Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 122 views

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Peyt
    - Emilio Camon leased a hacienda from Ignatius Henry Bezore, Elwood Knickerbocker, and Mary Irene Fallon McCormick and others. Upon Camon's death, his widow filed a petition for administration of his estate. Bezore et al. filed a claim against the estate. - Ereñeta submitted documents showing that Bezore et al. had sold their shares of the hacienda to others and waived claims against Camon. The court ruled that Bezore et al. did not have a right to claim against Camon's estate due to the waiver of claims. - The court found no merit in Bezore et al.'s

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Peyt
    122 views5 pages
    - Emilio Camon leased a hacienda from Ignatius Henry Bezore, Elwood Knickerbocker, and Mary Irene Fallon McCormick and others. Upon Camon's death, his widow filed a petition for administration of his estate. Bezore et al. filed a claim against the estate. - Ereñeta submitted documents showing that Bezore et al. had sold their shares of the hacienda to others and waived claims against Camon. The court ruled that Bezore et al. did not have a right to claim against Camon's estate due to the waiver of claims. - The court found no merit in Bezore et al.'s

    Original Title

    Case-Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Emilio Camon leased a hacienda from Ignatius Henry Bezore, Elwood Knickerbocker, and Mary Irene Fallon McCormick and others. Upon Camon's death, his widow filed a petition for administration of his estate. Bezore et al. filed a claim against the estate. - Ereñeta submitted documents showing that Bezore et al. had sold their shares of the hacienda to others and waived claims against Camon. The court ruled that Bezore et al. did not have a right to claim against Camon's estate due to the waiver of claims. - The court found no merit in Bezore et al.'s

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    122 views5 pages

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Peyt
    - Emilio Camon leased a hacienda from Ignatius Henry Bezore, Elwood Knickerbocker, and Mary Irene Fallon McCormick and others. Upon Camon's death, his widow filed a petition for administration of his estate. Bezore et al. filed a claim against the estate. - Ereñeta submitted documents showing that Bezore et al. had sold their shares of the hacienda to others and waived claims against Camon. The court ruled that Bezore et al. did not have a right to claim against Camon's estate due to the waiver of claims. - The court found no merit in Bezore et al.'s

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    G.R. No.

    L-29746 November 26, 1973

    INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE EMILIO CAMON. CONCEPCION


    EREÑETA, administratrix-appellee,
    vs.
    IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ELWOOD KNICKERBOCKER, and MARY IRENE
    FALLON MCCORMICK, claimants-appellants; MARTINIANO O. DE LA
    CRUZ, administrator

    Synopsis
    A. Facts of the Case
    Emilio Camon was the lessee of the hacienda Rosario, located in Pontevedra, Negros
    Occidental, for the period from crop year 1940-41 to crop year 1960-61. One-half (1/2) pro-
    indiviso of the said sugar plantation belonged to the Ignatius Henry Bezore, Elwood
    Knickerbocker and Mary Irene Fallon Mccormick (as their inheritance from the late Thomas
    Fallon), while the other half belonged to Petronila Alunan Vda. De Sta. Romana, Amparo Sta.
    Romana And Alberta Vda. De Hopon (as their inheretence from their mother Rosario Sta.
    Romana).
    Camon died in 1967, his widow, Concepcion Ereñeta, filed a petition in the court for the
    grant of letter s of administration of the state of his husband. The petition was granted. The court
    issued an order requiring all persons with money claims against the estate to file their claims
    within the period. Bezore, et al., thru their judicial counsel, Martiniano O. de la Cruz, filed a
    claim against the estate in the amounts of P64,165 for sugar allotment, palay, allowances and
    rental.
    Bezore et.al had demanded payments of their claims from Camom when he was still
    alive, but Ereñeta ignored the demands.
    At the Trial, 3 documents were submitted in evidence by Ereñeta,
    (1) Agreement to sell- whereby Bezore, et. Al agreed to sell their shares to Romana et.al
    on January 11, 1961.
    (2) Release and waiver of claims – Romana et. Al released Camom from all the claims
    that may have accrued pertaining to the 2/4 pro indiviso share in Hacienda Rosario on January
    12, 1961.
    (3) Deed of sale- Bezore transferred to Romana et.al all their rights, title, interest and
    participation whether accrued or accruing in their 2/4 pro indiviso share in considering of
    P78,000 on August 4, 1961.
    B. Issues
    Whether the appellants have the right to claim over the estate of Camon
    C. Ruling Summary
    The appellants do not have the right to claim over the estate of Camon because of the
    waiver of claims made by Romana et al, who are the now owner of hacienda Rosario. The claim
    of the appellants that the waiver is not valid because it was made before the rights transferred
    were even sold to the Roman et. al. is of no merit. The waiver is subsequently cured by the sale
    of the rights of the appellants to Romana et al. The court also finds no merit to the contention of
    the appellants that the sale has infirmity because of cheap consideration of 1,300 per hectare.
    Inadequacy of cause in a contract does not of itself invalidate the contract.
    D. Reflection
    G.R. No. L-34657 October 23, 1979

