De Borja

7/27/2019 De Borja

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/de-borja 1/9

G.R. No. L-6622 July 31, 1957Intestate Estate of the deceased !R"EL# $E %#RJ!. "RI&!N'# $E %#RJ!, administrator-appellant,vs.J(!N $E %#RJ!, E' !L., oppositors-appellees.E. V. Filamor for appellant.Juan de Borja for himself and co-appellees.)ELI*, J.+The case. — Quintin, Francisco, Crisanta and Juliana, all surnamed de Borja, are legitimate children of Marcelo de Borja ho, upon hisdemise sometime in !"#$ or !"#%, left a considera&le amount of propert'. (ntestate proceedings must have folloed, and the pre-arrecords of the case either &urned, lost or destro'ed during the last ar, &ecause the record shos that in !")* Quintin de Borja as alread'

the administrator of the (ntestate +state of Marcelo de Borja.(n the earl' part of !"), Quintin de Borja died and Crisanto de Borja, son of Francisco de Borja, as appointed and too over asadministrator of the +state. Francisco de Borja, on the other hand, assumed his duties as eecutor of the ill of Quintin de Borja, &ut uponpetition of the heirs of said deceased on the ground that his interests ere conflicting ith that of his &rother/s estate he as later re0uired &'the Court to resign as such eecutor and as succeeded &' 1ogelio 2imaco, a son-in-la of Quintin de Borja.(t also appears that on Fe&ruar' !3, !"$*, at the hearing set for the approval of the statement of accounts of the late administrator of the(ntestate +state of Marcelo de Borja, then &eing opposed &' Francisco de Borja, the parties su&mitted an agreement, hich as approved&' the Court 4+h. 56. 7aid agreement, translated into +nglish, reads as follos8

!. 5ll the accounts su&mitted and those that are to &e su&mitted corresponding to this 'ear ill &e considered approved9#. :o heir shall claim an'thing of the harvests from the lands in Cainta that came from +e0uiel 5mpil, deceased, nor from the landin Ta&uatin, :ueva +cija9). That the amounts of mone' taen &' each heir shall &e considered as deposited in conjunction ith the other properties of theintestate and shall form part of the mass ithout draing an' interest9$. That it shall &e understood as included in this mass the sum of telve thousand pesos 4;!#,***6 that the sisters Crisanta andJuliana de Borja paid of their on mone' as part of the price the lands and three thousand pesos 4;),***6 the price of themachiner' for irrigation9%. The right, interests or participation that the deceased Quintin de Borja has or ma' have in Civil Case :o. 3!"* of the Court ofFirst (nstance of :ueva +cija, shall &e lieise included in the total mass of the inheritance of the (ntestate93. :ot onl' the lands in Ta&uatin &ut also those in Cainta coming from the no deceased +e0uiel 5mpil shall also from part of thetotal mass of the inheritance of the (ntestate of the late Marcelo de Borja9<. =nce the total of the inheritance of the intestate is made up as specified &efore in this 5greement, partition thereof ill &e madeas follos8From the total mass shall &e deducted in case or in ind, Telve Thousand ;esos 4;!#,***6 that shall &e delivered to >a. Julianade Borja and >a. Crisanta de Borja in e0ual shares, and the rest shall &e divided among the four heirs, i. e., >on Francisco deBorja, the heirs of Quintin de Borja, >a. Juliana de Borja, and >a. Crisanta de Borja, in e0ual parts. 4T15:725T(=:6

The (ntestate remained under the administration of Crisanto de Borja until the then out&rea of the ar. From then on and until thetermination of the ar, there as a lull and state of inaction in 7pecial proceeding :o. #$!$ of the Court of First (nstance of 1i?al, ;asig&ranch 4(n the Matter of the (ntestate +state of Marcelo de Borja6, until upon petition filed &' Miguel B. >a'co, as administrator of the estateof his deceased mother, Crisanta de Borja, ho is one of heirs, for reconstitution of the records of this case, the Court on >ecem&er !!,!"$%, ordered the reconstitution of the same, re0uiring the administrator to su&mit his report and a cop' of the project of partition.=n Januar' ), !"$3, the administrator, >r. Crisanto de Borja, filed his accounts for the period ranging from March ! to >ecem&er ##, !"$%,hich according to the heirs of Quintin de Borja ere so inade0uate and general that on Fe&ruar' #, !"$3, the' filed a motion forspecification. =n 5pril )*, !"$3, the' also filed their opposition to said statement of accounts alleging that the income reported in said

statement as ver' much less than the true and actual income of the estate and that the epenses appearing therein ere eaggeratedand@or not actuall' incurred, and pra'ed that the statement of accounts su&mitted &' the administrator &e disapproved.The administrator later filed another report of his administration, dated 5ugust ", !"$", corresponding to the period lapsed from >ecem&er#), !"$%, to Jul' )!, !"$", shoing a cash &alance of ;<!."3, &ut ith pending o&ligation amounting to ;)%,$!%.=n 5ugust ##, !"$", Juan de Borja and sisters, heirs of the deceased Quintin de Borja, filed their opposition to the statement of accountsfiled &' the administrator on the ground that same as not detailed enough to ena&le the interested parties to verif' the same9 that the'cannot understand h' the (ntestate could suffer an' loss considering that during the administration of the same &' Quintin de Borja, the+state accumulated gains of more than ;!**,*** in the form of advances to the heirs as ell as cash &alance9 that the' desired to eaminethe accounts of >r. Crisanto de Borja to verif' the loss and therefore pra'ed that the administrator &e ordered to deposit ith the Cler ofCourt all &oos, receipts, accounts and other papers pertaining to the +state of Marcelo de Borja. This motion as ansered &' theadministrator contending that the 1eport referred to as alread' clear and enough, the income as ell as the ependitures &eing specifiedtherein9 that he had to spend for the repairs of the properties of the +state damaged during the Japanese occupation9 that the allegation thatduring the administration of Quintin de Boria the +state reali?ed a profit of ;!**,*** as not true, &ecause instead of gain there as even ashortage in the funds although said administrator had collected all his fees 4honorarios6 and commissions corresponding to the entire periodof his incum&enc'9 that the o&ligations mentioned in said report ill &e li0uidated &efore the termination of the proceedings in the samemanner as it is done in an' other intestate case9 that he as illing to su&mit all the receipts of the accounts for the eamination of theinterested parties &efore the Cler or &efore the Court itself9 that this (ntestate could &e terminated, the project of partition having &een

alloed and confirmed &' the 7upreme Court and that the 5dministrator as also desirous of terminating it definitel' for the &enefit of all theparties.=n 7eptem&er !$, !"$", the administrator filed another statement of accounts covering the period of from March !, !"$%, to Jul' )!, !"$",hich shoed a cash &alance of ;<!."%, ith pending o&ligations in the sum of ;)%,!*.The heirs of Quintin de Borja, Juan de Borja and his sisters, registered their opposition said statement of accounts and pra'ed the Court todisapprove the same and to appoint an account to go over the &oos of the administrator and to su&mit a report thereon as soon as possi&le.The heir Juliana de Borja also formall' offered her o&jection to the approval of the accounts su&mitted &' the administrator and pra'edfurther that said administrator &e re0uired to su&mit a complete accounting of his administration of the +state from !")< to !"$". =n theother hand, Francisco de Borja and Miguel B. >a'co, as the onl' heir of the deceased Crisanta de Borja, su&mitted to the Court anagreement to relieve the administrator from accounting for the period of the Japanese occupation9 that as to the accounting from !")< to!"$!, the' affirmed their conformit' ith the agreement entered into &' all the heirs appearing in the Bill of +ceptions of Juliana de Borja9and the' have no o&jection to the approval of the statement of accounts su&mitted &' the administrator covering of the 'ears !"$% to !"$".=n >ecem&er 3, !"$", the administrator, ansered the opposition of the heir Juliana de Borja, alleging that the corresponding statement of

