Posted by: Riyani Marie M. Nartea on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
Bonifacio Soriano on September 26, 1940, filed a money claim for P880 against the decedent's (Isaac Cunanan and Candida Joaquin) estate. He alleged that on various dates in 1937 and 1938, the deceased received from him diverse sums of money aggregating P880. On April 17, 1941, Rosalina Cunanan, the administratix, filed a motion setting out Bonifacio Soriano's claim and two others totalling P2,054, besides a debt of P1,600 in favor of one Filomeno Santos bearing 12 per cent interest per year. To pay these obligations she asked the court for authority to negotiate a loan in such amount or to sell so much of the property described in the inventory as might be sufficient to satisfy the said obligations. The Honorable Sotero Rodas, Judge, in an order dated April 23, 1941, granted the motion. On June 1, 1944, Rosalina Cunanan manifested to the court that she had tendered to Bonifacio Soriano in March of that year P880 but that Soriano refused to accept it on the ground that the money she offered was Japanese notes and had no value. She prayed that the creditor be ordered to accept the amount tendered, to execute the necessary deed of cancellation, and to return the possession of two parcels of land which had been conveyed to him.
On June 15, 1944, the Honorable Quintin Paredes, Jr., Judge, authorized the administratix to deposit with the clerk of court P880 in full payment of the obligation in favor of Bonifacio Soriano and ordered Soriano to deliver the property in his possession to the administratix. This order was not appealed nor was any motion for its reconsideration filed, so far as the pleadings would reveal. On July 17, 1944, the administratix filed a complaint against Soriano for contempt of court, alleging that she had complied with the court's order of June 15, 1944, but that Soriano disobeyed that part of it which commanded him to return the two parcels of land to the estate of Isaac Cunanan and Candida Joaquin. After hearing, Judge Paredes, on August 4, 1944, found Soriano not guilty of contempt." However, Judge Paredes reiterated his order that Soriano "deliver the property in question to the administratix Rosalina Cunanan for the benefit of the Intestate Estate." He also directed the clerk of court to turn over to Soriano the P880 which had been deposited with him, "upon proper proof that the possession of the property has been actually delivered to the Intestate Estate."
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court lacked jurisdiction to order the delivery of the possession of the lots to the estate?
HELD: No.
One important thing that at once strikes attention upon reading the foregoing statement of the case, is that the order of Judge Paredes of June 15, 1944 "directing Bonifacio Soriano to accept from the petitioner Rosalina Cunanan the amount of P880 and to execute the necessary document in favor of said administratix and to deliver the possession of the property in question," was not appealed or excepted to and is now final. It had already become final when, on August 16, 1946, Judge Amparo made his order, identified herein as Annex I. It was Judge Paredes' order of August 4, 1944, on the administratix's motion for contempt of court filed on July 17, 1944, which Soriano sought to have reconsidered and which Judge Amparo set aside on August 16, 1946. Although the allegations do not show when Soriano received notice of Judge of Paredes' order of June 15, 1944, he must have been notified of it before the proceeding for contempt against him started, at the latest, proceeding in which he was absolved. And the tenor of the order acquitting Soriano gives rise to the inference that he abided by the order of June 15 which he was accused of disobeying, for the order gave as reason for his exoneration the fact that he had not properly disobeyed him.
We do not agreed with the respondents that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the delivery of the possession of the lots to the estate. This power is a mere consequence of the power to approve Soriano's claim; a power which the court undoubtedly had and which Soriano himself invoked with full knowledge of then facts. As a general rule, with the consent of the parties matters affecting property under judicial administration may be taken cognizance of by the court in the course of the intestate proceeding provided the interests of third persons are not prejudiced. Determination of title to property is within the jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance. The respondent Soriano's objection relates exclusively to the procedure, which is distinct from jurisdiction. It affects only personal rights to a mode of practice which may be waived. Certainly, there is waiver where, as here, and has been pointed out, the party who raises the objection was the one who set the court in motion, and who, by failing to disclose the existence of a sale under pacto de retro, suppressed jurisdictional facts that might be in the way of his claim's success.
