Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 131 views

    Martinez V Martinez

    Uploaded by

    Cathy Belgira
    Pedro Martinez Ilustre claimed his father Francisco squandered his estate by donating over $200,000 to his second wife and her parents. The lower court ruled against Pedro. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding Pedro himself showed signs of prodigality. The donations were acts of generosity and affection by Francisco, not prodigality. Pedro provided insufficient evidence the donations diminished the estate or that Francisco was not in control of his faculties when making them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Martinez V Martinez

    Uploaded by

    Cathy Belgira
    131 views1 page
    Pedro Martinez Ilustre claimed his father Francisco squandered his estate by donating over $200,000 to his second wife and her parents. The lower court ruled against Pedro. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding Pedro himself showed signs of prodigality. The donations were acts of generosity and affection by Francisco, not prodigality. Pedro provided insufficient evidence the donations diminished the estate or that Francisco was not in control of his faculties when making them.

    Original Title

    Martinez v Martinez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Pedro Martinez Ilustre claimed his father Francisco squandered his estate by donating over $200,000 to his second wife and her parents. The lower court ruled against Pedro. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding Pedro himself showed signs of prodigality. The donations were acts of generosity and affection by Francisco, not prodigality. Pedro provided insufficient evidence the donations diminished the estate or that Francisco was not in control of his faculties when making them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    131 views1 page

    Martinez V Martinez

    Uploaded by

    Cathy Belgira
    Pedro Martinez Ilustre claimed his father Francisco squandered his estate by donating over $200,000 to his second wife and her parents. The lower court ruled against Pedro. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding Pedro himself showed signs of prodigality. The donations were acts of generosity and affection by Francisco, not prodigality. Pedro provided insufficient evidence the donations diminished the estate or that Francisco was not in control of his faculties when making them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    MARTINEZ v MARTINEZ

    March 31, 1902

    Facts
    • Pedro Martinez Ilustre declared prodigality against his father, Francisco Martinez Garcia in the
    Court of First Instance
    • The plaintiff-appellant was the compulsory legal heir
    • Don Francisco Martinez squandered his estate by donating it to his second wife, Doña
    Anastacia Ilustre and her parents amounting to over $200,000
    • Defendant instituted groundless actions against the plaintiff in order to take possession of the
    property held in common by the father-son
    • Defendant’s answer was a state of facts inconsistent with the alleged complaints of plaintiff
    • Said that he executed in favor of plaintiff general power of attorney which makes plaintiff
    able to administer community estate
    • Defendant revoked the power of attorney given to plaintiff when it was mismanaged
    • Court of First Instance rendered judgement against plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed.

    Issue
    Whether or not the defendant acted in a prodigal manner through the donations to his second wife.

    Held
    Plaintiff himself possesses that propensity of prodigality which he unjustly attributes to his father.

    The judgement of the Court of First Instance is affirmed and costs of suits in both courts is
    adjudged against the plaintiff.

    Ratio
    • Prodigality is not defined in the Civil Code
    • May be inferred that acts of prodigality must show a morbid state of mind and a disposition
    to spend, waste, and lessen the estate
    • Donations considered as acts of liberality dictated by generosity and affection
    • The law does not attempt to adjust claims to generosity
    • Testimony on part of plaintiff was insufficient to support the allegations of his complaint
    • No evidence of transfer by sale or mortgage of properties
    • Donations of real property would have been registered in the Commercial Registry
    • No proof that there was any money belonging to the estate, or other personal property,
    the transfer of which could not be easily traced
    • No evidence that the second wife caused a diminution of defendant’s property
    • Defendant’s actions still in the full exercise of his faculties

    You might also like