SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – CASE RULINGS (Week 8)
was no law which changed his responsibility be reason of the deposit.
Jann Claudine M. Amago 3 – A
While it may be true that one who is under obligation to do or give a thing is in duty bound, when he sees events approaching the results of which
RULE 98 – TRUSTEES
will be dangerous to his trust, to take all reasonable means and measures to escape or, if unavoidable, to temper the effects of those events, we do
1.
Tiangco vs. Francisco
not feel constrained to hold that, in choosing between two means equally
Petrona Francisco provided in her will that one-half of the income
legal, he is culpably negligent in selecting one whereas he would not have
from her fishpond will be used for “flores de Mayo” and other religious
been if he had selected the other. The deposit was forcibly taken by the
activities in rizal. In line with this, Casimiro Tiangco was appointed as
military forces of one of the combatants during a state of war, it is clear
trustee and Maria Tiangco was appointed as co-trustee.Submission of
that under the provisions of the Civil Code he would be exempt from
reports to the court was irregular. Proceso Francisco filed an opposition
responsibility.
to the 1935 rendering of accounts. In 1938, the court court issued an order requiring the resignation of the Tiangcos Issue: Whether the court could remove the Tia ngcos as trustees Ruling: YES. The Tiangcos did not have a right to the trusteeship as they were not designated in the will to be the trustees. The power of the court to appoint the trustee is discretionary. Upon proper showing in the interests of justice would be served with the removal of the incumbent trustees, it is within the power of the court to do so. 2. Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro v. de la Pena This is an appeal by the administrator of the estate of Father De la Peña (defendant) from a judgment of the CFI, awarding to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro (plaintiff) the sum of P6,641, with interest. Fr. De la Peña was the representative of plaintiff over the legacy which it held in trust for the construction of of a leper hospital. In 1898, the books Fr. De la Peña, as trustee, had on hand the sum of P6,641 collected by him for the charitable purposes aforesaid. Subsequently, he deposited in his personal account P19,000 in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank (Bank) at Iloilo. During the war of the revolution, Fr. De la Peña was arrested by the military authorities as a political prisoner because they claimed that he was an insurgent and the funds deposited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. A confiscation order was issued to the Bank for the deposit of Fr. De la Peña in favor of the U nited States Army officer and turned over to the Government. Issues: Whether the trust funds was included in the P19,000 deposited in the account of Fr. De la Peña in the bank; Whether the estate of Fr. De la Peña is liable for the loss of the trust fund Ruling: YES;NO. Yes. A careful examination of the case leads us to the conclusion that said trust funds were a part of the funds deposited and which were removed and confiscated by the military authorities of the United States. No. Fr. De la Peña's liability is determined the Civil Code which states that "a person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family" (art. 1094), it also provides that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.) The fact that he placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal account does not add to his responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all hazards. There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and there 1
