Benito M. Arcilla, etc., et al. vs. Pablo Angeles David, et al. | G.R. No. L-49190, December 12, 1946

  • Reading time:0 mins read

Republic of the Philippines


G.R. No. L-49190 | December 12, 1946

BENITO M. ARCILLA, ETC., ET AL., petitioners,
PABLO ANGELES DAVID, Judge of the First Instance of Pampanga, ET AL., respondents.

Eufrasio Ocampo for petitioner.
Artemio C. Macalino for respondents.


Petitioners pray for the annulment of the orders issued on December 6, 1943, and on February 29, 1944, by Judge P. Angeles David, of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, in the Intestate of Amada Hilario, special proceedings No. 6976 of said court.

Upon motion filed by the administratrix of the estate of Manuel Tan Cungco, respondent judge issued the order of December 6, 1943, authorizing the administrator of the Intestate of Amada Hilario to sell, within ten days, to said administratrix lots Nos. 822 and 892, and 4/9 of lot No. 583, located in Angeles, Pampanga, and respectively registered under transfer certicates Nos. 9379, 9380, and original certificate No. 360, of the Register of Deeds of Pampanga, for the amount of P6,750.

Upon the motion of the same administratrix of the Testate of Manuel Tan Cungco, the respondent judge issued the order of February 29, 1944, ordering Benito M. Arcilla, administrator of the intestate of Amada Hilario, to issue a deed of sale in favor of the Testate of Manuel Tan Cungco of the properties above mentioned and to submit said deed of sale to the court for approval within ten days, it appearing that the administratrix had deposited with the clerk of court the amount of P6,750 as the consideration for the same.

Petitioner’s impugn the validity of the two orders in the question on the ground that they were issued in violation of section 7 of Rule 90, because the administrator of the Intestate of Amada Hilario did not file the petition as required in subsection (a) thereof, the court did not fix the time and place for the hearing as provided in subsection (b), and has not declared that the sale in question appears to be necessary or beneficial, and in violation of section 5 of Rule 26, because seven of the eight petitioners who are the legitimate children and legal heirs of the deceased Amada Hilario were not notified of the motion filed by administratrix Marciana Escoto of the Testate of Manuel Tan Cungco on November 3, 1943, nor of the order which, upon said motion, was issued by the respondent judge on December 6, 1943.

Section 7 of Rule 90 and section 5 of Rule 26 provided:


SEC. 7. Regulations for granting authority to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber estate. — The court having jurisdiction of the estate of the deceased may authorize the executor or administrator to sell personal estate, or to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber real estate, in cases provided by these rules and when it appears necessary or beneficial, under the following regulations:

(a) The executor or administrator shall file a written petition setting forth the debts due from the deceased, the expenses of administration, the legacies, the value of the personal estate, the situation of the estate to be sold, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered, and such other facts as show that the sale, mortgage, or other encumbrances is necessary or beneficial;

(b) The court shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing such petition, and cause notice stating the nature of the petition, the reason for the same, and the time and place of hearing, to be given personally or by mail to the persons interested, and may cause such further notice to be given, by publication or otherwise, as it shall deem proper;

(c) If the court requires it, the executor or administrator shall give an additional bond, in such sum as the court directs, conditioned that such executor or administrator will account for the proceeds of the sale, mortgage or other encumbrance;

(d) If the requirements in the preceding subdivisions of this section have been complied with, the court, by order stating such compliance, may authorize the executor or administrator to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber, in proper cases, such part of the estate as is deemed necessary, and in case of sale the court may authorize it to be public or private, as would be most beneficial to all parties concerned. The executor or administrator shall be furnished with a certified copy of such order;

(e) If the estate to be sold at auction, the mode of giving notice of the time and place of the sale be governed by the provisions concerning notice of execution sale;

( f ) There shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the province in which the real estate thus sold, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered is situated, a certified copy of the order of the court, together with the deed of the executor or administrator for such real estate, which shall be as valid as if the deed had been executed by the deceased in his lifetime. (Rule 90.)

SEC. 5. Contents of notice. — The notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion. (Rule 26.)


The violations of section 7 of Rule 90 and section 5 of Rule 26, as alleged by petitioners, are conclusively borne out by the record and, therefore, there cannot be any question that the respondent judge, in issuing the two orders complained of acted in excess of his jurisdiction.

