Novela J.N Civpro101

8/20/2019 Novela J.N Civpro101

1/13

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-32030 July 2, 1930

SOFIA LAVARRO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.

REGINA LABITORIA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

M. H. de Joya and Enrique Tiangco for plaintiffs-appellants.

Mariano Escueta for defendants-appellants.

OSTRAN, J.:

Anastacio Labitoria, who died over thirt ears a!o, was the ori!inal owner of a tract of land divided

into three parcels and situated in the barrio of Man!ila!, "unicipalit of Candelaria, Province of

#aabas. $e left four children, %rancisco, Liberata, #irso, and Eustacio Labitoria. %rancisco ac&uired

the shares of #irso and Eustacio to!ether with the !reater part of that of Liberata, and thus beca"e

the owner of nearl all of the land. After his death, his children, Macario and Re!ina Labitoria,

beca"e the owners of his interest in the land.

'ofia Lavarro is the dau!hter of Liberata Labitoria, and in or about the ear ()*+, her first husband,

Crispulo Alcantara, borrowed P fro" %rancisco Labitoria on the condition that Alcantara should

plant , coconut pal"s on the land to be divided in e&ual shares between the parties, the loan to

be paid bac b turnin! over to the creditor coconut pal"s out of the share of Alcantara and'ofia. /nder this a!ree"ent, about (,+ pal"s were planted b Alcantara, but later on, further

plantin!s were "ade b his wife, 'ofia Lavarro.

0n 1ul, (*(2, the land was re!istered in the na"es of Macario Labitoria, Re!ina Labitoria, Bernardo

Labitoria, 3idal Labitoria, Ariston Lavarro, 'ofia Lavarro, and 0sidro Lavaris. Nothin! see"s to have

been said about the i"prove"ents on the land and no special "ention of the" appears in the

certificate of title. Neither were the respective shares of the persons to who" the land was

ad4udicated definitel deter"ined.

5n 5ctober (, (*(2, Macario, Re!ina, and Bernardo Labitoria and Ariston Lavarro brou!ht an

action a!ainst 'ofia Lavarro and her then husband, E"eterio Pure6a, for the partition of the landwith its i"prove"ents. #he action is civil case No. 7( of the Court of %irst 0nstance of #aabas. 0n

her answer in that case, 'ofia Lavarro set up a cross-co"plaint alle!in!, a"on! other thin!s, that

she was a coowner of the land and was entitled to a lar!e proportion of the coconut pal"s thereon.

#he praer of the cross-co"plaint reads as follows8

9herefore, b this cross-co"plaint 'ofia Lavarro and E"eterio Pure6a, throu!h their

undersi!ned attorne, pra the court to decree the partition of the three parcels of land


2/13

described above, with all the improvements thereon, allotting to Sofia avarro and Emeterio

!ure"a their rightful portion, and orderin! Macario Labitoria to render the proper accounts,

and to deliver to his coheirs their proportionate part of the fruits and products of said lands,

with costs a!ainst the cross-co"plaint defendants. :E"phasis supplied.;

/pon trial partition was ordered, and 'ofia Lavarro was awarded 7


3/13

sa"e. #he issues in both cases arose fro" the sa"e source or transactions and should have been

deter"ined in the sa"e case :sec. *+, Code of Civil Procedure;. A 4ud!"ent upon the "erits bars a

subse&uent suit upon the sa"e cause, thou!h brou!ht in a different for" of action. :9hite vs. Martin,

( Port. Ala.,


4/13

errer!* /0 h(.* 0234.

5. ID.; ID.; ID. — The &!#t th!t the pettoner h!s "rought !n !#ton &or the re#o%er' o& possesson !g!nstthe respondent 6. de 7. !nd others !nd th!t he h!s n hs possesson ! do#u$ent o& the n!ture o& Anne8 A91

o& E8h"t A* )h#h )!s #!tegor#!((' dened "' the respondent* #h!r!#ter+ng t !s spurous* s nsu&&#ent tosho) th!t hs nterest to nter%ene n #%( #!se No. :33 s (eg!(* #(e!r !nd post%e.

