Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

Republic of the Philippines



GR No. L-225 February 26, 1946


COMPANY, appealed.

D. Mariano A. Aguilar in representation of the appellant.

The appealed Judge Dizon in his own representation.
Mr. Agustin M. Tolentino in representation of the other respondents.


In the special action No. 70686, entitled Intestate of the Finada Pilar Leyba and Cobarrubias,
initiated on July 5, 1945, the petitioner Magdalena Cobarrubias filed an urgent motion on the same
date, alleging that the funeral Pilar Leyba had deposited sys alhajas Are worth P4,500 in security
section of the Bank of the Philippine Islands; That said bank notified all interested parties that they
withdraw the contents of their section within the shortest possible time, so she asked to be appointed
special administrator and that she was authorized to withdraw said jewelry from the bank. In her
application Magdalena Cobarrubias stated that she was the only forced heiress of the late Pilar
Leyba. Accepting as good these allegations, the Honorable Judge Dizon on the same date, July 5,
1945, appointed Magdalena Cobarrubias special administrator on bail of P200.

On July 6, 1945, I authorize the special administrator to remove from the security section of the bank
the jewels deposited with instructions to report to the Court within forty-eight hours of the result of
their management.

On July 13, the petitioner asked the court to order "the suspension of the publication and
postponement of the hearing of the application, scheduled for July 28, 1945, until further notice,"
because she "wishes to have time for Arrange with his joint heirs an extrajudicial partition. "

On July 17, 1945, when the judge heard the true facts that were contrary to the allegations made by
the petitioner in his request and on his urgent motion, he issued an order revoking that of July 5,
1945, naming Magdalena Cobarrubias as special administrator , And that of July 6, 1945, authorizing
her to remove the jewelry from the bank.

On July 19, the petitioner filed a brief alleging that since the Court "has rescinded its order dated 5 of
said month and year," requested that the Court order the cancellation of the bond of P200 and its
return to the lawyer of The applicant.

On July 20, the petitioner filed an amended - and duly sworn - petition, in which she claimed that "the
only heirs of the late Pilar Leyba and Cobarrubias are her daughters, Rosario and Carmencita," and
to "declare that she renounces these Two minors Rosario and Carmen, any right, interest and
participation that has or could have in the property left by the late Pilar Leyba. "
At the hearing held on July 28, 1945, the solicitor of the petitioner requested that this file of
intestation No. 70686 be converted into the custody file of the minors Rosario and Carmen, adding

This petition is based on the fact that the said minors Rosario and Carmen are the absolute
owners of all the properties described in the request of this file. . . And I ask that he be
appointed guardian of such minors. . . (Tnt, page 3).

In accordance with the evidence presented in the aforementioned hearing, with the applicant's
statement in its amended motion and at the request of the applicant's attorney, Judge Dizon issued
his order of August 28, 1945, stating that all property Mentioned in the application of July 5, 1945 as
amended, belong to the minors Rosario and Carmen, nine and six years old; That the parcel of land
with a house of strong materials has already been transferred in the name of such minors; That the
furniture corresponding to items 2, 3 and 7 have already been sold by the deceased; That there is no
other property to be administered in the name of the deceased; And in order to protect the interests
of those minors, I order, in accordance with the request of the lawyer of the applicant, that the file of
abintestado becomes a file of guardianship.

On August 29, the petitioner requested reconsideration of said order, and after several transfers
requested by the parties, Judge Ocampo on January 2, 1946, the denied.

He went before Magdalena Cobarrubias Court with a request for certiorari against Judges Dizon and
Ocampo and the Philippine Trust Company, requesting the annulment of the orders of July 17, 1945,
August 28, 1945 and January 2, 1946.

As to the order of July 17, revoking the appointment of the appellant as special administrator and
revoking the order authorizing her to withdraw the deposited jewels, the Court does not abuse its
discretion, nor work outside its jurisdiction. The power of the Court of First Instance to render
ineffective the appointment of an administrator, when the appointment has been obtained through
false or incorrect representations, is indisputable. When the Court appointed the appellant special
administrator with authorization to withdraw from the bank jewels valued at P4,500 under a P200
bond, it took into account its essential claim that "it was the sole forced heiress of the
deceased." There was no danger of possible embezzlement; They could even name it without
bail. But upon receiving a report that this allegation was inaccurate. Which was confirmed by the
motion of the same petitioner who requested the "suspension of publication and postponement of
the hearing" because he wished to "have time to arrange an extrajudicial partition with his co-heirs,"
the court had ample grounds to revoke those orders even Without notification to the administrator:
the intestate is not initiated for the benefit of the administrators but of the heirs. The court should act
immediately and not put in danger. With his indifference, the jewels. If he allowed a few hours to
pass, without taking drastic action, the jewels valued at P4,500 could be withdrawn by the special
administrator who was only secured in P200 to the detriment of the interests of the minors. The zeal
shown by the court was well founded. The position of special administrator is one of trust. As soon
as it lost its confidence in the integrity of the applicant, the Court was fully justified in revoking its
appointment as special administrator and withdrawing its authorization to remove the jewels from the

When the Court declared in its order of August 28, 1945, that all the properties mentioned in the
application of July 5, 1945 as amended, belong to the minors Rosario and Carmen, took into
account all statements made by the appellant under Oath in her motion of July 20, 1945 and
approved "the renunciation in favor of them by Magdalena Cobarrubias of all her right, interest and
participation she has and could have in the property left by the late Pilar Leyba"; And any attempt to
withdraw said resignation after being approved by the Court is unfounded. The judicial action is not
Penelope's cloth that is woven and detached, at the pleasure of one of the parties. The judicial
declaration of heirs requested by the appellant in its supplementary report no longer has reason to
be. If the petitioner "has already waived in favor of the minors Rosario and Carmen all their right,
interest and participation they have and may have in the property left by the late Pilar Leyba," and
that resignation has been approved by the Court in its order August 28, 1945, what interest or
participation does it still have? Absolutely nothing. It is useless, therefore, any discussion about who
are the heirs of the late Leyba. The appellant's statements that she "was the only forced heiress"
(original application); That "he wanted to arrange consus co-heirs an extra-judicial partition" (Motion
of July 13, 1945); "That the only heirs of the late Pilar Leyba are his daughters called Rosario and
Carmencita" and "that he waives in favor of these minor pains any right, interest and participation he
has or could have in the property left by the late Pilar Leyba" ( Motion of July 20, 1945), put him in an
unsustainable situation.

The action against the appellant is dismissed.

Moran, Pres., Ozaeta, Paras, Jaranilla, Feria, De Joya, Perfecto, Yarn, Bengzon, and Briones,
MM., Are satisfied.