Enriquez Vs Enriquez

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-1489 February 28, 1906
RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ Y VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant.
Alfredo Chicote for appellant.

Montagne and Dominguez for appellee.
WILLARD, J.:
On the 13th day of December, 1902, an order was made by the Court of First Instance of Manila in
the matter of the estate of Antonio Enriquez, which is in part as follows:
I further order that the present administrator, Rafael Enriquez, as well as the former
administrator Francisco Enriquez render each their accounts of administrator and file the
same with the clerk of this court on or before the 20th of January, 1903. These accounts
shall be final and duly sworn to, and shall contain an exact statement of all the transactions
concerning the estate of the deceased Antonio Enriquez, which may have been made by
each of the appointed administrators during the period of their incumbency, with the
exception of those corresponding to periods for which accounts have been rendered and
which appear in the records.
Rafael Enriquez, the then administrator of the estate, claiming that Francisco Enriquez had not
complied with this order, made an application to the court for an order directing Francisco Enriquez
to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for such noncompliance. A hearing was
had upon the order to show cause, and upon the 2nd day of March, 1903, the court held that
Francisco Enriquez was in contempt for noncompliance with the order and sentenced him to
confinement in the prison of Bilibid for six months, and until he should comply with the order, or until
the further order of the court. Francisco Enriquez took an exception to this order and has brought the
case here by means of a bill of exceptions.
The appellee admits "that Francisco Enriquez has rendered to the court the accounts of his
administration from the 1st day of July, 1896, to the present time, and that he has also rendered to
the court his account of the family allowances (alimentos) and advances made by him to the
respective heirs from the beginning of his administration to the present time." It is further admitted
that the matter to be reviewed and determined "is limited to the general accounting of the executor
defendant for the period commencing on or about the year 1883, to the 30th of June, 1896."
The question to be decided in this proceeding is not whether the accounts of Francisco Enriquez
were correct and should be allowed but the question is whether he had submitted his account for
examination and allowance. As said by the appellee in his brief, referring to the accounts which he
admitted had been presented by Francisco Enriquez, "these accounts are now on file with the
probate court, and though the correctness thereof may now be the subject of the examination before
that court, yet no question is raised here that he has not rendered those accounts to the court." The
only question, therefore, is whether Francisco Enriquez submitted his account as executor during the
period form 1883 to 1896 in accordance with the law then in force. Upon this question of fact there
can be no doubt. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of the appellant. Prior to 1891 the heirs of
Antonio Enriquez had been in litigation with each other concerning the settlement of the estate. On
the 22nd of April, 1891, a document was signed by which the heirs agreed to abandon the litigation
and proceed to the settlement of the estate in an amicable way. Considerable space is devoted in
the appellee's brief to the fact that Francisco Enriquez signed this document as the attorney in fact
for seven of his brothers and sisters, and it is claimed that he could not act for himself and for them
in this matter. This document however, is of no importance in connection with the question here
involved. The parties to it did not in any way give their consent or approval to any accounts which
had been or were to be rendered by Francisco Enriquez as executor. In fact the purpose of the
document was to secure a rendition of accounts, their examination and approval.
On the 25th of August, 1896, Francisco Enriquez, Rafael Enriquez, and Antonio Enriquez executed
another public document, in which they refer to the document of the 22nd of April, 1891. In this later
document it is distinctly stated that Francisco Enriquez had submitted his accounts from 1884 to
1890, and that he had also submitted his accounts from 1891 to 1895, and that he had also
submitted them for the first half of the year 1896. This document stated the rules which should be
followed in connection with the examination and approval of the accounts. In pursuance of these
rules the three brothers who signed the agreement met from time to time in the office of Moreno
Lacalle. Minutes of these meeting were kept and some of them were offered in evidence in this case.
In the minutes of the meeting held on the 16th day of August, 1897, it was expressly declared that
with certain amendments the account of the executor were, after examination, approved. In the
minutes of the meeting of the 3rd of November, 1897, it is again stated that the accounts were
examined, and that they were definitely approved.
On the 27th of November, 1897, Francisco Enriquez, Rafael Enriquez, and Antonio Enriquez signed
a paper which was to serve as a basis for a formal document of settlement. In this is was distinctly
stated that Francisco Enriquez had presented his accounts as executor from 1884 until the 30th of
June, 1896.
On the 20th day of November, 18977, all the persons interested in the estate appeared before a
notary public, either by themselves or by the duly authorized attorneys, and executed a formal public
document, in which it was again stated that the accounts for the period above mentioned had been
presented by Francisco Enriquez, and had been finally and definitely approved. This document was
signed by Francisco Enriquez, for himself and as attorney in fact for his sister, Carmen Enriquez.
Francisco Enriquez in the execution of this instrument, represented no other one of the heirs. They
were represented by Rafael Enriquez and his brother Antonio. It apparently is the claim of the
appellee that this contract of the 20th of November, 1897, is for some reason not binding upon the
other heirs. With that question, however, we have nothing to do in this case. That contact and the
other documents executed prior thereto show conclusively that Francisco Enriquez had presented
the accounts of his administration for the time here in question.
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case remanded, with instructions dismiss this
proceeding for contempt against Francisco Enriquez. No costs will be allowed to either party in this
court. So ordered.
Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.

Arellano, C.J., did not sit in this case.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Enriquez Vs Enriquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enriquez Vs Enriquez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enriquez Vs Enriquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. L-1489 February 28, 1906

RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, plaintiff-appellee,

Alfredo Chicote for appellant.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

You might also like