Title
Bairan vs. Tan Siu Lay
Case
G.R. No. L-19460
Decision Date
Dec 28, 1966
Dispute over attorney-in-fact's authority, bond posting, and property surrender in estate administration; court deemed orders final and appealable.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19460)

Facts:

  1. Appointment of Attorney-in-Fact:
    On October 13, 1947, Francisco Tan was appointed by his father, Tan Chiong Pun, as his attorney-in-fact to administer, supervise, control, and sell on an installment basis a real property known as the "Mabuhay Subdivision," covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 20912.

  2. Substitute Attorney-in-Fact Agreement:
    On October 22, 1954, Francisco Tan, with the knowledge and consent of his principal, entered into an agreement with Roque Bairan, appointing the latter as his substitute attorney-in-fact to administer and sell the Mabuhay Subdivision. The agreement was to last as long as there were lots to be sold or pending collections.

  3. Death of Tan Chiong Pun and Probate Proceedings:
    Tan Chiong Pun died on November 25, 1956, and testate proceedings for the settlement of his estate were instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Special Proceedings No. 31360). Francisco Tan was appointed executor of the estate.

  4. Petition for Bond:
    On March 15, 1960, Agustin Tan Siu Lay, one of the heirs, filed a petition to require Bairan to post a bond of P250,000.00, alleging that Bairan had retained unauthorized deductions amounting to P120,000.00 from the proceeds of the subdivision sales.

  5. Court Orders:

    • January 4, 1961: The court ordered Bairan to post a surety bond of P100,000.00.
    • February 9, 1961: Bairan's motion for reconsideration was denied.
    • June 8, 1961: The court ruled that the January 4, 1961 order was interlocutory and unappealable.
    • June 17, 1961: The court ordered Bairan to surrender and deliver all estate properties in his possession to the executor.
    • July 31, 1961: The court ruled that the June 17, 1961 order was interlocutory and unappealable.
    • August 12, 1961: Bairan's motion for reconsideration was denied.
  6. Attempted Appeals:
    Bairan attempted to appeal the orders of January 4, 1961, and June 17, 1961, but the court refused to give due course to the appeals, deeming the orders interlocutory.

Issue:

  1. Whether the orders of January 4, 1961 (requiring Bairan to post a bond) and June 17, 1961 (requiring Bairan to surrender estate properties) are final and appealable or merely interlocutory.
  2. Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contested orders.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that the orders of January 4, 1961, and June 17, 1961, were final and appealable because they resolved specific matters with finality, leaving no substantial proceedings to be had except their execution. However, the Court denied the writs prayed for, finding that the orders were correct and within the jurisdiction of the probate court. The writ of preliminary injunction was set aside, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.