Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SINFOROSO PASCUAL v. PONCIANO S. PASCUAL ET AL.

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 152808 2005-09-30	ANTONIO T. CHUA v. TOTAL OFFICE PRODUCTS QUISUMBING, J.
The Court of Appeals dismissed said petition in its decision dated November 28, 2001. It held that the authorities relied upon by petitioner, namely Pascual v. Pascual[6] and Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca,[7] are inapplicable in the instant case. The appellate court instead applied Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc.[8] wherein we ruled that an action for the cancellation of a real estate mortgage is a personal action if the mortgagee has not foreclosed the mortgage and the mortgagor is in possession of the premises, as neither the mortgagor's title to nor possession of the property is disputed.
	GR No. 129008 2004-01-13	TEODORA A. RIOFERIO v. CA TINGA, J,
Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence recognizes two exceptions, viz: (1) if the executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit;[30] and (2) when the administrator is alleged to have participated in the act complained of[31] and he is made a party defendant.[32] Evidently, the necessity for the heirs to seek judicial relief to recover property of the estate is as compelling when there is no appointed administrator, if not more, as where there is an appointed administrator but he is either disinclined to bring suit or is one of the guilty parties himself.
	GR No. 144294 2003-03-11	SOLEDAD CHANLIONGCO RAMOS v. TERESITA D. RAMOS PANGANIBAN, J.
Clearly, petitioners were not the registered owners of the land, but represented merely an inchoate interest thereto as heirs of Paulino. They had no standing in court with respect to actions over a property of the estate, because the latter was represented by an executor or administrator.[19] Thus, there was no need to implead them as defendants in the case, inasmuch as the estates of the deceased co-owners had already been made parties.
	GR No. 131889 2001-03-12	VIRGINIA O. GOCHAN v. RICHARD G. YOUNG PANGANIBAN, J.
The Rules are to be interpreted liberally in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[15] They cannot be interpreted in such a way as to unnecessarily put undue hardships on litigants. For the protection of the interests of the decedent, this Court has in previous instances[16] recognized the heirs as proper representatives of the decedent, even when there is already an administrator appointed by the court. When no administrator has been appointed, as in this case, there is all the more reason to recognize the heirs as the proper representatives of the deceased. Since the Rules do not specifically prohibit them from representing the deceased, and since no administrator had as yet been appointed at the time of the institution of the Complaint with the SEC, we see nothing wrong with the fact that it was the heirs of John D. Young Sr. who represented his estate in the case filed before the SEC.