7/27/2019 De Borja


accounts for the 'ears !")<, !"), !")", !"$* and !"$! ere presented and approved &' the Court &efore and during the Japaneseoccupation, &ut the records of the same ere destro'ed in the =ffice of the Cler of that Court during the li&eration of the province of 1i?al,and his personal records ere also lost during the Japanese occupation, hen his house as &urned9 that Judge ;eAa ho as presidingover the Court in !"$% impliedl' denied the petition of heirs to re0uire him to render an accounting for the period from !"$# to the earl' partof !"$%, for the reason that hatever mone' o&tained from the +state during said period could not &e made the su&ject of an' adjudication ithaving &een declared fiat mone' and ithout value, and ordered that the statement of accounts &e presented onl' for the period startingfrom March !, !"$%. The administrator further stated that he as anious to terminate this administration &ut some of the heirs had not 'etcomplied ith the conditions imposed in the project of partition hich as approved &' the 7upreme Court9 that in accordance ith saidpartition agreement, Juliana de Borja must deliver to the administrator all the jeelr', o&jects of value, utensils and other personal &elongingsof the deceased spouses Marcelo de Borja and Tircila Quiogue, hich said heir had ept and continued to retain in her possession9 that the

heirs of Quintin de Borja should deliver to the administrator all the lands and a document transferring in favor of the (ntestate the to parcelsof land ith a total area of <! hectares of cultivated land in Ca&anatuan, :ueva +cija hich ere in the possession of said heirs, togetherith the house of Feliciana Mariano da. de 7aranga'a, hich ere the o&jects of Civil Case :o. 3!"* mentioned in ;aragraph !! of theproject of partition9 that as conse0uence of the said dispossession the heirs of Quintin de Borja must deliver to the administrator the productsof the <! hectares of land in Ca&anatuan, :ueva +cija, and the rentals of the house of Feliciana Mariano or else render to the Court anaccounting of the products of these properties from the time the' too possession of the same in !")< to the present9 that there as apending o&ligation amounting to ;)3,*** as of 7eptem&er !$, !"$", hich the heirs should pa' &efore the properties adjudicated to themould &e delivered. The Court, hoever, ordered the administrator on >ecem&er !*, !"$", to sho and prove &' evidence h' he shouldnot &e accounts the proceeds of his administration from !")<.Meantime, Juliana de Borja filed a Constancia den'ing possession of an' jeelr' &elonging to the deceased spouses Marcelo de Borja andTarcilla Quiogue or an' other personal &elonging of said spouses, and signified her illingness to turn over to the administrator the silverares mentioned in ;aragraph ((( of the project of partition, hich ere the onl' propert' in her care, on the date that she ould epect thedeliver' to her of her share in the inheritance from her deceased parents.=n Jul' 3, !"%*, Juan de Borja and his sisters Marcela, 7aturnina, +ufracia, Jaco&a and =limpia, all surnamed de Borja, as heirs of Quintinde Borja, filed a motion for the deliver' to them of their inheritance in the estate, tendering to the administrator a document ceding andtransferring to the latter all the rights, interests and participation of Quintin de Borja in Civil Case :o. <!"* of the Court of First (nstance of:ueva +cija, pursuant to the provisions of the project of ;artition, and epressing their illingness to put up a &ond if re0uired to do so &' theCourt, and on Jul' !, !"%*, the Court ordered the administrator to deliver to Marcela, Juan, 7aturniana, +ufracia, Jaco&a and =limpia, allsurnamed de Borja, all the properties adjudicated to them in the ;roject of ;artition dated Fe&ruar' , !"$$, upon the latter/s filing a &ond inthe sum of ;!*,*** conditioned upon the pa'ment of such o&ligation as ma' &e ordered &' the Court after a hearing on the controvertedaccounts of the administrator. The Court considered the fact that the heirs had complied ith the re0uirement imposed &' the ;roject of;artition hen the' tendered the document ceding and transferring the rights and interests of Quintin de Borja in the aforementioned landsand epressed the necessit' of terminating the proceedings as soon as practica&le, o&serving that the +state had &een under administrationfor over tent'-five 'ears alread'. The Court, hoever, deferred action on the petition filed &' the special administratri of the (ntestate+state of Juliana de Borja until after compliance ith the conditions imposed &' the project of partition. But on Jul' #*, !"%*, apparentl'&efore the properties ere delivered to the heirs, Francisco de Borja and Miguel B. >a'co filed a motion informing the Court that the toparcels of land located in Ca&anatuan, :ueva +cija, produced some #!,)** cavans of pala', amounting to ;#!),*** at ;!* per cavan,hich ere enjo'ed &' some heirs9 that the administrator Crisanto de Borja had not taen possession of the same for circumstances &e'ondhis control9 and that there also eisted the sum of ;<*,#*$ hich the former administrator, Quintin de Borja, received from properties thatere redeemed, &ut hich amount did not come into the hands of the present, administrator &ecause according to relia&le information, sameas delivered to the heir Juliana de Borja ho deposited it in her name at the ;hilippine :ational Ban. (t as, therefore pra'ed that theadministrator &e re0uired to eert the necessar' effort to ascertain the identit' of the person or persons ho ere in possession of the sameamount and of the value of the products of the lands in Ma'ap'ap, Ca&anatuan, :ueva +cija, and to recover the same for the (ntestate

+state.=n Jul' #, !"%*, the special administratri of the estate of Juliana de Borja, then deceased, filed an anser to the motion of these toheirs, den'ing the allegation that said heir an' product of the lands mentioned from Quintin de Borja, and informed the Court that theMa'ap'ap propert' had ala's &een in the possession of Francisco de Borja himself and pra'ed the court that the administrator &einstructed to demand all the fruits and products of said propert' from Francisco de Borja.=n Jul' #, !"%*, the heirs of Quintin de Borja also filed their opposition to the said motion of Francisco de Borja and Miguel B. >a'co on theground that the petition as superfluous &ecause the present proceeding as onl' for the approval of the statement of accounts filed &' theadministrator9 that said motion as improper &ecause it as asing the Court to order the administrator to perform hat he as dut' &oundto do9 and that said heirs ere alread' &arred or stopped from raising that 0uestion in vie of their a&solute ratification of and assent to thestatement of accounts su&mitted &' the administrator.=n 5ugust !3, !"%*, &' order of the Court, the properties adjudicated to Juliana de Borja in the project of ;artition ere finall' delivered tothe estate of said heir upon the filing of a &ond for ;#*,***. (n that same order, the Court denied the administrator/s motion to reconsider theorder of Jul' !, !"%*, re0uiring him to deliver to the heirs of Quintin de Borja the properties corresponding to them, on the ground that thereeisted no sufficient reason to distur& said order. (t also ruled that as the petition of Francisco de Borja and Miguel B. >a'co made mention ofcertain properties allegedl' &elonging to the (ntestate, said petition should properl' &e considered to gather ith the final accounts of theadministrator.The administrator raised the matter &' certiorari to this Tri&unal, hich as, doceted as .1. :o. 2-$!<", and on Ma' )*, !"%!, De

rendered decision affirming the order complained of, finding that the Juan de Borja and sisters have complied ith the re0uirement imposedin the ;roject of ;artition upon the tender of the document of cession of rights and 0uit-claim eecuted &' Marcela de Borja, theadministratri of the +state of Quintin de Borja, and holding that the reasons advanced &' the administrator in opposing the eecution of theorder of deliver' ere trivial.=n 5ugust #<, !"%!, the administrator filed his amended statement of accounts covering the period from March !, !"$%, to Jul' )!, !"$",hich shoed a cash &alance of ;)3,33*. 5n additional statement of accounts filed on 5ugust )!, !"3! for the period of from 5ugust !,!"$", to 5ugust )!, !"%!, shoed a cash &alance of ;%,%!.!< and pending o&ligations in the amount of ;3,!3%.*).The heirs of Quintin de Borja again opposed the approval of the statements of accounts charging the administrator ith having failed toinclude the fruits hich the estate should have accrued from !"$! to !"%! amounting to ;$<",$#".<*, &ut as the other heirs seemedsatisfied ith the accounts presented &' said administrator and as their group as onl' one of the $ heirs of (ntestate +state, the' pra'edthat the administrator &e held lia&le for onl' ;!!",")#.$# hich as !@$ of the amount alleged to have &een omitted. =n =cto&er $, !"%!,the administrator filed a repl' to said opposition containing a counterclaim for moral damages against all the heirs of Quintin de Borja in thesum of ;)*,*** hich as admitted &' the Court over the o&jection of the heirs of Quintin de Borja that the said pleading as filed out of

7/27/2019 De Borja


time.The oppositors, the heirs of Quintin de Borja, then filed their anser to the counterclaim den'ing the charges therein, &ut later servedinterrogatories on the administrator relative to the averments of said counterclaim. Epon receipt of the anser to said interrogatoriesspecif'ing the acts upon hich the claim for moral damages as &ased, the oppositors filed an amended anser contending that inasmuchas the acts, manifestations and pleadings referred to therein ere admittedl' committed and prepared &' their la'er, 5tt'. 5mador +.ome?, same cannot &e made the &asis of a counterclaim, said la'er not &eing a part' to the action, and furthermore, as the acts uponhich the claim for moral damages ere &ased had &een committed prior to the effectivit' of the ne Civil Code, the provisions of said Codeon moral damages could not &e invoed. =n Januar' !%, !"%#, the administrator filed an amended counterclaim including the counsel for theoppositors as defendant.There folloed a momentar' respite in the proceedings until another judge as assigned to preside over said court to dispose of the old

case pending therein. =n 5ugust !%, !"%#, Judge +ncarnacion issued an order den'ing admission to administrator/s amended counterclaimdirected against the la'er, 5tt'. 5mador +. ome?, holding that a la'er, not &eing a part' to the action, cannot &e made ansera&le forcounterclaims. 5nother order as also issued on the same date dismissing the administrator/s counterclaim for moral damages against theheirs of Quintin de Borja and their counsel for the alleged defamator' acts, manifestation and utterances, and stating that granting the sameto &e meritorious, 'et it as a strictl' private controvers' &eteen said heirs and the administrator hich ould not in an' a' affect theinterest of the (ntestate, and, therefore, not proper in an intestate proceedings. The Court stressed that to allo the ventilation of suchpersonal controversies ould further dela' the proceedings in the case hich had alread' lagged for almost )* 'ears, a situation hich theCourt ould not countenance.aving disposed of these pending incidents hich arose out of the principal issue, that is, the disputed statement of accounts su&mitted &'the administrator, the Court rendered judgment on 7eptem&er %, !"%#, ordering the administrator to distri&ute the funds in his possession tothe heirs as follos8 ;!,)"%."* to the heirs of Quintin de Borja9 ;)!$."" to Francisco de Borja9 ;)!$."" to the +state of Juliana de Borja and;)!$."" to Miguel B. >a'co, &ut as the latter still oed the intestate the sum of ;"**, said heirs as ordered to pa' instead the ) others thesum of ;!$3.*% each. 5fter considering the testimonies of the itnesses presented &' &oth parties and the availa&le records on hand, theCourt found the administrator guilt' of maladministration and sentenced Crisanto de Borja to pa' to the oppositors, the heirs of Quintin deBorja, the sum of ;),))<.)!, hich as !@$ of the amount hich the state lost, ith legal interest from the date of the judgment. =n thesame da', the Court also issued an order re0uiring the administrator to deliver to the Cler of that Court ;:B Certificate of >eposit :o.#!!3$" for ;"<.%* hich as issued in the name of Quintin de Borja.The administrator, >r. Crisanto de Borja, gave notice to appeal from the loer Court/s orders of 5ugust !%, !"%#, the decision of 7eptem&er%, !"%#, and the order of even date, &ut hen the 1ecord on 5ppeal as finall' approved, the Court ordered the eclusion of the appealfrom the order of 7eptem&er %, !"%#, re0uiring the administrator to deposit the ;:B Certificate of >eposit :o. #!!$3$" ith the Cler ofCourt, after the oppositors had shon that during the hearing of that incident, the parties agreed to a&ide &' hatever resolution the Courtould mae on the onership of the funds covered &' that deposit.The issues. — 1educing the issues to &are essentials, the 0uestions left for our determination are8 4!6 hether the counsel for a part' in acase ma' &e included as a defendant in a counterclaim9 4#6 hether a claim for moral damages ma' &e entertained in a proceeding for thesettlement of an estate9 4)6 hat ma' &e considered as acts of maladministration and hether an administrator, as the one in the case at &ar,ma' &e held accounta&le for an' loss or damage that the estate under his administration ma' incur &' reason of his negligence, &ad faith oracts of maladministration9 and 4$6 in the case at &ar has the (ntestate or an' of the heirs suffered an' loss or damage &' reason of theadministrator/s negligence, &ad faith or maladministrationG (f so, hat is the amount of such loss or damageG(. — 7ection !, 1ule !*, of the 1ules of Court defines a counterclaim as8

7+CT(=: !. Counterclaim Defined . — 5 counterclaim is any claim, hether for mone' or otherise, which a party may haveaainst the opposin party . 5 counterclaim need not dismiss or defeat the recover' sought &' the opposing part', &ut ma' claimrelief eceeding in amount or different in ind from that sought &' the opposing part'/s claim.

(t is an elementar' rule of procedure that a counterclaim is a relief availa&le to a part'-defendant against the adverse part' hich ma' or

ma' not &e independent from the main issue. There is no controvers' in the case at &ar, that the acts, manifestations and actuations allegedto &e defamator' and upon hich the counterclaim as &ased ere done or prepared &' counsel for oppositors9 and the administratorcontends that as the ver' oppositors manifested that hatever civil lia&ilit' arising from acts, actuations, pleadings and manifestationsattri&uta&le to their la'er is enforcea&le against said la'er, the amended counterclaim as filed against the latter not in his individual orpersonal capacit' &ut as counsel for the oppositors. (t is his stand, therefore, that the loer erred in den'ing admission to said pleading. Dediffer from the vie taen &' the administrator. The appearance of a la'er as counsel for a part' and his participation in a case as suchcounsel does not mae him a part' to the action. The fact that he represents the interests of his client or that he acts in their &ehalf ill nothold him lia&le for or mae him entitled to an' aard that the Court ma' adjudicate to the parties, other than his professional fees. Theprinciple that a counterclaim cannot &e filed against persons ho are acting in representation of another — such as trustees — in theirindividual capacities 4Cham&ers vs. Cameron, # Fed. 1ules 7ervice, p. !%%9 #" F. 7upp. <$#6 could &e applied ith more force and effect inthe case of a counsel hose participation in the action is merel' confined to the preparation of the defense of his client. 5ppellant, hoever,asserted that he filed the counterclaim against said la'er not in his individual capacit' &ut as counsel for the heirs of Quintin de Borja. Butas e have alread' stated that the eistence of a la'er-client relationship does not mae the former a part' to the action, even thisallegation of appellant ill not alter the result De have arrived at.ranting that the la'er reall' emplo'ed intemperate language in the course of the hearings or in the preparation of the pleadings filed inconnection ith this case, the remed' against said counsel ould &e to have him cited for contempt of court or tae other administrativemeasures that ma' &e proper in the case, &ut certainl' not a counterclaim for moral damages.

