinion and decide that the bank has sufficient interest at the present time in
this estate to authorize it to appear and take part in the final settlement of
this estate notwithstanding the opposition of Mr. Manly, attorney for the widow
who is also the administratrix and guardian of the minors.”

This order after again approving the accounts rendered by the administratrix
ordered a repartition of the property in accordance with the terms of the order
and again set a future day upon which the partition would be brought up for a
hearing.

These are the only orders presented by the appellant as the basis of its
appeal.

In order to show that the appellant had no standing on this appeal, the
appellee caused to be brought to this court a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Ambos Camarines, Hon. P. M. Moir presiding, made and entered January
31, 1912, in which that court, following, as it believed, a decision of the
Supreme Court, found that the appellant bank had no interest which warranted it
in intervening in the final settlement of the estate of Carranceja, deceased, or
of taking any part in the partition of the property of that estate, or of
directly receiving any of such property in such partition. So far as appears of
record, this order was not appealed from and was not brought to this court. It
cannot, therefore, be made the basis of a decision on this appeal. That being
the case, it determines adversely, so far as this appeal is concerned, the right
of the bank to appear in the final settlement of the estate in question in place
of Josefa Pavon, whose interest it had purchased. It can have, therefore, no
interest on this appeal in the determination of whether or not the partition was
properly made.

The appeal is dismissed, with costs against the appellant.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Carson, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.