Tiangco Vs Francisco 1939 (Trustee) (D)

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

SpecPro Digest Midterm

FRANCISCOS TESTATE ESTATE. TIANGCO VS FRANCISCO


1939 [trustees 1]
Facts:
Petrona Francisco provided in her will that the income derived
from the portion of her fishpond shall be devoted
1] for the celebration of the Flores de Mayo and
2] for other religious activities
Casimiro Tiangco was appointed as trustee, upon the probate of
the will
Proceso Francisco filed an opposition [due to] the fact that the
submission of the 1935 annual report to the court was irregular
Jan 30 1937: after the examination of the accounts it was of no
legal force and effect
Mar 22 37: Francisco requested for the temporary substitution
of the trustees
trustees opposed
Francisco opposed again to the 1936 report submitted
Apr 26 38: court order the resignation of the trustees
- Father Arcaira was appointed as a temporary trustee
ISSUE
W/N THE LOWER COURT HAS THE POWER TO REQUIRE THE
RESIGNATION OF THE TRUSTEES YES
HELD

The power to appoint a trustee is discretionary with the court


before whom application is made
court will decline to interfere except in case of clear abuse
upon proper showing that the interests of justice would be
adequately served with the removal of the incumbent trustees it
is likewise within its discretion to do so (section 587, Code of Civil
Procedure)
- court will refuse to interfere in the absence of a showing
of grave abuse or whimsical and capricious exercise of that
discretion
will of the deceased, Petrona Francisco created a continuing
trust, but no particular persons were named as beneficiaries
appellants themselves did not have anything to do with the
trust until their appointment by the lower court
- so commissioned not because of any beneficial interest
they had in the estate but because their selection was approved by
the lower court in the belief that they would faithfully perform their
obligations
same court found later that they "have not faithfully discharged
their duties and that their continuance in office would cause further
prejudice to the estate under trusteeship,"
[T] we cannot, on appeal, override the action of the lower
court by reversing its finding, and indirectly sanction the violation
of an unquestioned and legally existing trust

You might also like