Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    Digest - Pascual Vs Pascual

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Barbarona
    The plaintiff filed a case against the defendants to annul a contract for the sale of a fishpond belonging to the deceased mother of both plaintiff and defendants. One of the defendants, Miguel S. Pascual, was the executor appointed by the probate court. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling it should have been filed by the executor. However, the Supreme Court ruled the plaintiff could file the case because the executor, Miguel, would not bring a case against himself and his implied refusal to act allowed the heirs to file the case in his place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest - Pascual Vs Pascual

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Barbarona
    60 views2 pages
    The plaintiff filed a case against the defendants to annul a contract for the sale of a fishpond belonging to the deceased mother of both plaintiff and defendants. One of the defendants, Miguel S. Pascual, was the executor appointed by the probate court. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling it should have been filed by the executor. However, the Supreme Court ruled the plaintiff could file the case because the executor, Miguel, would not bring a case against himself and his implied refusal to act allowed the heirs to file the case in his place.

    Original Description:

    spec pro

    Original Title

    Digest- Pascual vs Pascual

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff filed a case against the defendants to annul a contract for the sale of a fishpond belonging to the deceased mother of both plaintiff and defendants. One of the defendants, Miguel S. Pascual, was the executor appointed by the probate court. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling it should have been filed by the executor. However, the Supreme Court ruled the plaintiff could file the case because the executor, Miguel, would not bring a case against himself and his implied refusal to act allowed the heirs to file the case in his place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    60 views2 pages

    Digest - Pascual Vs Pascual

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Barbarona
    The plaintiff filed a case against the defendants to annul a contract for the sale of a fishpond belonging to the deceased mother of both plaintiff and defendants. One of the defendants, Miguel S. Pascual, was the executor appointed by the probate court. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling it should have been filed by the executor. However, the Supreme Court ruled the plaintiff could file the case because the executor, Miguel, would not bring a case against himself and his implied refusal to act allowed the heirs to file the case in his place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BARBARONA, HAZEL

    page 169 (book)

    SINFOROSO PASCUAL, plaintiff-appellant,


    vs.
    PONCIANO S. PASCUAL, ET AL., defendants-appellees

    Rule 87, Sec 3

    FACTS

    Plaintiff Sinforoso Pascual instituted in the Court of First Instance of


    Pampanga against Ponciano S. Pascual and others, an action for the
    annulment of a contract of sale of a fishpond situated in Lubao, Pampanga,
    supposedly executed without consideration by the deceased in her lifetime in
    favor of the defendants. One of defendants, Miguel S. Pascual, was the he
    executor appointed by the probate court.

    The complaint alleges that plaintiff and defendants are all residents of
    Malabon, Rizal, and are legitimate children of the testratix, Eduarda de los
    Santos. Defendants filed of a motion to dismiss, alleging want of cause of
    action limitation of action, wrong venue and pendency of another action.

    The trial court granted the motion on the ground that the action should have
    been brought by the executor or administrator of the estate left by the
    deceased. The amended complaint was still dismissed due to insufficiency.

    ISSUE

    WON the action can be brought by the heirs despite presence of appointed
    administrator?

    RULING

    Under Rule 86, section 1, of the new Rules of Court, actions for the recovery
    or protection of the property or rights of the deceased for causes which
    survive may be prosecuted or defended by his executor or administrator.
    Upon the commencement of the testate or intestate proceedings the heirs
    have no standing in court in actions of the above character, except when the
    executor or administrator is unwilling or fails or refuses to act, in which event
    to heirs may act in his place.
    The fictitious sale is alleged to have been made to the defendants, one of
    them, Miguel S. Pascual, being the executor appointed by the probate court.
    Such executor naturally would not bring an action against himself for
    recovery of the fishpond. His refusal to act may, therefore, be implied. And
    this brings the case under the exception.

    You might also like