/. ID.; ID.; ID. — Inter%enton $!' "e per$tted on(' n #!ses )here the nter%enng p!rt' desres to jonthe p(!nt&& n #(!$ng )h!t s sought "' the #(!$!nt* or to unte )th the de&end!nt n resstng the #(!$so& the p(!nt&&* or to de$!nd !n'thng !d%erse to "oth the p(!nt&& !nd de&end!nt* !nd n the #!se under

#onsder!ton the pettoner joned nether o& s!d p!rtes. 6urther$ore* su#h step $!' "e t!B4.

D E I S I O N

DIA8, J.

The pettoner* "!sng hs opnon upon )h!t he dee$s !n !"use o& ds#reton on the p!rt o& the respondent

judge* )h#h !"use* !##ordng to h$* #onssts n h!%ng dened hs $oton &(ed n #%( #!se No. :33 &orp!rtton o& propert'* entt(ed untn de 7orj!* !s !d$nstr!tor o& the Intest!te est!te o& ?!r#e(o de7orj!* Plaintiff * %. 6r!n#s#o de 7orj! Et. A(.* Defendants* see/2* untn de 7orj!* !s !d$nstr!tor o& the Intest!te est!te o& ?!r#e(o de 7orj!* nsttuted #%( #!seNo. :33* &or the p!rtton o& the propert' o& )h#h s!d de#e!sed* 6r!n#s#o de 7orj! !nd 7ern!rdo de 7orj!

)ere und%ded o)ners. On O#to"er 5>* 1>/1* the #ourt )h#h tred the #!se de#ded t* !djud#!tng one9thrd o& the propert' under p!rtton to the respondent 6r!n#s#o de 7orj!. o)e%er* n %e) o& the &!#t th!tthe order o& p!rtton &!(ed to spe#&' the !re!s !nd "ound!res o& the portons !nd "ound!res o& theportons !((otted to e!#h o& the three #o9o)ners* the #ourt ordered the sur%e' thereo& "' so$e sur%e'ors

#o$$ssoned &or th!t purpose. To ths d!te* or !t (e!st unt( August 1>* 1>/* )hen the pettoner nsttuted#%( #!se no. 3>B n the Court o& 6rst Inst!n#e o& R+!(* entt(ed Jose de 7orj!* Plaintiff * %. er$ogen!

Ro$ero* 6r!n#s#o de 7orj!* Jose&! T!ng#o* !nd Crs!nto de 7orj!* Defendants* &or the re#o%er' o& theportons o& the !#end! de J!(!j!(!* )h#h* !##ordng to h$* h!d "een so(d to h$ "' the respondent

6r!n#s#o de 7orj!* the sur%e'* )h#h shou(d h!%e "een $!de "' the #o$$ssoners* !s ordered "' the#ourt* h!s not "een #!rred out due to (!st $nute d&&eren#es !rsng !$ong the p!rtes. The pettoner h!d

"een !ppe!rng !s !ttorne' &or 6r!n#s#o de 7orj! n #o((!"or!ton )th Attorne's Su$u(ong !nd L!%des* n!(( n#dents o& the t)o #!ses !"o%e9st!ted ,regstr!ton #!se No. 35B* #o$$en#ed (ong "e&ore the $onth o&?!'* 1>5B; !nd #%( #!se No. :33* "rought* n turn* n 1>/24. On no o##!son durng the tr!( o& s!d t)o#!ses* or durng the perod &ro$ ?!'* 1>5B* to !ugust* 1>/* dd the pettoner sho) sgns o& h!%ng rghts

!nd nterest #ontr!r' to those o& hs &!ther* the respondent 6r!n#s#o de 7orj!. On the #ontr!r'* he $!de tunderstood !nd $!nt!ned th!t the ,6r!n#s#o de 7orj!4 )!s the o)ner o& one9thrd o& the !#end! deJ!(!j!(!. C%( #!se No. 3>B* "rought "' the pettoner &or the re#o%er'* !s !(re!d' st!ted* o& the portons o&the !#end! de J!(!j!(! )h#h he #(!$s to h!%e "een so(d to h$ "' the respondent 6r!n#s#o de 7orj!* s

st(( pendng de#son to d!te. It !ppe!rs &ro$ the #o$p(!nt* )h#h g!%e rse to the #!se* th!t the !((egedrght o& the pettoner s "!sed on(' upon the do#u$ent !tt!#hed thereto* "eng no other th!n Anne8 A91 o&


5/13

E8h"t A* )h#h s ! deed o& s!(e purportng to h!%e "een sgned "' 6r!n#s#o de 7orj! !nd the pettoner*t)o o& the p!r!gr!phs o& )h#h re!ds !s &o((o)s jg##h!nro"(es.#o$.ph

Th!t on ths d!te* )e* $' son Jose de 7orj! !nd I* h!%e $!de ! (-ud!ton o& !(( hs ds"urse$ents &or the

e8pense o& the !#end! de J!(!j!(!* )h#h s under $' !d$nstr!ton. As ! resu(t o& s!d (-ud!ton* Ire$!n nde"ted n the su$ o& Ten Thous!nd Nne undred T)ent'9Three esos !nd Se%ent' Cent!%os,12*5>/.024. In !ddton to ths su$* I h!%e !(re!d' re#e%ed &ro$ $' s!d son other su$s !$ountng to

T)ent'9Nne Thous!nd 6%e undred esos ,5>*3224. Addng !(( these su$s $' nde"tedness !$ounts to6ort' Thous!nd 6our undred T)ent'9Three esos !nd Se%ent' Cent!%os ,:2*:5/.024* )h#h !$ount I!#


6/13

dou"t&u(.

@here&ore* the re$ed' !pp(ed &or s dened )th #osts to the pettoner. So ordered

!l V"l #. !l V"l

29 P$%l &3&

F"'()*

> Petitioners and private respondents are brothers and Sisters and are the only heirs and next of kin of

Gregorio del Val who died intestate.

> It was found out that the deceased took out insurance on his life for the sum of 40T and made it

payable to private respondents as sole beneficiary.

> After Gregorio’s death, Andres collected the proceeds of the policy.

> Of the said policy, Andres paid 18T to redeem some real property which Gregorio had sold to third

persons during his lifetime.

> Said redemption of the property was made by Andres’ laywer in the name of Andres and the

petitioners. (Accdg to Andres, said redemption in the name of Petitioners and himself was without his

knowledge and that since the redemption, petitioners have been in possession of the property)

> Petitioners now contend that the amount of the insurance policy belonged to the estate of the deceased

and not to Andres personally.

> Pet filed a complaint for partition of property including the insurance proceeds

> Andress claims that he is the sole owner of the proceeds and prayed that he be declared:

> Sole owner of the real property, redeemed with the use of the insurance proceeds and its remainder;

> Petitioners to account for the use and occupation of the premises.

I))u!*

Whether or not the petitioners have a right to the insurance proceeds?

+!l*

NOPE.

The contract of lifeinsurance is a special contract and the destination of the proceeds thereof is

determined by special laws which deal exclusively with the subject. Our civil code has no provisions

which relate directly and specifically to life-insurance contracts of to the destination of life-insurance

proceeds that subject is regulated exclusively by the Code of Commerce. Thus, contention of petitioners

that proceeds should be considered as a dontation or gift and should be included in the estate of the

deceased is UNTENABLE.

http://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/mercantile-law/insurance.htmlhttp://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/mercantile-law/insurance.htmlhttp://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/mercantile-law/insurance.html


