McMiking v. Sy Conbieng & Cuenco v. CA
McMiking v. Sy Conbieng & Cuenco v. CA
McMiking v. Sy Conbieng & Cuenco v. CA
L-6871
provided, unless his debt shall be paid, with interest; and the administrator appointed
by the court may recover the assets of the estate from those who have received
them, for the purpose of paying the debts; and the real estate belonging to the
deceased shall remain charged with the liability to creditors for the full period of two
years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers thereof that may have
been made."
These sections provide for the voluntary division of the whole property of the decedent
without proceedings in court. The provisions which they contain are extremely important. The
wisdom which underlies them is apparent. It is the undisputed policy of every people which
maintains the principle of private ownership of property that he who owns a thing shall not be
deprived of its possession or use except for the most urgent and imperative reasons and then only
so long as is necessary to make the rights which underlie those reasons effective. It is a principle
of universal acceptance which declares that one has the instant right to occupy and use that which
he owns, and it is only in the presence of reasons of the strongest and most urgent nature that
principle is prevented from accomplishing the purpose which underlies it. The force which gave
birth to this stern and imperious principle is the same force which destroyed the feudal despotism
and created the democracy of private owners.
These provisions should, therefore, be given the most liberal construction so that the intent
of the framers may be fully carried out. They should not be straitened or narrowed but should
rather be given that wideness and fullness of application without which they cannot produce their
most beneficial effects.
Standing, as we have said, at the head of the law of administration of these Islands, they
are the first provisions to which our attention is directed in seeking a legal method for the division
and distribution of the property of deceased persons. They are thus made prominent. And justly so.
The purpose which underlies them, as we have already intimated, is to put into one's hands the
property which belongs to him not only at the earliest possible moment but also with the least
possible expense. By permitting the partition and division without proceedings in court no time is
lost and substantially all expense and waste are saved. This is as it should be. The State fails
wretchedly in its duty to its citizens if the machinery furnished by it for the division and distribution
of the property of a decedent is so cumbersome, unwieldy and expensive that a considerable
portion of the estate is absorbed in the process of such division. Where administration is
necessary, it ought to be accomplished quickly and at very small expense; and a system which
consumes any considerable portion of the property which it was designed to distribute is a failure.
It being undoubted that the removal of property from the possession of its owner and its deposit in
the hands of another for administration is a suspension of some of his most important rights of
property and is attended with an expense sometimes entirely useless and unnecessary, such
procedure should be avoided whenever and wherever possible.
As we have already indicated, the basis of the liability of a surety on an administrator's bond is the
fault or failure of the principal. The liability of the principal precedes that of the surety. If Velasco
incurred no liability, then his surety incurred none.