Title
Mendezona vs. Vda. de Goitia
Case
G.R. No. 31739
Decision Date
Mar 11, 1930
Plaintiffs claimed unpaid dividends from Benigno Goitia, their attorney-in-fact, who collected but failed to remit funds from 1915-1926. Court affirmed jurisdiction, admissibility of evidence, and ordered accounting, ruling in favor of plaintiffs.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 31739)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • The case involves two separate claims filed by:
      • Leonor Mendezona, and
      • Valentina Izaguirre y Nazabal,
against the intestate estate of Benigno Goitia y Lazaga.
  • Defendant/Appellant: Encarnacion C. Viuda de Goitia, acting in her capacity as judicial administratrix of the estate.
  • Filing and Procedural History
    • Originally, the plaintiffs filed claims with the committee of claims and appraisal in the Court of First Instance of Manila (civil case No. 30273).
      • Leonor Mendezona’s claim was for P5,940, and
      • Valentina Izaguirre’s claim was for P376.
    • The committee, after hearing the evidence presented by the claimants, found their evidence insufficient and disallowed the claims.
    • In response, both claimants appealed by filing a new complaint in accordance with Section 776 of the Code of Civil Procedure; their amended complaints, increasing the amounts claimed, were approved by the trial court.
  • Facts Relating to the Partnership “Tren de Aguadas”
    • Benigno Goitia acted as the representative and attorney-in-fact for both plaintiffs in the joint account partnership known as “Tren de Aguadas,” located in Manila.
    • The plaintiffs held shares in the partnership:
      • Leonor Mendezona owned 180 shares (worth P18,000), and
      • Valentina Izaguirre owned 72 shares (worth P7,200).
    • Prior to 1915, as manager of the partnership, Benigno Goitia regularly collected and remitted dividends:
      • P540 per annum for Leonor Mendezona, and
      • P216 per annum for Valentina Izaguirre.
    • From 1915 until his death in August 1926, Goitia failed to remit the dividends due to them, except for a payment in July 1926:
      • P90 on behalf of Leonor Mendezona, and
      • P36 on behalf of Valentina Izaguirre.
  • Evidence and Testimonies Presented
    • The trial court found, based on the evidence:
      • Testimony of Ruperto Santos (the partnership’s manager and administrator) establishing that dividends were collected on behalf of the plaintiffs, and
      • Testimony from witness Ramon Salinas, who received dividends on his own shares, that helped determine the per-share dividend rate.
    • Documentary evidence (such as Exhibits D, E, F, G, and K-1) supported the claim that:
      • The shares in the “Tren de Aguadas” belonged to the plaintiffs, and
      • The dividend payments computed aligned with the amounts received by a shareholder like Salinas.
  • The Trial Court’s Judgment and Procedural Orders
    • The trial court rendered a consolidated decision on October 31, 1928, ordering:
      • The defendant to render a judicial account of the dividends and profits collected by the deceased from 1915 to 1926 in her capacity both as his spouse and the judicial administratrix.
    • A suppletory judgment was later rendered, based on:
      • Detailed computation showing that dividends for Leonor Mendezona amount to P13,140 (including P90 in 1926), and
      • Dividends for Valentina Izaguirre to be P5,256 (including P36 in 1926).
    • The defendant was further enjoined to permit inspection and copying of the partnership books and documents pursuant to Section 664 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
    • A schedule was set for the defendant to present her account, initially on January 15, 1929, later postponed to February 7, 1929.
  • Appellate Issues Raised by the Defendant
    • The defendant appealed the decision via a proper bill of exceptions, raising several assignments of error:
      • Jurisdiction to permit the amended complaints increasing the claim amounts beyond those filed with the committee of claims.
      • Allegations regarding the true interest and standing of the plaintiffs.
      • The propriety of ordering the defendant to render an account under Section 676 of the Code.
      • The admissibility of certain depositions (Exhibits A and B) taken before the American consul in Bilbao.
    • The appellant contended that increasing the claim amount in the amended complaint was impermissible given the original claim limits.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction and Amendment of Claims
    • Whether the court had jurisdiction to admit the plaintiffs’ amended complaints, which increased the claim amounts from those originally filed with the committee of claims and appraisal.
    • Whether Section 776 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits an augmentative amendment to the complaint, thereby allowing claimants to recover the full dividend amounts.
  • Standing and Real Interest of the Plaintiffs
    • Whether the plaintiffs are recognized as the true and proper parties in interest, given their ownership of the partnership shares.
    • Whether the defendant’s objection regarding misjoinder or lack of interest could be sustained.
  • Power to Order a Judicial Account
    • Whether, pursuant to Section 676 of the Code, the court had the power to require the defendant to render a complete account of all dividends allegedly collected by the late Benigno Goitia.
  • Evidentiary Issues Concerning Depositions
    • The admissibility of depositions taken by the American consul at Bilbao under Section 356 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
    • Whether these depositions complied with the legal requirements, particularly regarding testimony on facts prior to the decedent’s death.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms