Case Digest (G.R. No. 21639)
Facts:
Albert F. Kiel v. Estate of P. S. Sabert, G.R. No. 21639, September 25, 1924, the Supreme Court, Malcolm, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is Albert F. Kiel; the defendant-appellant is the Estate of P. S. Sabert.In 1907 Kiel and William Milfeil began working public lands in Parang, Cotabato, known as the Parang Plantation Company; Kiel later acquired Milfeil's interest. In 1910 Kiel and P. S. Sabert entered into an agreement under which Sabert would furnish capital and Kiel would manage the plantation, to "share and share alike" in the property; the arrangement was structured so the land could be acquired in Sabert's name because Kiel was a German citizen and thus ineligible to acquire public land. From 1910 until about 1917 Kiel worked to develop the plantation; during World War I Kiel was deported from the Philippines.
Kiel sought settlement with Sabert (a June 6, 1918 letter from Sabert indicates negotiations), but Sabert died before any final arrangement. On August 16, 1919 five persons including Sabert organized the Nituan Plantation Company with subscribed capital of P40,000. On April 10, 1922 Sabert transferred all his rights in two parcels described in his homestead application No. 21045 and purchase application No. 1048 to the Nituan Plantation Company for P1.
Kiel presented a claim (for P20,000) against Sabert's estate to the probate commissioners and it was disallowed; on appeal to the Court of First Instance the claim was allowed and the estate appealed to the Supreme Court. The trial court's judgment permitted Kiel to recover the full amount claimed; the Estate appealed, assigning seven errors including challenges to the characterization of the ac...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the plaintiff competent to testify as to matters occurring before the death of Sabert under the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Were the declarations or acts of the deceased Sabert admissible against his estate?
- Did competent evidence establish a verbal copartnership between Kiel and Sabert?
- Was Kiel entitled to an interest in the land (a resulting trust) or to one-half of the proceeds of sale, or was his proper remedy an accounting...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)