Title
City of Manila vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila
Case
G.R. No. 10033
Decision Date
Aug 30, 1917
Ana Sarmiento's 1668 will established a chaplaincy, designating the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila as perpetual administrator. The City of Manila's 1913 escheat claim was denied, as the will validly designated heirs and administrators, precluding escheat under Act No. 190.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 148208)

Background of the Case

This legal action was initiated on February 15, 1913, with the primary aim of declaring certain properties escheated to the City of Manila. The properties in question, comprising five parcels of land located in the districts of Malate and Paco, were linked to Ana Sarmiento, who reportedly had no heirs at the time of her death in 1668.

Findings from the Trial

After a thorough presentation of evidence, the trial court, presided over by Judge A. S. Cross-field, concluded that the petitioner’s request for escheatment should be denied. Subsequent to this ruling, the petitioner appealed, asserting several errors in the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court, upon reviewing the record, established several critical facts regarding Ana Sarmiento’s last will and testament.

Legal Determinations Concerning the Will

The evidence presented indicated that Ana Sarmiento executed a will on November 17, 1668, and later amended this will with a codicil on November 23, 1668. Furthermore, she created another will on May 19, 1669, which reaffirmed the previous codicil. Importantly, her will included specific provisions for the establishment of a "Capellania de Misas," assigning her nephew, Pedro del Castillo, as the first chaplain. The continuous and perpetual administration of the property was clearly articulated within her will.

Legal Framework for Escheatment

Section 750 of Act No. 190 outlines the conditions under which property may be declared escheated, specifically in cases of intestacy when an individual dies without heirs. However, the evidence corroborated that Ana Sarmiento did not die intestate. She explicitly left a will appointing her nephew as administrator, which serves as a legitimate indication of a designated heir for the property in question.

Conclusion on Property Administration

The appellate court determined that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila had rightfully maintained possession and administration of

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.