((. — 7pecial ;roceedings :o. 3$!$ of the Court of First (nstance of 1i?al 4;asig &ranch6 as instituted for the purpose of settling the(ntestate +state of Marcelo de Borja. (n taing cogni?ance of the case, the Court as clothed ith a limited jurisdiction hich cannot epandto collateral matters not arising out of or in an' a' related to the settlement and adjudication of the properties of the deceased, for it is asettled rule that the jurisdiction of a pro&ate court is limited and special 4u?man vs. 5nog, )< ;hil. )3!6. 5lthough there is a tendenc' no torela this rule and etend the jurisdiction of the pro&ate court in respect to matters incidental and collateral to the eercise of its recogni?edpoers 4!$ 5m. Jur. #%!-#%#6, this should &e understood to comprehend onl' cases related to those poers specificall' alloed &' thestatutes. For it as even said that8

;ro&ate proceedings are purel' statutor' and their functions limited to the control of the propert' upon the death of its oner, andcannot etend to the adjudication of collateral 0uestions 4Doesmes, The 5merican 2a of 5dministration, ol. (, p. %!$, 33#-33)6.

(t as in the acnoledgment of its limited jurisdiction that the loer court dismissed the administrator/s counterclaim for moral damagesagainst the oppositors, particularl' against Marcela de Borja ho allegedl' uttered derogator' remars intended to cast dishonor to saidadministrator sometime in !"%* or !"%!, his onor/s ground &eing that the court eercising limited jurisdiction cannot entertain claims of thisind hich should properl' &elong to a court general jurisdiction. From hat ever angle it ma' &e looed at, a counterclaim for moral

7/27/2019 De Borja


damages demanded &' an administrator against the heirs for alleged utterances, pleadings and actuations made in the course of theproceeding, is an etraneous matter in a testate or intestate proceedings. The injection into the action of incidental 0uestions entirel' foreignin pro&ate proceedings should not &e encouraged for to do otherise ould run counter to the clear intention of the la, for it as held that8

The speed' settlement of the estate of deceased persons for the &enefit of the creditors and those entitled to the residue &' a' ofinheritance or legac' after the de&ts and epenses of administration have &een paid, is the ruling spirit of our pro&ate la4Maga&anua vs. 5el, <# ;hil., %3<, $* =ff a?., !<!6.

(((. and (. — This appeal arose from the opposition of the heirs of Quintin de Borja to the approval of the statements of accounts rendered&' the administrator of the (ntestate +state of Marcelo de Borja, on the ground that certain fruits hich should have &een accrued to theestate ere unaccounted for, hich charge the administrator denied. 5fter a protracted and etensive hearing on the matter, the Court,finding the administrator, >r. Crisanto de Borja, guilt' of certain acts of maladministration, held him lia&le for the pa'ment to the oppositors,

the heirs of Quintin de Borja, of !@$ of the unreported income hich the estate should have received. The evidence presented in the court&elo &ear out the folloing facts84a6 The estate ons a 3-door &uilding, :os. !%$!, !%$), !%$%, !%$<, !%$" and !%%! in 5?carraga 7treet, Manila, situated in front of the

5rran0ue maret. =f this propert', the administrator reported to have received for the estate the folloing rentals8

;eriod of time Total rentals 5nnual

monthl' rental

March to >ecem&er, !"$% ;),*%.** ;%!.$#

Januar' to >ecem&er, !"$3 $,"*.** 3".!<

Januar' to >ecem&er, !"$< ,))*.** !!%.<*

Januar' to >ecem&er, !"$ ",***.** !#%.**

Januar' to >ecem&er, !"$" ,$*.** !##.<<

Januar' to >ecem&er, !"%* 3,*3*.** !$.!3

Total ;$*,#"%.**

The oppositors, in disputing this record income, presented at the itness stand 2auro 5guila, a la'er ho occupied the &asement of >oor

:o. !%$! and the hole of >oor :o. !%$) from !"$% to :ovem&er !%, !"$", and ho testified that he paid rentals on said apartments asfollos8

!"$%

>oor :o. !%$! 4&asement6

Fe&ruar' ;#*.** >oor :o. !%$)

March #*.** For < months at ;)**

5pril 3*.** a month ;#,!**.**

Ma'->ecem&er **.**

Total ;"**.**

!"$3

Januar'->ecem&er ;!,#**.** Januar'->ecem&er ;$,**.**

!"$<

Januar' ;!**.** Januar' ;)*.**

Fe&ruar' !**.** Fe&ruar' )*.**

March !*.** March !-!% !"*.**

5pril->ecem&er !,!$*.** March !3->ecem&er $,*%.**

;!,#*.** ;%,*)%.**

!"$

Januar'->ecem&er ;!,"#*.** Januar'->ecem&er ;%,!%*.**

!"$"

Januar'-:ovem&er !% ;!,3*.** Januar'->ecem&er ;$,)!%.**

From the testimon' of said itness, it appears that from !"$% to :ovem&er !%,!"$", he paid a total of ;#,#** for the lease of >oor :o.!%$) and the &asement of >oor :o. !%$!. These figures ere not controverted or disputed &' the administrator &ut claim that said tenantsu&leased the apartments occupied &' ;edro +nri0ue? and 7oledad 7odora and paid the said rentals, not to the administrator, &ut to said+nri0ue?. The transcript of the testimon' of this itness reall' &olster this contention — that 2auro 5guila taled ith said ;edro +nri0ue?hen he leased the aforementioned apartments and admitted pa'ing the rentals to the latter and not to the administrator. (t is interesting tonote that ;edro +nri0ue? is the same person ho appeared to &e the administrator/s collector, dul' authori?ed to receive the rentals from this

5?carraga propert' and for hich services, said +nri0ue? received % per cent of the amount he might &e a&le to collect as commission. (f eare to &elieve appellant/s contention, aside from the commission that ;edro +nri0ue? received he also su&let the apartments he asoccup'ing at a ver' much higher rate than that he actuall' paid the estate ithout the noledge of the administrator or ith his approval. 5sthe administrator also seemed to possess that peculiar ha&it of giving little importance to &ooeeping methods, for he never ept a ledger or&oo of entr' for amounts received for the estate, De find no record of the rentals the lessees of the other doors ere pa'ing. (t as,hoever, &rought a&out at the hearing that the 3 doors of this &uilding are of the same si?es and construction and the loer Court &ased itscomputation of the amount this propert' should have earned for the estate on the rental paid &' 5tt'. 5guila for the ! !@# doors that heoccupied. De see no ecuse h' the administrator could not have taen cogni?ance of these rates and received the same for the &enefit ofthe estate he as administering, considering the fact that he used to mae trips to Manila usuall' once a month and for hich he charged tothe estate ; as transportation epenses for ever' trip.Basing on the rentals paid &' 5tt'. 5guila for ! !@# doors, the estate received ;!!#,** from Fe&ruar' !, !"$%, to :ovem&er !%, !"$", for the3 doors, &ut the loer Court held him accounta&le not onl' for the sum of ;)$,#)% reported for the period ranging from March !, !"$%, to>ecem&er )!, !"$", &ut also for a deficit of ;"*,%#% or a total of ;!#$,<3*. The record shos, hoever that the upper floor of >oor :o.

