DEATH: NCC 42

ANGEL T. LIMJOCO, petitioner, vs. INTESTATE

ESTATE OF PEDRO O. FRAGRANTE, deceased,
respondent.

RATIO:

In Suiliong & Co. vs. Chio-Taysan, it ruled that it is the

estate or the mass of property, rights and assets left by
the decedent, that becomes vested and charged with
his rights and obligations which survive after his
demise

The estate of Fragante could be extended an artificial

judicial personality because under the Civil Code,

FACTS:

Pedro Fragante, a Filipino citizen at the time of his death,

applied for a certificate of public convenience to install and
maintain an ice plant in San Juan Rizal. His intestate estate is
financially capable of maintaining the proposed service.

the estate of Pedro O. Fragrante should be considered

an artificial or juridical person for the purposes of the
settlement and distribution of his estate which, of
course, include the exercise during the judicial
administration thereof of those rights and the
fulfillment of those obligations of his which survived
after his death.

The Public Service Commission issued a certificate of public

convenience to Intestate Estate of the deceased, authorizing
said Intestate Estate through its special or Judicial
Administrator, appointed by the proper court of competent
jurisdiction, to maintain and operate the said plant.
Petitioner claims that the granting of certificate applied to the
estate is a contravention of law.
ISSUE:
WON the estate of Fragante may be extended an artificial
judicial personality.
HELD: Yes, the estate of a deceased person may be considered
as having legal personality independent of their heirs.

One of those surviving rights involved the pending

application for public convenience before the Public
Service Commission.

The underlying reason for the legal fiction for which the estate
of the deceased person is considered a "person" is the
avoidance of injustice or prejudice resulting from the
impossibility of exercising such legal rights and fulfilling such
legal obligations of the decedent as survived after his death.

DEATH NCC 42: MARCOS v. MANGLAPUZ

Issue: Whether or not the motion for reconsideration that the

Marcoses be allowed to return in the Philippines be granted.

October 27, 1989

Facts: In its decision dated September 15, 1989, the Court by a

vote of eight to seven, dismissed the petition, after finding
that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion in determining that the return of former President
Marcos and his family pose a threat to national interest and
welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines.
On September 28, 1989, Marcos died in Honolulu, Hawaii.
President Corazon Aquino issued a statement saying that in
the interest of the safety of those who will take the death of
Marcos in widely and passionately conflicting ways, and for
the tranquility and order of the state and society, she did not
allow the remains of Marcos to be brought back in the
Philippines. A motion for Reconsideration was filed by the
petitioners raising the following arguments:
1. Barring their return would deny them their inherent
right as citizens to return to their country of birthand
all other rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all
Filipinos.
2. The President has no power to bar a Filipino from his
own country; if she has, she had exercised it arbitrarily.
3. There is no basis for barring the return of the family of
former President Marcos.

Held: No, The Marcoses were not allowed to return. Motion

for Reconsideration denied because of lack of merit.
The death of Mr. Marcos, although it may be viewed as a
supervening event, has not changed the factual scenario
under which the Court's decision was rendered.
1. The threats to the government, to which the return of
the Marcoses has been viewed to provide a catalytic
effect, have not been shown to have ceased.
2. President has unstated residual powers implied from
grant of executive power.
3. Executive unlike Congress can exercise power from
sources not enumerates so long as not forbidden by
constitutional text. This does not amount to
dictatorship.
4. It is within Aquinos power to protect & promote
interest & welfare of the people. She bound to comply
w/ that duty and there is no proof that she acted
arbitrarily