Respondent’s contention to the effect that the motion of administratix Marciana Escoto dated November 3, 1943, need not comply with the rule provisions above mentioned, because it is a mere reproduction of a petition filed by administrator Benito M. Arcilla in August, 1941, with the express conformity of the guardian ad litem of the minor children of Amada Hilario, which was denied on August 11, 1941, is without merit, not only because there are substantial differences between the two pleadings, but the order of denial had disposed of finally said petition, so much so that months later, that is, on November 17, 1941, Manuel Tan Cungco filed in the intestate of Amada Hilario a petition to authorize the sale of the properties above mentioned to Dr. Magdaleno Bundalian at the same price of P6,750, alleging that he had transferred his right to buy and acquire the properties to him.

Since then, it appears that no further action had been taken until administratix Marciana Escoto filed her motion on November 3, 1943, about two years later, during which time many important events happened — the Philippines was invaded by the Japanese armed forces, prices and values were hiked to unbelievable levels, and the currency in 1943 was not the currency in 1941 before the war broke out. As a matter of fact, petitioners alleged that the value of the properties has increased to P20,000.

Besides, even in the hypothesis that the theory of reproduction can be accepted, it is no reason for dispensing with the rules, which are effective and applicable to original motions and to reproduced ones alike.

The allegation of respondents that the legitimate children of the deceased Amada Hilario were not entitled to be notified of the motion of administratrix Marciana Escoto dated November 3, 1948, because said children are not parties that should be notified, is in acceptable in law. Are there more and better interested parties in a proposed sale of the properties of the deceased than the children and universal heirs of the same?

The orders of December 6, 1943, and February 29, 1944, issued by the respondent judge in the Intestate of Amada Hilario, special proceedings No. 6976 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, are declared null and void, with costs againsts administratrix Marciana Escoto of the Estate of Manuel Tan Cungco.

Moran, Bengzon, C.J., Hilado, Briones, Padilla and Tuason, JJ., concur.


PABLO, M., concurrente:

En el intestado de Amada Hilario (actuacion especial No. 6976 del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Pampanga)fue nombrado administrador su conyugue superstite, Benito M. Arcilla y curador ad litem de sus siete hijos menores, Artemio Hilario.

En febrero 10, 1941, Benito M. Arcilla, por si y comocurador ad litem de sus hijos menores otorgo una escriturade convenio del tenor siguiente:


IV. Que en consideration de la suma de quinientos pesos (P500)que en este acto ha recibido Benito M. Arcilla de Manuel Tan Cungco, el primero se compromtete;

1.o A incoar en el Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Pampanga dentro de un plazo razonable la tramitacion del intestado de ladifunta Da. Amada Hilario de Arcilla; y.

1.o A gestionar, una vez nombrado el administrador de los bienesrelictor de la difunta Da. Amada Hilario de Arcilla, para que concedael juzgado autorizaction para la venta de los bienes en cuestiona favor de Manuel Tan Cungco con las condiciones siguientes:

(a) El precio de la venta sera el seis mil setecientos cincuentapesos (P6,750), ademas de la cantidad de quinientos pesos (P500)que se acaba de entregar;

(b) Correran por cuenta de Manuel Tan Cungco los gastos dela escritura de venta, con los derechos de ratificacion y sellos, todoslos derechos que se cobren por el Registrador de Titulos relacionadoscon la inscripcion de la venta asi como todos los derechos por lascopias certificados de documentos que fueren necesarios para suinscripcion debida;

(c) Manuel Tan Cungco realizara el pago del precio de la ventadentro del termino de diez (10) dias a partir de la fecha que elfuese notificado debidamente de la autorizacion judicial para laventa a su favory

(d) El intestado de la difunta Da. Amada Hilario de Arcilla norespondera del saneamiento de las fincas en caso de eviccion siempreque esta fuere motivada por defecto de titulo del mismo Manuel Tan Cungco o de sus causantes anteriores, en consideracion al hechof de que las mismas fincas han sido adquiridas del propio Manuel Tan Cungco.

V. Que Manuel Tan Cungco no tendra derecho a repetir la cantidadde quinientos pesos (P500) de la cual acaba de hacer entrega,ni parte de la misma, si, despues de tener conocimiento debido de laautorization judicial para la venta a su favor con las condicionesmas arriba expresadas, dejare el de hacer valer su opcion de comprarlas fincas dentro del termino ultimamente concedido.

