Martinez v Martinez, G.R. No. 445, March 31, 1902

-

Ponente: COOPER, J.

Facts:

Plaintiff Pedro Martinez filed an action for a declaration of prodigality against his Father Don Francisco Martinez.

Plaintiff Pedro Martinez alleged that his Father, owing to his advanced age, is dissipating and squandering his estate by:

- making donations to her second wife, her parents and her relatives.

- instigating groundless suits 

Defendant the Father denied these allegations. He said that the son was the one mismanaging and misappropriating the property of the estate, which forced him to revoke the power of attorney given to him(the son).

Likewise, the suit against his son was for the latter's refusal to render an account of his administration.

The CFI rendered judgment against the son. Hence, this appeal.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the father prodigal?

HELD: No.

The father is not a prodigal. Under our law, it may be inferred that the acts of prodigality must show a morbid state of mind and a disposition to spend, waste and lessen the estate to such an extent as is likely to expose the family to want of support, or to deprive the forced heirs of their undisposable part of the estate.

The testimony of the son was wholly insufficient to merit the declaration of prodigality against his Father.

There is no proof that there was any money belonging to the estate, or other personal property, the transfer of which could not be easily traced.

The son has been in possession of a greater part of the estate since November 1897, collecting the revenue from the ships and rents from the city property.

There is no evidence to show that there has been any perceptible diminution of the father's property.

As such, the father far from being a prodigal, is still in the full exercise of his faculties and still possesses the industry, thrift, and ability that made him rich.

DECISION: The judgment of the Cfi is affirmed and costs of suits in both courts is adjudged against the plaintiff.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aurbach v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corp., G.R. Nos. 75875, 75951 & 75975-76, December 15, 1989

-
Summary:  American Standard Inc (ASI), a foreign corporation in US entered into an Agreement with Saniwares and some Filipino investors whereby ASI and the Filipino investors agreed to participate in the ownership of an enterprise which would engage primarily in the business of manufacturing in the Philippines and selling here and abroad vitreous china and sanitary wares. ASI agreed to accept the role of minority vis-a-vis the Filipino investors, on the condition that the Agreement should contain provisions to protect ASI as the minority. One such provision is: As long as American-Standard shall own at least 30% of the outstanding stock of the Corporation, three of the nine directors shall be designated by American-Standard, and the other six shall be designated by the other stockholders of the Corporation. (Section 5(a) of the Agreement) . The 30% capital stock of ASI was later increased to 40%. On Mar 8, 1983, the election of the members of the board of directors was held. - Th...
Read more

Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000

-
Ponente: KAPUNAN J. A Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition. Summary:  Petitioner: Integrated Bar of the Philippines Respondent: Hon. Ronaldo B. Zamora, Gen. Panfilo M. Lacson, Gen. Edgar B. Aglipay, Gen. Angelo Reyes President Estrada deployed the Marines to patrol certain parts of Metro Manila. IBP questioned  the constitutionality of this action. The SC decided that the IBP has no locus standi but chose to take cognizance of the petition as it is of paramount importance to the public (especially in light of Martial Law). SC decided that Estrada's deployment of Marines is constitutional and dismissed the filed petition. ---------------------------------------- Facts: President Estrada, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief and through a verbal directive, deployed the Marines, to join the PNP in visibility patrols in response to alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila. The PNP Chief, through Police Chief Superintendent Edgar B....
Read more

Joaquin v. Navarro, G.R. Nos. L-5426-28, May 29, 1953

-
Ponente: TUASON, J. Facts:  On Feb 6, 1945, the Navarro Family took refuge in the ground floor of the German Club Building. All three of Joaquin Navarro, Sr’s daughters died when the Japanese started shooting at the people inside the building. Joaquin Navarro Sr, his son Joaquin Navarro Jr, Adela Conde(his son's wife) and a   family friend Francisco Lopez abandoned the building. Angela Joaquin Navarro refused to join them. As they came out, Joaquin Jr was shot in the head by a Japanese soldier. Minutes later the German Club Building, which was on fire, collapsed. Joaquin Navarro Sr, Adela Conde and Francisco Lopez managed to reach an air raid shelter. They stayed there for 3 days. On Feb 10, the three fled toward St. Theresa Academy, but unfortunately met Japanese patrols, who fired at them Joaquin Navarro Sr and his daughter in law died. Franciso Lopez survived. After the war, three proceedings were instituted in the CFI Manila for the summary settlement of the estates...
Read more