Case Digest (G.R. No. 45475)
Facts:
Estate of Antonio Ma. Barretto y Rocha, represented by its administrators Dolores Moratinos Viuda de Barretto et al., G.R. No. 45475, November 16, 1937, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.This petition for a writ of prohibition arises from Civil Case No. 24803 (the Mayorazgo Tuason case) pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila. On June 17, 1936 the trial court ordered the defendants to deliver to the judicial receiver P133,690.67 as part of the revenues of the mayorazgo for distribution among the plaintiffs and intervenors. After the defendants failed to comply, the court on October 17, 1936 ordered issuance of a writ of execution; a subsequent order of November 3, 1936 identified the defendants against whom execution would issue, and included Consuelo Legarda Viuda de Prieto.
Upon learning of the November order, Consuelo Legarda Viuda de Prieto—through counsel Orense and Belmonte—filed on November 9 (the same month) a petition to be excluded from both the November 3 order and the writ of execution. She alleged she was not a defendant but an intervenor and that she had acquired, by deed of cession dated November 7, 1935 from Mariano S. Tuason, a portion of his undivided share which was not subject to the lis pendens in the main action; the deed had been filed in the mayorazgo case and, on December 2, 1935, the trial court had ordered the receiver bank to deliver to her the share pertaining to Tuason. In consequence, on December 17, 1936 the trial court modified the November 3 order and the writ of execution by excluding Consuelo Legarda and substituting Mariano S. Tuason as defendant in her stead.
The plaintiffs and intervenors (the petitioners here) filed two motions for reconsideration of the December 17 order; both motions were denied by the trial court. The petitioners then sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court challenging the December 17, 1936 order and contending that the beneficiaries of the family trust (the one-fifth of revenues) had a real lien or mortgage on all the entailed properties, such that Consuelo’s acquisition could not free the share from the obligation to pay the plaint...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial judge act without jurisdiction or commit grave abuse in excluding Consuelo Legarda Viuda de Prieto from the writ of execution and substituting Mariano S. Tuason?
- Does the family trust (the obligation to set apart one-fifth of net revenues) create a real lien or mortgage upon the entailed properties, or is it merely a personal / equitable obligation enforceable only against revenues?
- If a purported lien existed, was it lost or rendered ineffective by the failure to convert an implied legal mortgage into a special, registered mortgage under the applicable Mortgage Law and Civil Code provisions?
- Is the clause in the twelfth paragraph of the deed of cession (whereby the grantee does not assume the grantor’s liability) valid an...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)