7/13

Since the repurchase has been made n the names of all the heirs instead of the defendant alone,

petitioners claim that the property belongs to the heirs in common and not to the defendant alone. The

SC held that if it is established by evidence that that was his intention and that the real estate was

delivered to the plaintiffs with that understanding, then it is probable that their contention is correct and

that they are entitled to share equally with the defendant. HOWEVER, it appears from the evidence that

the conveyances were taken in the name of the plaintiffs without the knowledge and consent of Andres, or

that it was not his intention to make a gift to them of real estate, when it belongs to him.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

DECISION

February 1! 1"1#

$%R% No% &'"()*

FRANCISCO DEL VAL, ET AL.! plaintiffs'appellants!+s%

ANDRES DEL VAL! ,efen,ant'appellee%

Ledesma, Lim and Irureta Goyena for appellants. O'Brien and DeWitt

for appellee.

MORELAND, J.:

-his is an appeal fro. a /u,0.ent of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila

,is.issin0 the co.plaint ith costs%

-he plea,in0s set forth that the plaintiffs an, ,efen,ant are brother an, sisters2 that

they are the only heirs at la an, ne3t of 4in of $re0orio Nacianceno ,el 5al! ho

,ie, in Manila on Au0ust *! 1"16! intestate2 that an a,.inistrator as appointe, for


8/13

the estate of the ,ecease,! an,! after a partial a,.inistration! it as close, an, the

a,.inistrator ,ischar0e, by or,er of the Court of First Instance ,ate, Dece.ber "!

1"112 that ,urin0 the lifeti.e of the ,ecease, he too4 out insurance on his life for the

su. of P*6!666 an, .a,e it payable to the ,efen,ant as sole beneficiary2 that after his

,eath the ,efen,ant collecte, the face of the policy2 that of sai, policy he pai, the su.

of P17!(#%86 to re,ee. certain real estate hich the ,ece,ent ha, sol, to thir,

persons ith a ri0ht to repurchase2 that the re,e.ption of sai, pre.ises as .a,e by

the attorney of the ,efen,ant in the na.e of the plaintiff an, the ,efen,ant as heirs of

the ,ecease, +en,or2 that the re,e.ption of sai, pre.ises they ha+e ha, the use an,

benefit thereof2 that ,urin0 that ti.e the plaintiffs pai, no ta3es an, .a,e no repairs%

It further appears fro. the plea,in0s that the ,efen,ant! on the ,eath of the ,ecease,!

too4 possession of .ost of his personal property! hich he still has in his possession!

an, that he has also the balance on sai, insurance policy a.ountin0 to P81!(*%76%

Plaintiffs conten, that the a.ount of the insurance policy belon0e, to the estate of the

,ecease, an, not to the ,efen,ant personally2 that! therefore! they are entitle, to a

partition not only of the real an, personal property! but also of the P*6!666 life

insurance% -he co.plaint prays a partition of all the property! both real an, personal!

left by the ,ecease,2 that the ,efen,ant account for P81!(*%76! an, that that su. be

,i+i,e, e9ually a.on0 the plaintiffs an, ,efen,ant alon0 ith the other property of

,ecease,%

-he ,efen,ant ,enies the .aterial alle0ations of the co.plaint an, sets up as special

,efense an, counterclai. that the re,e.ption of the real estate sol, by his father as

.a,e in the na.e of the plaintiffs an, hi.self instea, of in his na.e alone ithout his

4nole,0e or consent2 an, that it as not his intention to use the procee,s of the

insurance policy for the benefit of any person but hi.self! he alle0in0 that he as an,

is the sole oner thereof an, that it is his in,i+i,ual property% :e! therefore! as4s that

he be ,eclare, the oner of the real estate re,ee.e, by the pay.ent of the

P17!(#%86! the oner of the re.ainin0 P81!(*%76! the balance of the insurance

policy! an, that the plaintiff;s account for the use an, occupation of the pre.ises so

re,ee.e, since the ,ate of the re,e.ption%


9/13

-he learne, trial court refuse, to 0i+e relief to either party an, ,is.isse, the action%

It says in its opinion< =-his purports to be an action for partition! brou0ht a0ainst an

heir by his coheirs% -he co.plaint! hoe+er! fails to co.ply ith Co,e Ci+%! Pro% sec%

17(! in that it ,oes not ;contain an a,e9uate ,escription of the real property of hich

partition is ,e.an,e,%; Because of this ,efect >hich has not been calle, to our

attention an, as ,isco+ere, only after the cause as sub.itte,? it is .ore than

,oubtful hether any relief can be aar,e, un,er the co.plaint! e3cept by a0ree.ent

of all the parties%=

-his alle0e, ,efect of the co.plaint as .a,e one of the to bases for the ,is.issal

of the action%

@e ,o not re0ar, this as sufficient reason for ,is.issin0 the action% It is the ,octrine

of this court! set ,on in se+eral ,ecisions! &iarra0a Hermanos vs. Yap Tico! 8*

Phil% Rep%! #6*! that! e+en thou0h the co.plaint is ,efecti+e to the e3tent of failin0 in

alle0ations necessary to constitute a cause of action! if! on the trial of the cause!

e+i,ence is offere, hich establishes the cause of action hich the co.plaint

inten,e, to alle0e! an, such e+i,ence is recei+e, ithout ob/ection! the ,efect is

thereby cure, an, cannot be .a,e the 0roun, of a subse9uent ob/ection% If! therefore!

e+i,ence as intro,uce, on the trial in this case ,efinitely an, clearly ,escribin0 thereal estate sou0ht to be partitione,! the ,efect in the co.plaint as cure, in that

re0ar, an, shoul, not ha+e been use, to ,is.iss the action% @e ,o not stop to in9uire

hether such e+i,ence as or as not intro,uce, on the trial! inas.uch as this case

.ust be turne, for a ne trial ith opportunity to both parties to present such

e+i,ence as is necessary to establish their respecti+e clai.s%

-he court in its ,ecision further says< =It ill be notice, that the pro+ision abo+e

9uote, refers e3clusi+ely to real estate% % % % It is! in other or,s! an e3clusi+e real property action! an, the institution thereof 0i+es the court no /uris,iction o+er chattels%

% % % But no relief coul, possibly be 0rante, in this action as to any property e3cept the

last >real estate?! for the la conte.plate, that all the personal property of an estate be

,istribute, before the a,.inistration is close,% In,ee,! it is only in e3ceptional cases

that the partition of the real estate is pro+i,e, for! an, this too is e+i,ently inten,e, to


10/13

be effecte, as a part of the a,.inistration! but here the co.plaint alle0es that the

estate as finally close, on Dece.ber "! 1"11! an, e fin, upon referrin0 to the

recor, in that case that subse9uent .otion to reopen the sa.e ere ,enie,2 so that the

.atter of the personal property at least .ust be consi,ere,res udicata >for the final

/u,0.ent in the a,.inistration procee,in0s .ust be treate, as conclu,in0 not .erely

hat as a,/u,icate,! but hat .i0ht ha+e been?% So far! therefore! as the personal

property at least is concerne,! plaintiffs; only re.e,y as an appeal fro. sai, or,er%=

@e ,o not belie+e that the la is correctly lai, ,on in this 9uotation% -he courts of

the Islan,s ha+e /uris,iction to ,i+i,e personal property beteen the co..on oners

thereof an, that poer is as full an, co.plete as is the poer to partition real

property% If an actual partition of personal property cannot be .a,e it ill be sol,

un,er the ,irection of the court an, the procee,s ,i+i,e, a.on0 the oners after the

necessary e3penses ha+e been ,e,ucte,%

-he a,.inistration of the estate of the ,ece,ent consiste, si.ply! so far as the recor,

shos! in the pay.ent of the ,ebts% No ,i+ision of the property! either real or

personal! see.s to ha+e been .a,e% On the contrary! the property appears! fro. the

recor,! to ha+e been turne, o+er to the heirs in bul4% -he failure to partition the real

property .ay ha+e been ,ue either to the lac4 of re9uest to the court by one or .ore

of the heirs to ,o so! as the court has no authority to .a4e a partition of the real estate

ithout such re9uest2 or it .ay ha+e been ,ue to the fact that all the real property of