VI. Que, era porque el juzgado se negare a autorizar la ventano obstante los esfuerzos que se desplieguen para ello, era tambienporque, dado que el juagado autorizare tal venta, dejare Manuel Tan Cungco de hacer valer su opcion de comprar dentro del terminoultimamente convenido, o sea, dejare de realizar el pago del preciode la venta dentro del termino ultimanente concedido, entonces haraentrega de las fincas a Benito M. Arcilla al requerimiento; y puestocaso que se negare a ello, pagara a los demandantes en la causanum. 731 del Juzgado de Paz de Angeles, Pampanga, la suma de milpesos (P1,000) en concepto de indemnizacion de danos y perjuiciospor la rentencion de las fincas.

En testimonio de lo cual, firmamos la presente por duplicado enAngeles, Pampanga, a 10 de febrero de 1941.


(Fdo.) “Manuel Tan Cungco

(Fdo.) “Benito M. Arcilla.


En su propia representaction y como curador ad litem de losmenores Floserfina Arcilla y otros.


Abodado de Benito M. Arcilla

Abogado de Benito M. Arcilla


En agosto 2, 1941 Benito M. Arcilla por medio del abogadoEufrasion Ocampo, pidio de acuerdo con el conveniotranscrito, autorizacion para vender a Manuel Tan Cungcopor la cantidad de P6,750 los siguientes lotes: Lote No.822, certificado de transferencia de titulo No. 9379, Pampanga;Lote No. 892, certificado de transferencia de tituloNo. 9380; y 4/9 del Lote No. 585, certificado original detitulo No. 360.

En agosto 11, 1941 el Hon. Juez Magsalon, despues deoir a las partes en la vista de la mocion anterior dijo que”el Juzgado esta convencido que la venta propuesta redundariaaen beneficio de los interesador en esta herencia.” “Resultanto, sin embargo, — añadio — que el comprador Manuel Tan Cungco es ciudadano chino, el juzgado no podraautorizar esta venta.”

En noviembre 17, 1941 Manuel Tan Cungco presentouna mocion pidiendo que los lotes sean vendidos al Dr.Magdaleno Bundalian, a quien, segun el, habia cedido suderecho de opcion de compra; pero los menores Maria y Ramos Arcilla, de 18 y 16 anos de edad respectivamentese opusieron a dicha mocion, manifestando que preferianque se hiciese la venta al mismo Manuel Tan Cungco. Nose actuo sobre la mocion. Manuel Tan Cungco fallecio enmayo 12, 1943.

En noviembre 3, 1943 Marciana Escoto, administradoradel finado Manuel Tan Cungco, presento una mocionpidiendo que se ordene al administrador del intestado de Amada Hilario que cumpla el convenio en cuanto a la ventade los lotes. De esta mocion no fue notificado el curador ad litem de los menores Artemio Hilario. En diciembre 6,1943 el Hon. Juez Angeles David autorizo al administradorBenito M. Arcilla a vender los referidos lotes a favor dela Marciana Escoto, administradora de los bienes intestadosde Manuel Tan Cungco por la suma de P6,750 dentro delplazo de diez dias.

En enero 14, 1944 Marciana Escoto presento, sin notificaral curador de los menores Artemio Hilario, una mocion,alegando que deposito en la escribania del juzgadola cantidad de P6,750 que es el importe de la venta delos tres lotes, autorizada por el juzgado en su orden dediciembre 6, 1943 y que a pasar de haber sido notificadode dicha orden el administrador Benito M. Arcilla, no loha cumplido aun. Pidio que el juzgado ordene a dichoadministrador Benito M. Arcilla que otorgue la escriturade venta correspondiente. En febrero 29, 1941 el Hon. Juez Angeles David dicto una orden accediendo a estapeticion.

El administrador del intestado de Amada Hilario presentomociones de reconsideracion que fueron denegadas.

Ambas partes admiten que la cantidad de P6,750 consignadaen la escribania del juzgado ya no tiene valoralguno. Sin embargo, el abogado del intestado de ManuelTan Cungco esta dispuesto a depositar o entregar la mismacantidad en dinero legal corriente, si se ordena la venta.

