February
26, 1937
Ponente: Laurel, J.
FACTS:
·
Manuel Soriano was assigned by the CFI of
Laguna as the administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Baldomero
Cosme. To assure faithful performance of his duties as an administrator, he
filed a bond for P5,000, with Januario Pacheco and Raymundo Cordero as
sureties.
·
Upon approval of Soriano's account, it was
revealed that he was indebted to the estate in the sum of P23,603.21. Because
of this, he was replaced by Rosario Cosme as the new administratix of the
estate. Unable to turn over his debt to the estate upon demand of Cosme,the CFI
ordered the execution of his bond after notice was duly served upon the
sureties.
·
Sometime later, the court approved a
settlement between Cosme and Soriano, whereby the latter ceded certain real
properties to the estate reducing on that account his indebtedness to the
estate from P23,603.21 to P5,000. Anent this P5,000 balance, Soriano did not
oppose the order of execution of the bond signed by sureties Pacheco and
Cordero.
·
Separate motions to be discharged from the
bond were filed by sureties Pacheco and Cordero before the CFI and the SC, all
of which were dismissed.
·
When the case was remanded to the CFI, Pacheco
and Cordero filed a motion challenging, for the first time, the jurisdiction of
the CFI to issue the order executing the bond. The CFI denied the motion in
view of the prior decision of the SC. The case was elevated to the SC for the
second time on appeal.
RULING:
Whether
the CFI exercising probate jurisdiction is empowered to require the filing of
the administrator's bond, to fix the amount thereof, and to hold it accountable
for any breach of the administrator's duty. – YES.
·
SURETIES: There is nothing in the statute
books, especially in the Code of Civil Procedure regarding probate
jurisdiction, that would indicate that the CFI, acting as a probate court, has
the power to order the execution of an administrator's bond.
·
SC: The CFI exercising probate
jurisdiction is empowered to require the filing of the administrator's bond, to
fix the amount thereof, and to hold it accountable for any breach of the
administrator's duty. Possessed, as it is, with an all-embracing power over the
administrator's bond and over administration proceedings, a CFI in a probate
proceeding cannot be devoid of legal authority to execute and make that bond
answerable for the very purpose for which it was filed.
·
While it is true that the law does not
expressly provide that such a court has
the power to execute the bond of an administrator, such a power is vested in
the said court by necessary and logical implication.
·
In fact, the tendency in the United States has
been towards the enlargement of the powers of probate courts.
·
In the absence of express and specific
restrictions to the contrary, it is sound to uphold the exercise by these court
of such incidental powers as are, within the purview of their grant of
authority, reasonably necessary to enable them to accomplish the objects for which
they were invested with jurisdiction and to perfect the same. And it has been
held that statutes conferring jurisdiction on such courts, being remedial and
for the advancement of justice, should receive a favorable construction, such
as will give them the force and efficiency intended by the legislature.
·
Probate and like courts have a special
jurisdiction only, and their powers as to ancillary or incidental questions
must by necessity be exercised within certain limitations. But such powers
include the right to try questions which arise incidentally in a cause over
which such courts have jurisdiction and the determination of which is necessary
to a lawful exercise of the powers expressly conferred in arriving at a
decision.
·
It would be absurd to imagine that if an
administrator were held liable for having squandered and misapplied property
which he was duty-bound to marshal and conserve, the estate would be without a
remedy to go against the administrator's bond in the same probate proceedings,
but in an action outside of and separate from it.
·
It is the duty of courts of probate
jurisdiction to guard jealously the estates of the deceased person by
intervening in the administration thereof in order to remedy or repair any
injury that may be done thereto.
* * *
DISSENTING
OPINION
Villareal, J.
Key
contentions:
·
Chapter XXXI of the Code of Civil Procedure,
which is headed "Wills and the allowance thereof, and duties of
executors", contains no provision concerning
the enforcement of the liability of an executor or administrator on his bond
and of that of his sureties.
·
In other words, the Code of Civil Procedure
has not established any special procedure by which an executor or administrator
with a mere notice to his sureties does not afford them an adequate opportunity
to set up the defenses which the law guarantees to them.
·
To enforce
the liability of an administrator and require him to file an adequate bond — is
not only ultra vires but a violation of the constitutional inhibition that no
person shall be deprived of his life, liberty and property without due process
of law.
·
The only procedure by which the liability of
an executor or administrator and his sureties be enforced on their bond is,
therefore, by an ordinary action in
court.
·
As applied in the instant case, the CFI's
order of execution of the bond without the benefit of a full-blown hearing on
the matter in a separate ordinary action in court was issued not only in excess
of jurisdiction but without it, because it was not authorized by law.
·
The failure of the sureties to appeal from the
order of summary execution issued by the CFI on their bond after a mere service
of notice did not legalize said summary procedure and the order of summary
execution issued by the lower court, which were otherwise illegal and ultra
vires.