,ece,ent ha, been sol, un,er pacto de retro an, that! therefore! he as not the

oner of any real estate at the ti.e of his ,eath% As to the personal property! it ,oes

not appear that it as ,ispose, of in the .anner pro+i,e, by la% >Sec% )#(! Code of

Civil Procedure%? So far as this action is concerne,! hoe+er! it is sufficient for us

to 4no that none of the property as actually ,i+i,e, a.on0 the heirs in the

a,.inistration procee,in0 an, that they re.ain cooners an, tenants'in' co..on

thereof at the present ti.e% -o .aintain an action to partition real or personal property

it is necessary to sho only that it is one, in co..on%

-he or,er finally closin0 the a,.inistration an, ,ischar0in0 the a,.inistrator!

referre, to in the opinion of the trial court! has nothin0 to ,o ith the ,i+ision of

either the real or the personal property% -he heirs ha+e the ri0ht to as4 the probate

http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act190.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act190.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act190.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act190.html


11/13

court to turn o+er to the. both the real an, personal property ithout ,i+ision2 an,

here that re9uest is unani.ous it is the ,uty of the court to co.ply ith it! an, there

is nothin0 in section )#( of the Code of Civil Procedure hich prohibits it% In

such case an or,er finally settlin0 the estate an, ,ischar0in0 the a,.inistrator oul,

not bar a subse9uent action to re9uire a ,i+ision of either the real or personal property%

If! on the other han,! an or,er ha, been .a,e in the a,.inistration procee,in0s

,i+i,in0 the personal or the real property! or both! a.on0 the heirs! then it is 9uite

possible that! to a subse9uent action brou0ht by one of the heirs for a partition of the

real or personal property! or both! there coul, ha+e been interpose, a plea of res

/u,icata base, on such or,er% As the .atter no stan,s! hoe+er! there is no 0roun,

on hich to base such a plea% Moreo+er! no such plea has been .a,e an, no e+i,ence

offere, to support it%

@ith the fin,in0 of the trial court that the procee,s of the life'insurance policy belon0

e3clusi+ely to the ,efen,ant as his in,i+i,ual an, separate property! e a0ree% -hat

the procee,s of an insurance policy belon0 e3clusi+ely to the beneficiary an, not to

the estate of the person hose life as insure,! an, that such procee,s are the separate

an, in,i+i,ual property of the beneficiary! an, not of the heirs of the person hose

life as insure,! is the ,octrine in A.erica% @e belie+e that the sa.e ,octrine obtains

in these Islan,s by +irtue of section *87 of the Co,e of Co..erce! hich rea,s<

-he a.ount hich the un,erriter .ust ,eli+er to the person insure,! in fulfill.ent of

the contract! shall be the property of the latter! e+en a0ainst the clai.s of the

le0iti.ate heirs or cre,itors of any 4in, hatsoe+er of the person ho effecte, the

insurance in fa+or of the for.er%

It is clai.e, by the attorney for the plaintiffs that the section /ust 9uote, is

subor,inate to the pro+isions of the Ci+il Co,e as foun, in article 16(#% -his article

rea,s<

An heir by force of la sur+i+in0 ith others of the sa.e character to a succession

.ust brin0 into the here,itary estate the property or securities he .ay ha+e recei+e,

fro. the ,ecease, ,urin0 the life of the sa.e! by ay of ,ory! 0ift! or for any 0oo,

http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act190.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/act190.html


