Case Digest (G.R. No. 102508) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Carmen G. de Perez, Trustee of the Estate of Ana Maria Alcantara v. Mariano Garchitorena and Jose Casimiro, G.R. No. 31703, decided on February 13, 1930 by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff–appellee, Carmen G. de Perez, sued as trustee of her deceased aunt Ana Maria Alcantara’s estate. The decedent held a liquidated claim against the late Andres Garchitorena, represented by his son, Mariano Garchitorena, now a defendant–appellant. A deposit of ₱21,428.58 in the name of the estate at La Urbana in Manila constituted final payment of that claim. Meanwhile, Mariano Garchitorena obtained a ₱7,872.23 judgment against Joaquin Perez Alcantara, husband of Carmen de Perez, and directed the Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Jose Casimiro, to levy execution on any assets of Perez Alcantara, resulting in attachment of the La Urbana deposit. The plaintiff secured a preliminary injunction to restrain application of the judgment upon alleging that the deposit belonged to the f Case Digest (G.R. No. 102508) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Procedural Posture
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Carmen G. de Perez, trustee of the estate of Ana Maria Alcantara, deceased.
- Defendants-Appellants: Mariano Garchitorena (son and representative of Andres Garchitorena, deceased) and Jose Casimiro, sheriff.
- Underlying Transactions and Dispute
- A sum of ₱21,428.58 representing the final payment of a liquidated credit of Ana Maria Alcantara was deposited in the plaintiff’s name with La Urbana, Manila.
- Mariano Garchitorena held a judgment for ₱7,872.23 against Joaquin Pérez Alcantara (plaintiff’s husband); sheriff levied an attachment on the La Urbana deposit.
- Plaintiff secured a preliminary injunction restraining execution, alleging the deposit belonged to fideicommissary heirs (her children).
- Trial Court Ruling and Appeal
- Trial court held the La Urbana deposit belonged to the plaintiff’s children as fideicommissary heirs and made the injunction permanent.
- Appellants argued no trust/fideicommissary substitution existed, deposit belonged to plaintiff as universal heiress, and injunction should be dissolved.
- Appellants assigned errors:
- No trust created by will.
- Deposit is plaintiff’s property, not children’s.
- Injunction should not be permanent; costs wrongly imposed.
Issues:
- Nature of Substitution in the Will
- Whether the testatrix’s will created a simple substitution or a fideicommissary substitution.
- Ownership and Entitlement to the Deposit
- Whether the ₱21,428.58 on deposit belongs to the fideicommissary heirs (plaintiff’s children) or to the plaintiff as universal heiress.
- Validity of Injunction and Award of Costs
- Whether the preliminary injunction should be confirmed as permanent and costs properly awarded against appellant.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)