7/27/2019 De Borja


!%$" as vacant in 7eptem&er, !"$", and as 5tt'. 5guila used to pa' ;)"* a month for the use of an entire apartment from 7eptem&er to:ovem&er, !"$", and he also paid ;!3* for the use of the &asement of an apartment 4>oor :o. !%$!6, the use, therefore, of said upper floorould cost ;#)* hich should &e deducted, even if the computation of the loer Court ould have to &e folloed.There &eing no proper evidence to sho that the administrator collected more rentals than those reported &' him, ecept in the instancealread' mentioned, De are reluctant to &old him accounta&le in the amount for hich he as held lia&le &' the loer Court, and De thinthat under the circumstances it ould &e more just to add to the sum reported &' the administrator as received &' him as rents for !"$%-!"$" onl', the difference &eteen the sum reported as paid &' 5tt'. 5guila and the sum actuall' paid &' the latter as rents of ! !@# of theapartments during the said period, or ;#%,$%<.*" !@$ of hich is ;3,)3$.#< hich shall &e paid to the oppositors.The record also shos that in Jul', !"%*, the administrator delivered to the other heirs >oors :os. !%$%, !%$<, !%$" and !%%! although>oors :os. !%$! and !%$) adjudicated to the oppositors remained under his administration. For the period from Januar' to June, !"%*, that

the entire propert' as still administered &' him, the administrator reported to have received for the # oppositors/ apartments for said periodof si months at ;!3.)) a month, the sum of ;!,*!* hich &elongs to the oppositors and should &e taen from the amount reported &' theadministrator.The loer Court computed at ;$* a month the pre-ar rental admittedl' received for ever' apartment, the income that said propert' ouldhave earned from !"$! to !"$$, or a total of ;!!,%#*, &ut as De have to eclude the period covered &' the Japanese occupation, the estateshould receive onl' !"#$$% !@$ of hich ;<#* the administrator should pa' to the oppositors for the 'ear !"$!.4&6 The (ntestate estate also oned a parcel of land in Ma'ap'ap, :ueva +cija, ith an area of <! hectares, "% ares and $ centares,ac0uired &' Quintin de Borja the spouses Cornelio 7aranga'a and Feliciana Mariano in Civil Case :=. 3!"* of the Court of First (nstance ofsaid province, (n virtue of the agreement entered into &' the heirs, this propert' as turned over &' the estate of Quintin de Borja to theintestate and formed part of the general mass of said estate. The report of the administrator failed to disclose an' return from this propert'alleging that he had not taen possession of the same. e does not den' hoever that he ne of the eistence of this land &ut claimed thathen he demanded the deliver' of the Certificate of Title covering this propert', 1ogelio 2imaco, then administrator of the estate of Quintinde Borja, refused to surrender the same and he did not tae an' further action to recover the same.To counteract the insinuation that the +state of Quintin de Borja as in possession of this propert' from !"$* to !"%*, the oppositorspresented several itnesses, among them as an old man, :arciso ;un?al, ho testified that he ne &oth Quintin and Francisco de Borja9that &efore the ar or sometime in !")<, the former administrator of the (ntestate, Quintin de Borja, offered him the position of overseer4encargado6 of this land &ut he as nota&le to assume the same due to the death of said administrator9 that on Jul' <, !"%!, herein appellantinvited him to go to his house in ;ateros, 1i?al, and hile in said house, he as instructed &' appellant to testif' in court net da' that heas the overseer of the Ma'ap'ap propert' for Quintin de Borja from !")<-!"$$, delivering the 'earl' proceeds of !,*** cavanes of ;ala' to1ogelio 2imaco9 that he did not need to &e afraid &ecause &oth Quintin de Borja and 1ogelio 2imaco ere alread' dead. But as he ne thatthe facts on hich he as to testif' ere false, he ent instead to the house of one of the daughters of Quintin de Borja, ho, together ithher &rother, 5tt'. Juan de Borja, accompanied him to the house of the counsel for said oppositors &efore hom his sorn declaration astaen 4+h. )6.=ther itnesses, i.e., (sidro Benu'a, Federico Cojo, +milio de la Cru? and +rnesto Mangula&nan, testified that the' ere some of the tenantsof the Ma'ap'ap propert'9 that the' ere pa'ing their shares to the overseers of Francisco de Borja and sometimes to his ife, hich theadministrator as not a&le to contradict, and the loer Court found no reason h' the administrator ould fail to tae possession of thispropert' considering that this as even the su&ject of the agreement of Fe&ruar' !3, !"$*, eecuted &' the heirs of the (ntestate.The loer Court, giving due credence to the testimonies of the itnesses for the oppositors, computed the loss the estate suffered in theform of unreported income from the rice lands for !* 'ears at ;3<,*** 43,<** a 'ear6and the amount of ;$,*** from the remaining portion ofthe land not devoted to rice cultivation hich as &eing leased at ;#* per hectare. Conse0uentl', the Court held the administrator lia&le toappellees in the sum of ;!<,<%* hich is !@$ of the total amount hich should have accrued to the estate for this item.But if De eclude the ) 'ears of occupation, the income for < 'ears ould &e ;$3,"** for the ricelands and ;#,** 4at ;$** a 'ear6 for theremaining portion not developed to rice cultivation or a total of ;$,<**, !@$ of hich is !&"#&'( hich De hold the administrator lia&le to the

oppositors.4c6 The acienda Jalajala located in said ton of 1i?al, as divided into ) parts8 the ;unta section &elonged to Marcelo de Borja, theBagom&ong pertained to Bernardo de Borja and Francisco de Borja got the Jalajala proper. For the purpose of this case, e ill just dealith that part called Junta. This propert' has an area of !,)$%, hectares, #" ares and # centares 4+h. )36 of hich, according to thesurve'or ho measured the same, #** hectares ere of cultivated rice fields and !** hectares dedicated to the planting of upland rice. (thas also tim&erland and forest hich produce considera&le amount of trees and fireoods. From the said propert' hich has an assessedvalue of ;!!%,*** and for hich the estates pa' real estate ta of ;!,%** annuall', the administrator reported the folloing8

Hear (ncome

+penditure 4notincluding

administration/s fees

!"$%........... ;3#%.** ;!,)!*.$#

!"$3.............

!,**.** ),$<!.**

!"$<.............

#,%%*.** #,"!#."!

!"$............. !,#.** ),)!!.

!"$".............

),#*$.%* $,<"#.*"

!"%*.............

#,*#.** #,"$*."!

;!#,*".%* ;!,<)".#!

This statement as assailed &' the oppositors and to su&stantiate their charge that the administrator did not file the true income of thepropert', the' presented several itnesses ho testified that there ere a&out #** tenants oring therein9 that these tenants paid toCrisanto de Borja rentals at the rate of 3 cavanes of pala' per hectare9 that in the 'ears of !"$) and !"$$, the Japanese ere the ones hocollected their rentals, and that the estate could have received no less than !,*** cavanes of pala' 'earl'. 5fter the administrator hadpresented itnesses to refute the facts previousl' testified to &' the itnesses for the oppositors, the Court held that the report of theadministrator did not contain the real income of the propert' devoted to rice cultivation, hich as fied at !,*** cavanes ever' 'ear — for

7/27/2019 De Borja


!"$!, !"$#, !"$%, !"$3, !"$<, !"$, !"$" and !"%*, or a total of ,*** cavanes valued at ;<),***. But as the administrator accounted forthe sum of ;!!,!%% collected from rice harvests and if to this amount e add the sum of ;,<)".#* for epenses, this ill mae a total of;!","$.#*, thus leaving a deficit of ;%),!*%.*, I of hich ill &e ;!),#<3.$% hich the administrator is held lia&le to pa' the heirs ofQuintin de Borja.(t as also proved during the hearing that the forest land of this propert' 'ields considera&le amount of mareta&le fireoods. Taing intoconsideration the testimonies of itnesses for &oth parties, the Court arrived at the conclusion that the administrator sold to regorio 7antosfireoods orth ;3** in !"$!, ;),%** in !"$% and ;$,#** in !"$3 or a total of ;,)**. 5s the report included onl' the amount of ;3#%,there as a &alance of ;<,3<% in favor of the estate. The oppositors ere not a&le to present an' proof of sales made after these 'ears, ifthere ere an' and the administrator as held accounta&le to the oppositors for onl' ;!,"!.<%.4d 6 The estate also, oned ricefields in Cainta, 1i?al, ith a total area of ## hectares, <3 ares and 33 centares. =f this particular item, the

