The lower court had the power to require the resignation of the trustees based on a showing that their continued service would prejudice the estate. The will of Petrona Francisco created a continuing trust for religious activities but did not name specific beneficiaries. The trustees were appointed by the lower court but did not have a personal beneficial interest in the estate. The same court later found that the trustees had not faithfully discharged their duties and their continued service would cause further harm, so it was within its discretion to remove them. The appellate court upheld the lower court's finding.
The lower court had the power to require the resignation of the trustees based on a showing that their continued service would prejudice the estate. The will of Petrona Francisco created a continuing trust for religious activities but did not name specific beneficiaries. The trustees were appointed by the lower court but did not have a personal beneficial interest in the estate. The same court later found that the trustees had not faithfully discharged their duties and their continued service would cause further harm, so it was within its discretion to remove them. The appellate court upheld the lower court's finding.
The lower court had the power to require the resignation of the trustees based on a showing that their continued service would prejudice the estate. The will of Petrona Francisco created a continuing trust for religious activities but did not name specific beneficiaries. The trustees were appointed by the lower court but did not have a personal beneficial interest in the estate. The same court later found that the trustees had not faithfully discharged their duties and their continued service would cause further harm, so it was within its discretion to remove them. The appellate court upheld the lower court's finding.
The lower court had the power to require the resignation of the trustees based on a showing that their continued service would prejudice the estate. The will of Petrona Francisco created a continuing trust for religious activities but did not name specific beneficiaries. The trustees were appointed by the lower court but did not have a personal beneficial interest in the estate. The same court later found that the trustees had not faithfully discharged their duties and their continued service would cause further harm, so it was within its discretion to remove them. The appellate court upheld the lower court's finding.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
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