12/13

consi,eration! in or,er to co.pute it in fi3in0 the le0al portions an, in the account of

the ,i+ision%

Counsel also clai. that the procee,s of the insurance policy ere a ,onation or 0ift

.a,e by the father ,urin0 his lifeti.e to the ,efen,ant an, that! as such! its ulti.ate

,estination is ,eter.ine, by those pro+isions of the Ci+il Co,e hich relate to

,onations! especially article 71"% -his article pro+i,es that =0ifts .a,e to chil,ren

hich are not better.ents shall be consi,ere, as part of their le0al portion%=

@e cannot a0ree ith these contentions% -he contract of life insurance is a special

contract an, the ,estination of the procee,s thereof is ,eter.ine, by special las

hich ,eal e3clusi+ely ith that sub/ect% -he Ci+il Co,e has no pro+isions hich

relate ,irectly an, specifically to life' insurance contracts or to the ,estination of life

insurance procee,s% -hat sub/ect is re0ulate, e3clusi+ely by the Co,e of Co..erce

hich pro+i,es for the ter.s of the contract! the relations of the parties an, the

,estination of the procee,s of the policy%

-he procee,s of the life'insurance policy bein0 the e3clusi+e property of the

,efen,ant an, he ha+in0 use, a portion thereof in the repurchase of the real estate sol,

by the ,ece,ent prior to his ,eath ith ri0ht to repurchase! an, such repurchase

ha+in0 been .a,e an, the con+eyance ta4en in the na.es of all of the heirs instea, ofthe ,efen,ant alone! plaintiffs clai. that the property belon0s to the heirs in co..on

an, not to the ,efen,ant alone%

@e are not incline, to a0ree ith this contention unless the fact appear or be shon

that the ,efen,ant acte, as he ,i, ith the intention that the other heirs shoul, en/oy

ith hi. the onership of the estate ' in other or,s! that he propose,! in effect! to

.a4e a 0ift of the real estate to the other heirs% If it is establishe, by the e+i,ence that

that as his intention an, that the real estate as ,eli+ere, to the plaintiffs ith thatun,erstan,in0! then it is probable that their contention is correct an, that they are

entitle, to share e9ually ith the ,efen,ant therein% If! hoe+er! it appears fro. the

e+i,ence in the case that the con+eyances ere ta4en in the na.e of the plaintiffs

ithout his 4nole,0e or consent! or that it as not his intention to .a4e a 0ift to

the. of the real estate! then it belon0s to hi.% If that facts are as state,! he has to


13/13

re.e,ies% -he one is to co.pel the plaintiffs to recon+ey to hi. an, the other is to let

the title stan, ith the. an, to reco+er fro. the. the su. he pai, on their behalf%

For the co.plete an, proper ,eter.ination of the 9uestions at issue in this case! e

are of the opinion that the cause shoul, be returne, to the trial court ith instructions

to per.it the parties to fra.e such issues as ill per.it the settle.ent of all the

9uestions in+ol+e, an, to intro,uce such e+i,ence as .ay be necessary for the full

,eter.ination of the issues fra.e,% pon such issues an, e+i,ence ta4en thereun,er

the court ill ,eci,e the 9uestions in+ol+e, accor,in0 to the e+i,ence! subor,inatin0

his conclusions of la to the rules lai, ,on in this opinion%

@e ,o not ish to be un,erstoo, as ha+in0 ,eci,e, in this opinion any 9uestion of

fact hich ill arise on the trial an, be there in contro+ersy% -he trial court is left free

to fin, the facts as the e+i,ence re9uires% -o the facts as so foun, he ill apply the la

as herein lai, ,on%

-he /u,0.ent appeale, fro. is set asi,e an, the cause returne, to the Court of First

Instance hence it ca.e for the purpose hereinabo+e state,% So or,ere,%

!rellano, ".#., and "arson, #., concur. Torres, #., concurs in t$e result.

Novela J.N Civpro101

Documents

Transcript of Novela J.N Civpro101