Los tres lotes, segun se desprende de los escritos, sonbienes gananciales de Benito M. Arcilla y de la finada Amada Hilario. Si despues de la liquidacion quedaren aunestos tres lotes, una parte alicuota de los mismos corresponderal viudo Benito M. Arcilla y otra, a los menores.

Artemio Hilario, nombrado curador ad litem de dichosmenores en el Intestado de Amada Hilario no ha sido notificadode las dos mociones que dieron lugar a la expedicionde las ordenas del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Pampangade diciembre 6, 1943 que autoriza al administrador Arcilla a vender los lotes y la de febrero 29, 1944 queordena al mismo administrador que otorgue la escriturade venta correspondiente. Estas dos ordenes no pueden afectar, ni afectan la participaction de los menores en dichoslotes. Benito M. Arcilla, como padre, es solamente tutornatural de las personas de sus hijos menores; pero de estono puede deducirse necesariamente que fuera, al mismotiempo, tutor de los bienes de estos con poderes para obligarcon su consentimiento a la enagenacion de tales bienes.Artemio Hilario, como curador ad litem, era el representantelegal de los menores en el Intestado de la difuntaAmada Hilario y era el unico que podia dar su consentimientoa las mociones de Marciana Escoto de noviembre3, 1943 y enero 14, 1944. El consentimiento tacito deladministrador Benito M. Arcilla a lo pedido en estas dosmociones — pues no se opuso a pesar de haber sido debidamente notificado — no puede obligar a los menores porqueestos tiene su representante legal en el intestado de sumadre Amada Hilario, que es su curador ad litem ArtemioHilario. Es verdad que Benito M. Arcilla, era curadorad litem de los menores en la causa civil No. 731 del Juzgadode Paz de Angeles, Pampanga; pero sus poderes, como curador, se reducian solo a representar a sus hijosen dicho asunto; no quedaba autorizado para vender losbienes inmuebles o celebrar contratos sobre los mismos. El Juzgado de Paz no tiene poderes pare autorizar la ventade bienes inmuebles de menores.

It is a rule as old as the law, and never more to be respectedthan now, that no one shall be personally bound until he has had his day in court, by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear, and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgmentwithout such citation and opportunity wants all the attributesof a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and oppression, and never can be upheld where justice is justly administered. (17C. J., 1133.)

Esta sana doctrina sostiene las decisiones dictadas enlas causas de Lerma cotra Antonio (6 Jur. Fil., 244); Muerteguy y Aboitiz contra Delgado (22 Jur. Fil. 111); Lavitoria contra Juez de Primera Instancia de Tayabas y Director de Terrenos (32 Jur. Fil., 214) y Villegas contra Roldan y Almario 76 Phil., 349).

La orden del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Pampangaen la actuacion especial No. 6976 de diciembre 6,1943 autorizando al administrador Benito M. Arcilla avender los tres lotes y la de febrero 29, 1944 ordenandoal mismo administrador que otorgue la escritura de ventacorrespondiente son nulas u de ningun valor en cuanto ala participacion de los menores, porque aun en el supuestode que la mocion presentado por la administradora de losbienes del finado Manuel Tan Cungco, era para obligaral administrador Benitl M. Arcilla a cumplir con el convenioacotado en las paginas 1 y 2 de esta opinion y nopara pedir autorizacion del juzgado para que se vendandichos bienes, habia necesidad de notificar al curador adlitem de los menores: dicho convenio es nulo en cuanto aestos porque la conformidad dada al mismo por su padreen su concepto de curador ad litem, nombrado por el Juezde Paz de Angeles, Pampanga no fue aprobada por unjuzgado competente, el Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Pampanga.

Por estas razones concurro con la parte dispositiva dela decision de la mayoria.

FERIA, M., conforme.