    ERLINDA RAVANERA and husband OSCAR RAVANERA, petitioners,


    vs.
    FELIPE I. IMPERIAL, respondent.

    Synopsis

    A. Facts of the Case


    The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres filed an action for Rescission of Contract
    and Recovery of Possession against the herein petitioner before the respondent court. Archbishop
    of Nueva Caceres filed a Motion for Execution of the decision or to order defendant to file
    supersedeas bond and to deposit the amount of P500.00 every month as rentals. Court granted
    the motion for execution pending appeal and at the same time ordered that to stay the execution,
    the defendant put up a supersedeas bond in the amount of P40,000.00 for the rents due as of
    February, 1966, for the amount of moral damages, and for the expenses of suit and to deposit the
    amount of P500.00 as monthly rental of the property. Supreme Court dismissed the petition for
    certiorari on the ground that the order of execution being incidental to the appeal, the same
    should be addressed to the Court of Appeals. Plaintiff filed another motion for execution. Court
    ordered the issuance of a writ of execution, but the petitioner was given fifteen (15) days from
    receipt of the order to put up the P40,000.00 supersedeas bond and to deposit the monthly rental
    of P500.00 in order to stay the execution. Petitioner failed to post the required supersedeas bond
    and to deposit the P500.00 monthly rental. Archbishop filed a motion for the issuance of a writ
    of execution. Court granted the motion for execution requiring however the plaintiff to put up a
    bond in the amount of P20,000.00 to answer for any judgment that may be awarded to petitioners
    should the decision be reversed on appeal. Archbishop posted the required bond of P20,000.00
    and on February 14, 1969 a writ of execution was issued. Said writ was not enforced upon
    instance of the counsel for plaintiff as an amicable settlement was proposed and after the 60 days
    period had lapsed the Sheriff made a return of the writ.
    B. Issues
    Whether or not there was a valid levy upon the properties of respondent Felipe I.
    Imperial.
    C. Ruling Summary
    In any event, respondent Imperial as judgment debtor is in estoppel by his failure to
    seasonably make an objection to the allegedly defective notice of levy and notice of sale before
    the actual sale, or before redeeming some of his properties despite the supposed defect of the
    notice of levy. He should have interposed objection to the levy and the sale from the very
    beginning, from October 15, 1969 when he received notice of levy and notice of sale. A waiver
    on his part to question the validity of the auction sale may also be said to arise from his failure to
    pay the arrears in real estate taxes, or to redeem the mortgage of one of the properties sold at
    public auction, during the period of redemption. These are omissions which are clearly an
    indication of acquiescence in the sale, or his awareness that the execution sale was valid and
    legally unassailable. To allow him to turn back on his manifest conformity to the levy and sale
    on execution of his properties, after petitioners have bought the property as the highest bidder
    during the auction sale, would be patently unjust to the said petitioners, who had every reason to
    rely on the presumed regularity of the proceedings as official acts of both the judge and his own
    court officer, the sheriff. The decision appealed from is hereby reversed. The notice of levy and
    the sale of the properties in question, both registered and unregistered in favor of the petitioners
    are hereby declared valid. No pronouncement as to cost.
    D. Reflection

    You might also like