FACTS:
Bonifacio Soriano on September 26, 1940, filed a money claim for P880 against the decedent's (Isaac Cunanan and Candida Joaquin) estate. He alleged that on various dates in 1937 and 1938, the deceased received from him diverse sums of money aggregating P880. On April 17, 1941, Rosalina Cunanan, the administratix, filed a motion setting out Bonifacio Soriano's claim and two others totalling P2,054, besides a debt of P1,600 in favor of one Filomeno Santos bearing 12 per cent interest per year. To pay these obligations she asked the court for authority to negotiate a loan in such amount or to sell so much of the property described in the inventory as might be sufficient to satisfy the said obligations. The Honorable Sotero Rodas, Judge, in an order dated April 23, 1941, granted the motion. On June 1, 1944, Rosalina Cunanan manifested to the court that she had tendered to Bonifacio Soriano in March of that year P880 but that Soriano refused to accept it on the ground that the money she offered was Japanese notes and had no value. She prayed that the creditor be ordered to accept the amount tendered, to execute the necessary deed of cancellation, and to return the possession of two parcels of land which had been conveyed to him.
On June 15, 1944, the Honorable Quintin Paredes, Jr., Judge, authorized the administratix to deposit with the clerk of court P880 in full payment of the obligation in favor of Bonifacio Soriano and ordered Soriano to deliver the property in his possession to the administratix. This order was not appealed nor was any motion for its reconsideration filed, so far as the pleadings would reveal. On July 17, 1944, the administratix filed a complaint against Soriano for contempt of court, alleging that she had complied with the court's order of June 15, 1944, but that Soriano disobeyed that part of it which commanded him to return the two parcels of land to the estate of Isaac Cunanan and Candida Joaquin. After hearing, Judge Paredes, on August 4, 1944, found Soriano not guilty of contempt." However, Judge Paredes reiterated his order that Soriano "deliver the property in question to the administratix Rosalina Cunanan for the benefit of the Intestate Estate." He also directed the clerk of court to turn over to Soriano the P880 which had been deposited with him, "upon proper proof that the possession of the property has been actually delivered to the Intestate Estate."
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court lacked jurisdiction to order the delivery of the possession of the lots to the estate?
HELD: No.
One important thing that at once strikes attention upon reading the foregoing statement of the case, is that the order of Judge Paredes of June 15, 1944 "directing Bonifacio Soriano to accept from the petitioner Rosalina Cunanan the amount of P880 and to execute the necessary document in favor of said administratix and to deliver the possession of the property in question," was not appealed or excepted to and is now final. It had already become final when, on August 16, 1946, Judge Amparo made his order, identified herein as Annex I. It was Judge Paredes' order of August 4, 1944, on the administratix's motion for contempt of court filed on July 17, 1944, which Soriano sought to have reconsidered and which Judge Amparo set aside on August 16, 1946. Although the allegations do not show when Soriano received notice of Judge of Paredes' order of June 15, 1944, he must have been notified of it before the proceeding for contempt against him started, at the latest, proceeding in which he was absolved. And the tenor of the order acquitting Soriano gives rise to the inference that he abided by the order of June 15 which he was accused of disobeying, for the order gave as reason for his exoneration the fact that he had not properly disobeyed him.
We do not agreed with the respondents that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the delivery of the possession of the lots to the estate. This power is a mere consequence of the power to approve Soriano's claim; a power which the court undoubtedly had and which Soriano himself invoked with full knowledge of then facts. As a general rule, with the consent of the parties matters affecting property under judicial administration may be taken cognizance of by the court in the course of the intestate proceeding provided the interests of third persons are not prejudiced. Determination of title to property is within the jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance. The respondent Soriano's objection relates exclusively to the procedure, which is distinct from jurisdiction. It affects only personal rights to a mode of practice which may be waived. Certainly, there is waiver where, as here, and has been pointed out, the party who raises the objection was the one who set the court in motion, and who, by failing to disclose the existence of a sale under pacto de retro, suppressed jurisdictional facts that might be in the way of his claim's success.