administrator reported an income of ;!#,!*$ from !"$% to !"%!. The oppositors protested against this report and presented itnesses todisprove the same.Basilio Javier ored as a tenant in the land of Juliana de Borja hich is near the land &elonging to the (ntestate, the # properties &eingseparated onl' &' a river. 5s tenant of Juliana de Borja, he ne the tenants oring on the propert' and also nos that &oth lands are ofthe same class, and that an area accommodating one cavan of seedlings 'ields at most !** cavanes and 3* cavanes at the least. Theadministrator failed to overcome this testimon'. The loer Court considering the facts testified to &' this itness made a finding that thepropert' &elonging to this (ntestate as actuall' occupied &' several persons accommodating !) cavanes of seedlings9 that as for ever'cavan of seedlings, the land produces 3* cavanes of pala', the hole area under cultivation ould have 'ielded !* cavanes a 'ear andunder the %*-%* sharing s'stem 4hich as testified &' itness Javier6, the estate ould have received no less than $*% cavanes ever''ear. :o, for the period of < 'ears — from !"$! to !"%*, ecluding the ) 'ears of ar — the corresponding earning of the estate should &e#,)% cavanes, out of hich the $*% cavanes from the harvest of !"$! is valued at ;!,#!% and the rest #,$)* cavanes at ;!* is valued at;#$,)**, or all in all ;#%,%!%. (f from this amount the reported income of ;!#,!*$ is deducted, there ill &e a &alance of ;!),$!!.!* !@$ ofhich or !)#)(".'( the administrator is held lia&le to pa' to the oppositors.4e6 The records sho that the administrator paid surcharges and penalties ith a total of ;".<% for his failure to pa' on time the taesimposed on the properties under his administration. e advanced the reason that he lagged in the pa'ment of those ta o&ligations &ecauseof lac of cash &alance for the estate. The oppositors, hoever, presented evidence that on =cto&er #", !")", the administrator receivedfrom Juliana de Borja the sum of ;#*,$<%.!< together ith certain papers pertaining to the intestate 4+h. $6,aside from the checs in thename of Quintin de Borja. 2ieise, for his failure to pa' the taes on the &uilding at 5?carraga for !"$<, !"$ and !"$", said propert' assold at pu&lic auction and the administrator had to redeem the same at ;),#"%.$, although the amount that should have &een paid as onl';#,"!<.#3. The estate therefore suffered a loss of !)'$."" . 5ttri&uting these surcharges and penalties to the negligence of the administrator,the loer Court adjudged him lia&le to pa' the oppositors I of ;!,)33."<, the total loss suffered &' the (ntestate, or !)*&.'*.4f 6 7ometime in !"$#, a &ig fire ra?ed numerous houses in ;ateros, 1i?al, including that of >r. Crisanto de Borja. Thereafter, he claimed thatamong the properties &urned therein as his safe containing ;!%,*** &elonging to the estate under his administration. The administratorcontended that this loss as alread' proved to the satisfaction of the Court ho, approved the same &' order of Januar' , !"$),purportedl' issued &' Judge 7ervillano ;laton4+h. B6. The oppositors contested the genuineness of this order and presented on 5pril #!,!"%*, an epert itness ho conducted several tests to determine the pro&a&le age of the 0uestioned document, and arrived at theconclusion that the 0uestioned in riting K4Fdo6K appearing at the &ottom of +hi&it B cannot &e more than $ 'ears old 4+h. )"6. oever,another epert itness presented &' the administrator contradicted this finding and testified that this conclusion arrived at &' epert itnessMr. ;edro Man?aAares as not supported &' authorities and as merel' the result of his on theor', as there as no method 'et discoveredthat ould determine the age of a document, for ever' document has its on reaction to different chemicals used in the tests. There is,hoever, another fact that called the attention of the loer Court8 the administrator testified that the mone' and other papers delivered &'Juliana de Borja to him on =cto&er #", !")", ere saved from said fire. The administrator justified the eistence of these valua&les &'asserting that these properties ere loced &' Juliana de Borja in her draer in the Kcasa solariegaK in ;ateros and hence as not in his

safe hen his house, together ith the safe, as &urned. This line of reasoning is reall' su&ject to dou&t and the loer Court opined, that itruns counter to the ordinar' course of human &ehaviour for an administrator to leave in the draer of the KaparadorK of Juliana de Borja themone' and other documents &elonging to the estate under his administration, hich deliver' has receipted for, rather than to eep it in hissafe together ith the alleged ;!%,*** also &elonging to the (ntestate. The su&se0uent orders of Judge ;laton also put the defense ofappellant to &ad light, for on Fe+ruary ,# &*), the Court re0uired Crisanto de Borja to appear &efore the Court of eamination of the otherheirs in connection ith the reported loss, and on March !, !"$), authori?ed the la'ers for the other parties to inspect the safe allegedl'&urned 4+h. )%6. (t is inconceiva&le that Judge ;laton ould still order the inspection of the safe if there as reall' an order approving theloss of those ;!%,***. De must not forget, in this connection, that the records of this case ere &urned and that at the time of the hearing ofthis incident in !"%!, Judge ;laton as alread' dead. The loer Court also found no reason h' the administrator should eep in his suchamount of mone', for ordinar' prudence ould dictate that as an administration funds that come into his possession in a fiduciar' capacit'should not &e mingled ith his personal funds and should have &een deposited in the Ban in the name of the intestate. The administratoras held responsi&le for this loss and ordered to pa' I thereof, or the sum of ;),<%*.4 6 Enauthori?ed ependitures —!. The report of the administrator contained certain sums amounting to ;#,!)* paid to and receipted &' Juanita . Jarencio theadministrator/s ife, as his private secretar'. (n eplaining this item, the administrator alleged that he needed her services to eep receiptsand records for him, and that he did not secure first the authori?ation from the court &efore maing these dis&ursements &ecause it asmerel' a pure administrative function.

The eeping of receipts and retaining in his custod' records connected ith the management of the properties under administration is a dut'that properl' &elongs to the administrator, necessar' to support the statement of accounts that he is o&liged to su&mit to the court forapproval. (f ever his ife too charge of the safeeeping of these receipts and for hich she should &e compensated, the same should &etaen from his fee. This dis&ursement as disalloed &' the Court for &eing unauthori?ed and the administrator re0uired to pa' theoppositors I, thereof or !()".(% .#. The salaries of ;edro +nri0ue?, as collector of the 5?carraga propert'9 of Briccio Matien?o and 2eoncio ;ere?, as encargados, and oficente ;angani&an and erminigildo Macetas as forest-guards ere found justified, although un authori?ed, as the' appear to &ereasona&le and necessar' for the care and preservation of the (ntestate.). The loer Court disalloed as unjustified and unnecessar' the epenses for salaries paid to special policemen amounting to ;!,%*".

5ppellant contended that he sought for the services of Macario Lamungol and others to act as special policemen during harvest time&ecause most of the orers tilting the ;unta propert' ere not natives of Jalajala &ut of the neigh&oring tons and the' ere liel' to runaa' ith the harvest ithout giving the share of the estate if the' ere not policed. This ind of reasoning did not appear to &e convincing tothe trial judge as the cause for such fear seemed to eist onl' in the imagination. ranting that such ind of situation eisted, the proper thing

7/27/2019 De Borja


for the administrator to do ould have &een to secure the previous authori?ation from the Court if he failed to secure the help of the localpolice. e should &e held lia&le for this unauthori?ed ependiture and pa' the heirs of Quintin de Borja I thereof or !)''."( .$. From the 'ear !"$# hen his house as &urned, the administrator and his famil' too shelter at the house &elonging to the (ntestatenon as Kcasa solariegaK hich, in the ;roject of ;artition as adjudicated to his father, Francisco de Borja. This propert', hoever,remained under his administration and for its repairs he spent from !"$%-!"%*, ;!$3%,!$, dul' receipted.:one of these repairs appear to &e etraordinar' for the receipts ere for nipa, for carpenters and thatchers. 5lthough it is true that 1ule %,section # provides that8

7+C. #. EEC/T01 01 2D34546T12T01 T0 7EE! B/48D4596 45 1E!241 . — 5n eecutor or administrator shall maintain intenant a&le repair the houses and other structures and fences &elonging to the estate, and deliver the same in such repair to theheirs or devisees hen directed so to do &' the court.

