SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – CASE RULINGS (Week 8) was no law which changed his responsibility be reason of the deposit.

Jann Claudine M. Amago 3 – A
RULE 98 – TRUSTEES
1. Tiangco vs. Francisco
Petrona Francisco provided in her will that one-half of the income
from her fishpond will be used for “flores de Mayo” and other religious
activities in rizal. In line with this, Casimiro Tiangco was appointed as
trustee and Maria Tiangco was appointed as co-trustee.Submission of
reports to the court was irregular. Proceso Francisco filed an opposition
to the 1935 rendering of accounts. In 1938, the court issued an order
requiring the resignation of the Tiangcos
While it may be true that one who is under obligation to do or give a thing
is in duty bound, when he sees events approaching the results of which
will be dangerous to his trust, to take all reasonable means and measures
to escape or, if unavoidable, to temper the effects of those events, we do
not feel constrained to hold that, in choosing between two means equally
legal, he is culpably negligent in selecting one whereas he would not have
been if he had selected the other. The deposit was forcibly taken by the
military forces of one of the combatants during a state of war, it is clear
that under the provisions of the Civil Code he would be exempt from
responsibility.

Issue: Whether the court could remove the Tiangcos as trustees

Ruling: YES.
The Tiangcos did not have a right to the trusteeship as they
were not designated in the will to be the trustees. The power of the court
to appoint the trustee is discretionary. Upon proper showing in the
interests of justice would be served with the removal of the incumbent
trustees, it is within the power of the court to do so.

2. Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro v. de la Pena

This is an appeal by the administrator of the estate of Father De
la Peña (defendant) from a judgment of the CFI, awarding to the Roman
Catholic Bishop of Jaro (plaintiff) the sum of P6,641, with interest. Fr. De
la Peña was the representative of plaintiff over the legacy which it held in
trust for the construction of a leper hospital. In 1898, the books Fr. De la
Peña, as trustee, had on hand the sum of P6,641 collected by him for the
charitable purposes aforesaid. Subsequently, he deposited in his personal
account P19,000 in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank (Bank) at Iloilo.
During the war of the revolution, Fr. De la Peña was arrested by the
military authorities as a political prisoner because they claimed that he
was an insurgent and the funds deposited had been collected by him for
revolutionary purposes. A confiscation order was issued to the Bank for
the deposit of Fr. De la Peña in favor of the United States Army officer and
turned over to the Government.

Issues: Whether the trust funds was included in the P19,000 deposited in
the account of Fr. De la Peña in the bank; Whether the estate of Fr. De la
Peña is liable for the loss of the trust fund

Ruling: YES;NO.
Yes. A careful examination of the case leads us to the
conclusion that said trust funds were a part of the funds deposited and
which were removed and confiscated by the military authorities of the
United States.
No. Fr. De la Peña's liability is determined the Civil Code which
states that "a person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve
it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family" (art. 1094), it
also provides that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be
foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the
exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which
the obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.) The fact that he placed the trust
fund in the bank in his personal account does not add to his responsibility.
Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all hazards.
There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and there
1