PARAS, J., dissenting:

Equity should influence the decision of this case. The three parcels of land in question and their improvements were originally the property of Manuel Tan Cungco who sold them to the spouses Benito M. Arcilla and Amada Hilario for the sum of P5,500 under a pacto de retro contract. The alleged vendor continued in possession of the premises as lessee. The period of redemption seemed to have been extended or at least an option had been given to Manuel Tan Cungco to buy back the lots at a higher price. In any event, a detainer suit was filed against the latter by the purchaser. These soon became apprehensive about the duration and success of the suit. In the meantime Amada Hilario died. Undoubtedly to protect their interest or otherwise secure an advantage, Benito M. Arcilla and his children (heirs of Amada Hilario) executed on February 10, 1941, a contract whereby they undertook to institute the intestate proceedings of the deceased and, upon the application of the administrator, to obtain judicial approval of the sale of the lots to Manuel Tan Cungco at the price of P6,500 in addition to the sum of P500 then and there paid to Benito M. Arcilla and hischildren. Accordingly, in special proceedings No. 6976 of the Courtof First Instance of Pampanga, subsequently brought, the administrator filed a petition dated August, 1941, praying that he be authorized to sell the lots in question to Manuel Tan Cungco under the condition set forth in the contract of February 10, 1941. This petition borethe conformity of the guardian ad litem of the minor heirs of Amada Hilario and was heard on August 11, 1941. At the hearing, the administrator, the guardian ad litem, and two minors heirs (aged 16 and 18 years) appeared and there gave their consent to the sale. Even so, the Judge of First Instance, who was convinced that “la venta propuesta redundaria en beneficio de los interesado en esta herencia,” denied the petition on the ground that Manuel Tan Cungco was a Chinese citizen. A petition dated November 17, 1941, was filed by the attorney for Manuel Tan Cungco, of which the attorney for the administrator was notified, praying that the latter be authorized to sell the properties to oneMagdaleno Bundalian alleged to be the assignee of the rights of Manuel Tab Cungco under the contract of February 10, 1941. The court resolved to postpone action on this petition “hasta nueva gestion dela parte interesada.” Nothing was done on the matter until November 3, 1943, when Marciana Escoto, whose husband Manuel Tan Cungco had in the meantime died, filed a motion praying that the administrator be ordered to sell the properties to the heirs of Manuel Tan Cungco who are all Filipino citizens, of which the administrator was duly notified. It is the resolution of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga granting said motion and ordering the administrator to execute the necessary deed of sale in favor of the intestate estate of Manuel Tan Cungco that gave rise to the present petition for certiorari instituted by BenitoM. Arcilla and the heirs of Amada Hilario. It is noteworthy that the sum of P6,750 was deposited in court on December 14, 1943, by the said Marciana Escoto, administratrix of the estate of her husband.

In annulling the orders complained of, the majority argue that the heirs ofthe deceased Amada Hilario had not been notified of the motion of Marciana Hilario, in violation of section 7 of Rule of Court No. 90. I would not say that this provision is unduly strict, and will limit myself to the statement that the equities of the respondents’ case far outweigh petitioners’ adherence to technicalities.

The heirs did not any notice, because they signed, through their guardian ad litem, the petition of August, 1941, filed by the administrator, prayingfor authority to sell lots to Manuel Tan Cungco, aside from the circumstances that they also signed, through their guardian ad litem, the contract of February 10, 1941, binding themselves to sell said lots, and that, at the hearing held on August 11, 1941, said heirs (again through their guardian ad litem) — two heirs, aged 16 and 18, appearing personally — gave their express consent to the sale. Of what use could any further notice be when the heirs bound themselves to sell, signed the petition to sell, and in open court agreed to sell? Moreover, the motion of Marciana Escoto may fairly be said to be merely a continuation or incident of the petition of the administrator and the heirs of August, 1941, since the order of November 24, 1941, warned the parties to await “nueva gestion de la parte interesada.” If what has been said is not enough, let it be recalled that notice was givenby said Marciana Escoto to the administrator, who is a conjugal owner of the properties and the father of the heirs of Amada Hilario, and that thesum of P500 had already been paid to said administrator and heirs under the contract of February 10, 1941.

And, lastly, when it is remembered that, during the argument of this case,the attorney for the respondents had signified his willingness to make another payment in present Philippine currency, notwithstanding the previous deposit made in the lower court in 1943, it will only be the bad faith onthe part of the herein petitioners that can induce them to refuse to sell and thereby disavow their formal and valid covenant of February 10, 1941.

I don’t think the majority would favor multiplicity of suit and indirectly want the responsents to bring another action for the enforcement of the contract for February 10, 1941.

My vote, therefore is to dismiss the petition and to require the respondents to pay P6,500, Philippine currency, before the petitioners can be compelled to execute the necessary deed of sale in favor of the intestate estate of Manuel Tan Cungco.