'et considering that during his occupanc' of the said Kcasa solariegaK he as not pa'ing an' rental at all, it is &ut reasona&le that he shouldtae care of the epenses for the ordinar' repair of said house. 5ppellant asserted that had he and his famil' not occupied the same, the'ould have to pa' someone to atch and tae care of said house. But this ill not ecuse him from this responsi&ilit' for the dis&ursementshe made in connection ith the aforementioned repairs &ecause even if he sta'ed in another house, he ould have had to pa' rentals orelse tae charge also of epenses for the repairs of his residence. The administrator should &e held lia&le to the oppositors in the amount of!),,."$ .%. 5ppellant reported to have incurred epenses amounting to ;3,)*$.<% for alleged repairs on the rice mill in ;ateros, also &elonging to the(ntestate. =f the dis&ursements made therein, the items corresponding, to +hi&its (, (-!, (-#!, 2-#3, 2-!%, 2-3$ and 2-3%, in the total sum of;%<*.<* ere rejected &' the loer court on the ground that the' ere all unsigned although some ere dated. The loer Court, hoever,made an oversight in including the sum of ;!%* covered &' +hi&it 2-#3 hich as dul' signed &' Claudio 1e'es &ecause this does notrefer to the repair of the rice-mill &ut for the roofing of the house and another &uilding and shall &e alloed. Conse0uentl', the sum of;%<*.<* shall &e reduced to ;$#*.<* hich added to the sum of ;),*%" representing ependitures rejected as unauthori?ed to it8

+hi&it 2-%" ............. ;%**.** He Ding

+hi&it 2-3* ............. 3!3.** He Ding

+hi&it 2-3! ............. 3**.** He Ding

+hi&it 2-3# ............. $*.** He Ding+hi&it 2-3) ............. !*.** He Ding

+hi&it Q-# ............. )#).** scale KoeK

Total ................ ...... !)#%(.%%

ill give a total of ;),$<" !@$ of hich is ;3"."# that &elongs to the oppositors.3. =n the epenses for planting in the Cainta ricefields8 — (n his statement of accounts, appellant reported to have incurred a total epenseof ;%,"<< for the planting of the ricefields in Cainta, 1i?al, from the agricultural 'ear !"$%-$3 to !"%*-%!. (t as proved that the prevailingsharing s'stem in this part of the countr' as on %*-%* &asis. 5ppellant admitted that epenses for planting ere advanced &' the estateand li0uidated after each harvest. But the report, ecept for the agricultural 'ear !"%* contained nothing of the pa'ments that the tenantsshould have made. (f the total epenses for said planting amounted to ;%,"<<, thereof or ;#,".%* should have &een paid &' the tenantsas their share of such ependitures, and as ;"3% as reported &' the administrator as paid &ac in !"%*, there still remains a &alance of;#,*#).%* unaccounted for. For this shortage, the administrator is responsi&le and should pa' the oppositors I thereof or !(%(.$' .<. =n the transportation epenses of the administrator8 — (t appears that from the 'ear !"$% to !"%!, the administrator charged the estateith a total of ;%,!<* for transportation epenses. The un receipted dis&ursements ere correspondingl' itemi?ed, a t'pical eample ofhich is as follos8

!"%*

astos de viaje del administrador From ;ateros

To ;asig ................ %* ;$.** ;#**.**

To Manila ............... %* ;!*.** ;%**.**

To Cainta ................ ;.** ;3$.**

To Jalajala ............... % ;)%.** ;!<%.**

;)"".**

4+hi&it D-%$6.From the report of the administrator, De are &eing made to &elieve that the (ntestate estate is a losing proposition and assuming aruendothat this is true, that precarious financial condition hich he, as administrator, should no, did not deter Crisanto de Borja from charging tothe depleted funds of the estate comparativel' &ig amounts for his transportation epenses. 5ppellant tried to justif' these charges &'contending that he used his on car in maing those trips to Manila, ;asig and Cainta and a launch in visiting the properties in Jalajala, andthe' ere for the gasoline consumed. This rather unreasona&le spending of the estate/s fund prompted the Court to o&serve that one illhave to spend onl' ;*.$* for transportation in maing a trip from ;ateros to Manila and practicall' the same amount in going to ;asig. Fromhis report for !"$" alone, appellant made a total of "< trips to these places or an average of one trip for ever' ) !@# da's. Het De must not

forget that it as during this period that the administrator failed or refused to tae cogni?ance of the prevailing rentals of commercial placesin Manila that caused certain loss to the estate and for hich he as accordingl' held responsi&le. For the reason that the allegeddis&ursements made for transportation epenses cannot &e said to &e economical, the loer Court held that the administrator should &e heldlia&le to the oppositors for I thereof or the sum of ;!,#"#.%*, though De thin that this sum should still &e reduced to !(%% .. =ther epenses8The administrator also ordered $* &oolets of printed contracts of lease in the name of the acienda Jalajala hich cost ;!%*. 5s the saidhacienda as divided into ) parts one &elonging to this (ntestate and the other to parts to Francisco de Boria and Bernardo de Borja,ordinaril' the (ntestate should onl' shoulder N@) of the said epense, &ut as the tenants ho testified during the hearing of the matter testifiedthat those printed forms ere not &eing used, the Court adjudged the administrator personall' responsi&le for this amount. The recordsreveal, that this printed form as not utili?ed &ecause the tenants refused to sign an', and De can presume that hen the administratorordered for the printing of the same, he did not foresee this situation. 5s there is no shoing that said printed contracts ere used &' anotherand that the' are still in the possession of the administrator hich could &e utili?ed an'time, this dis&ursement ma' &e alloed.The report also contains a receipt of pa'ment made to Mr. 7evero 5&ellera in the sum of ;)<% for his transportation epenses as one of theto commissioners ho prepared the ;roject of ;artition. The oppositors ere a&le to prove that on Ma' #$, !"$!, the Court authori?ed the

7/27/2019 De Borja


administrator to ithdra from the funds of the intestate the sum of ;)** to defra' the transportation epenses of the commissioners. Theadministrator, hoever, alleged that he used this amount for the pa'ment of certain fees necessar' in connection ith the approval of theproposed plan of the 5?carraga propert' hich as then &eing processed in the Cit' +ngineer/s =ffice. From that testimon', it ould seemthat appellant could even go to the etent of diso&e'ing the order of the Court specif'ing for hat purpose that amount should &eappropriated and too upon himself the tas of judging for hat it ill serve &est. 7ince he as not a&le to sho or prove that the mone'intended and ordered &' the Court to &e paid for the transportation epenses of the commissioners as spent for the &enefit of the estate asclaimed, the administrator should &e held responsi&le therefor and pa' to the oppositors I of ;)<% or the sum of !).'( .The records reveal that for the service of summons to the defendants in Civil Case :o. $ of the Court of First (nstance of 1i?al, ;!*$ aspaid to the ;rovincial 7heriff of the same province 4+hi&it -<6. oever, an item for ;$* appeared to have &een paid to the Chief of ;oliceon Jalajala allegedl' for the service of the same summons. 5ppellant claimed that as the defendants in said civil case lived in remote &arrios,

