Royo v. Deen
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Movants-appellants sought the execution of a bond posted by oppositors-appellees, N. T. Deen and Tomas Delgado, in the amount of P25,000.00. The execution was to recover P17,610.00 allegedly unremitted by the deceased administrator, Pantaleon E. del Rosario, from the estate of Pedro Royo. Del Rosario, as administrator, received P43,500.00 from the sale of estate properties and disbursed P24,890.00, leaving a balance of P17,610.00. Del Rosario filed a manifestation on September 8, 1928, stating that the administration no longer possessed assets, attributing the depletion to arrangements made by the heirs with creditors and their own use of remaining funds, resulting in a deficit of P600.00. Procedural History: The motion for execution was filed on November 6, 1940. The Court of First Instance of Cebu, in a decision dated May 17, 1941, denied the motion. The court held that the heirs, having reached majority age in 1924, never impugned Del Rosario's 1928 manifestation nor took steps to ascertain the estate's assets. Del Rosario died on November 25, 1930, and administration proceedings for his estate were opened, yet no claim was filed by the heirs of Pedro Royo against his estate for the P17,610.00. The court concluded that the motion was filed too late and that the heirs were barred by prescription or estoppel by laches. The Appeal: Movants-appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which endorsed the case to the Supreme Court as it involved questions of law. The appellants assigned as errors the denial of their motion for execution, the application of prescription and estoppel by laches, the reliance on the administrator's unsworn manifestation, and the closure of the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the movants-appellants are barred by prescription and estoppel by laches from seeking the execution of the administrator's bond for the sum of P17,610.00. Whether the administrator's manifestation dated September 8, 1928, despite not being sworn to, can be given faith and credit as evidence of the estate's financial status.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, denying the motion for execution and ordering the closure of the case. The Court held that the movants-appellants were barred by prescription and estoppel by laches from pursuing their claim against the administrator's bond.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the movants-appellants were indeed barred by prescription and estoppel by laches from seeking the execution of the administrator's bond. The Court noted that the administrator, Pantaleon E. del Rosario, had filed a manifestation on September 8, 1928, indicating that the estate had no remaining assets and that the heirs, having reached majority, had already taken possession of the remaining funds after settling debts. Despite this manifestation and the administrator's subsequent death in 1930, no claim was filed by the heirs of Pedro Royo in the administrator's estate proceedings or in the intestate proceedings of Pedro Royo for the P17,610.00. The motion for execution was filed on November 6, 1940, over twelve years after the manifestation and over nine years after the administrator's death. This prolonged inaction, coupled with the heirs' failure to question the manifestation or ascertain the estate's status, constituted acquiescence and barred their claim under the principles of prescription and estoppel by laches, as provided by Article 1148 of the Civil Code and established jurisprudence. The bondsmen, Delgado and Deen, could validly invoke these defenses. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court found no error in the lower court giving faith and credit to the administrator's manifestation dated September 8, 1928. The Court reasoned that an administrator, upon assuming office, is already sworn to faithfully perform his duties. Therefore, subsequent reports or manifestations submitted in the course of administration do not require an additional oath, especially when no opposition is filed by the interested parties, such as the heirs. The record showed no opposition from the heirs to this manifestation, nor any attempt to have the administrator examined under oath regarding his accounts, as provided by Section 9 of Rule 86. The absence of any objection or contestation by the heirs, who were of legal age, indicated their conformity with the administrator's report and the facts stated therein. This silence and acquiescence served as competent proof that the administrator did not retain the sum claimed but had either used it for estate debts or delivered it to the heirs, thus validating the manifestation as a basis for the court's decision.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of the motion to execute the administrator's bond, holding that the movants-appellants were barred by prescription and estoppel by laches from claiming the P17,610.00. The Court found that the heirs had knowledge of the administrator's manifestation in 1928 regarding the disposition of estate funds, yet they failed to file any claim or objection in the administrator's estate proceedings after his death in 1930, or even in the intestate proceedings of Pedro Royo. This prolonged inaction, spanning over twelve years from the manifestation to the filing of the motion, demonstrated their acquiescence to the administrator's account and constituted a waiver of their right to demand accountability, thereby extinguishing the liability of the administrator and, consequently, his bondsmen.