the services of the Chief of ;olice as delegate or agent of the ;rovincial 7heriff ere necessar'. e forgot pro&a&l' the fact that the localchiefs of police are deput' sheriffs e:-officio. The administrator as therefore ordered &' the loer Court to pa' I of said amount or ;!* tothe oppositors.The administrator included in his 1eport the sum of ;%%* paid to 5tt'. Filamor for his professional services rendered for the defense of theadministrator in .1. :o. 2-$!<", hich as decided against him, ith costs. The loer Court disalloed this dis&ursement on the groundthat this Court provided that the costs of that litigation should not &e &orne &' the estate &ut &' the administrator himself, personall'.Costs of a litigation in the 7upreme Court taed &' the Cler of Court, after a verified petition has &een filed &' the prevailing part', shall &eaarded to said part' and ill onl' include his fee and that of his attorne' for their appearance hich shall not &e more than ;$*9 epensesfor the printing and the copies of the record on appeal9 all laful charges imposed &' the Cler of Court9 fees for the taing of depositionsand other epenses connected ith the appearance of itnesses or for laful fees of a commissioner 4>e la Cru?, ;hilippine 7upreme Court;ractice, p. <*-<!6. (f the costs provided for in that case, hich this Court ordered to &e chargea&le personall' against the administrator arenot recovera&le &' the latter, ith more reason this item could not &e charged against the (ntestate. Conse0uentl', the administrator shouldpa' the oppositors I of the sum of ;%%* or ;!)<.%*.4e6 The loer Court in its decision re0uired appellant to pa' the oppositors the sum of ;!,)"% out of the funds still in the possession of theadministrator.(n the statement of accounts su&mitted &' the administrator, there appeared a cash &alance of ;%,%!.!< as of 5ugust )!, !"3!. From thisamount, the sum of ;!,**#."3 representing the Certificate of >eposit :o. #!3!" and Chec :o. %<)), &oth of the ;hilippine :ational Banand in the name of Quintin de Borja, as deducted leaving a &alance of ;$,$. 5s Judge Oulueta ordered the deliver' to the oppositors ofthe amount of ;!,"* in his order of =cto&er , !"%!9 the deliver' of the amount of ;!* to the estate of Juliana de Borja in his order of=cto&er #), !"%!, and the sum of ;")#.)# to the same estate of Juliana de Borja &' order of the Court of Fe&ruar' #", !"%#, or a total of;),3)#.)# after deducting the same from the cash in the possession of the administrator, there ill onl' &e a remainder of ;!)$.".The (ntestate is also the creditor of Miguel B. >a'co, heir and administrator of the estate of Crisanta de Borja, in the sum of ;"** 4+hi&its 7and 7-!6. 5dding this credit to the actual cash on hand, there ill &e a total of ;!,*)$.", I, of hich or ;#%.<$ properl' &elongs to theoppositors. oever, as there is onl' a residue of ;!)$." in the hands of the administrator and dividing it among the ) groups of heirs hoare not inde&ted to the (ntestate, each group ill receive ;$$."", and Miguel B. >a'co is under o&ligation to reim&urse ;#!).<3 to each ofthem.The loer Court ordered the administrator to deliver to the oppositors the amount of ;!,)"%."* and ;)!$."" each to Francisco de Borja andthe estate of Juliana de Borja, &ut as De have arrived at the computation that the three heirs not ide&ted to the (ntestate ought to receive;$$."" each out of the amount of ;!)$.", the oppositors are entitled to the sum of ;!,**."! — the amount deducted from them as taes&ut hich the Court ordered to &e returned to them — plus ;$$."" or a total of ;!,!#%."*. (t appearing hoever, that ina Joint Motion dated:ovem&er #<, !"%#, dul' approved &' the Court, the parties agreed to fi the amount at ;!,!#%.%, as the amount due and said heirs havealread' received this amount in satisfaction of this item, no other sum can &e chargea&le against the administrator.4f 6 The pro&ate Court also ordered the administrator to render an accounting of his administration during the Japanese occupation on the

ground that although appellant maintained that hatever mone' he received during that period is orthless, same having &een declaredithout an' value, 'et during the earl' 'ears of the ar, or during !"$#-$), the ;hilippine peso as still in circulation, and articles of primenecessit' as rice and fireood commanded high prices and ere paid ith jeels or other valua&les.But De must not forget that in his order of >ecem&er !!, !"$%, Judge ;eAa re0uired the administrator to render an accounting of hisadministration onl' from March !, !"$%, to >ecem&er of the same 'ear ithout ordering said administrator to include therein the occupationperiod. 5lthough the Court &elo mentioned the condition then prevailing during the ar-'ears, De cannot simpl' presume, in the a&senceof proof to that effect, that the administrator received such valua&les or properties for the use or in echange of an' asset or produce of the(ntestate, and in vie of the aforementioned order of Judge ;eAa, hich De find no reason to distur&, De see no practical reason forre0uiring appellant to account for those occupation 'ears hen ever'thing as affected &' the a&normal conditions created &' the ar. Therecords of the ;hilippine :ational Ban sho that there as a current account jointl' in the names of Crisanto de Borja and Juanita .Jarencio, his ife, ith a &alance of ;)3,<%*.)% in Japanese militar' notes and admittedl' &elonging to the (ntestate and De do not &elievethat the oppositors or an' of the heirs ould &e interested in an accounting for the purpose of dividing or distri&uting this deposit.4 6 =n the sum of ;!),#"$ for administrator/s fees8(t is not disputed that the administrator set aside for himself and collected from the estate the sum of ;!),#"$ as his fees from !"$% to !"%!at the rate of ;#,$** a 'ear. There is no controvers' as to the fact that this appropriated amount as taen ithout the order or previousapproval &' the pro&ate Court. :either is there an' dou&t that the administration of the (ntestate estate &' Crisanto de Borja is far fromsatisfactor'.

Het it is a fact that Crisanto de Borja eercised the functions of an administrator and is entitled also to a certain amount as compensation forthe or and services he has rendered as such. :o, considering the etent and si?e of the estate, the amount involved and the nature ofthe properties under administration, the amount collected &' the administrator for his compensation at ;#** a month is not unreasona&leand should therefore &e alloed.(t might &e argued against this dis&ursement that the records are replete ith instances of highl' irregular practices of the administrator, suchas the pretended ignorance of the necessit' of a &oo or ledger or at least a list of chronological and dated entries of mone' or produce the(ntestate ac0uired and the amount of dis&ursements made for the same properties9 that admittedl' he did not have even a list of the namesof the lessees to the properties under his administration, nor even a list of those ho oed &ac rentals, and although De certainl' agreeith the pro&ate Court in finding appellant guilt' of acts of maladministration, specificall' in miing the funds of the estate under hisadministration ith his personal funds instead of eeping a current account for the (ntestate in his capacit' as administrator, De are of theopinion that despite these irregular practices for hich he as held alread' lia&le and made in some instances to reim&urse the (ntestate foramounts that ere not properl' accounted for, his claim for compensation as administrator/s fees shall &e as the' are here&' alloed.1ecapitulation. — Taing all the matters threshed herein together, the administrator is held lia&le to pa' to the heirs of Quintin de Borja the

7/27/2019 De Borja


folloing8Ender ;aragraphs ((( and (8

4a6 . ... ... .. ... ... ..... .. .. .... .. .. .... .... ... ..... ... ..... .. .. .... .... .... .... ... ;<,*$.#<

4&6 . ... ... .. ... ... ..... .. .. .... .. .. .... .... ... ..... ... ..... .. .. .... .... .... .... ... !#,!<%.**

4c6 .. .... .... ... ..... .. .. .... .. .. .... .... ... .. ... ... ..... .. .. .... .. .. .... .... ... .. !3,!!)."%

4d6 ............................................................................... ),)%#.<%

4e6 ............................................................................... )$!.<$

4f6 ................................................................................ ),<%*.**

4g6 ! ..................................................................... %)#.%*

# ..................................................................... )<<.#%

) ..................................................................... )33.#

$ ..................................................................... 3"."#

% ..................................................................... %*%.<

3 ..................................................................... %**.**

<-a

& .................................................................. ").<%

c .................................................................. !*.**

d ................................................................... !)<.%*

;$3,#!*.**

(n vie of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is modified &' reducing the amount that the administrator as sentenced to pa' theoppositors to the sum of ;$3,#!*.< 4instead of ;),))<.)!6, plus legal interests on this amount from the date of the decision appealed from,

hich is here&' affirmed in all other respects. Dithout pronouncement as to costs. (t is so ordered.!aras# C.J.# Ben;on# 3ontemayor# 1eyes# 2.# Bautista 2nelo# 8a+rador and Endencia# JJ.# concur.

Documents

De Borja