Don Jose Reyes  y Mijares died in the city of Manila  on the 10th of November, 1906, leaving a widow, Dona Buenaventura Galvez y  Puig,  and five  children,  whose  names appear in  the first  paragraph of  the petition.  (Bill  of exceptions, p. 4.)

On fhe 19th of November, 1906, the said Dona Buenaventura Galvez y Puig presented a petition in the Court  of First Instance praying that she be appointed administratrix of the estate  of her deceased husband and  tutora of his minor children, alleging that the  value of the  property  of the estate did  not exceed P1,300.

On the 19th  of  November, 1906, the Hon. Charles  S. Lobingier, after hearing the said petition, decreed that the said Dona  Buenaventura Galvez y  Puig be appointed administratrix of the said estate.  On the 26th of November letters of administration were duly issued to her.  On the same day the court appointed the  commission  authorized by law for the purpose of appraising the property of said estate and to hear claims against it,  On the 8th of January, 1907, the commission so appointed duly qualified and entered upon the exercise of its duties.

On the 12th of January,, 1907, the  said administratrix presented an inventory of the property of said estate which had  come into her possession and  under her  knowledge without fixing any value for said property.   (See bill  of exceptions, pp. 7-10.)   The said property consisted of mobiliario y alhajas.

On the 13th of February, 1907, the administratrix presented a petition in the Court of First Instance asking for authority to sell some of the property mentioned in  her said inventory, for the purposes mentioned in said petition. On the 16th of February, 1907, the  Hon. A. S. Crossfield, judge, upon a consideration of said petition, authorized the administratrix to sell some of the property included in said inventory.  (Bill of exceptions, pp. 12,13.)

On the 30th of August, 1907, the commission appointed to appraise the said estate and to hear claims against the same, made the following report:

"Luis  P. Torres  and Emilio Camps, commissioners of appraisal in the above-entitled intestate proceedings, appear and respectfully set forth to the court:

"That, on January 8, 1907, they were duly appointed by this Court of First Instance as commissioners of appraisal of the above-described intestate estate, with authorization to hear and pass upon the claims that might be presented against the said estate.

"That, complying with the law, the undersigned commissioners published once  a week for three consecutive weeks a notice  in the newspaper 'La Democracia,' requiring all' the creditors of the above-entitled intestate estate to  file their claims within the period of six months, counting from the date  of the said notice, to wit, from January 14, 1907, and running until July 14, of the same year.

"That the period specified in the said notice has more than elapsed,  without any   claim whatever  having  been filed against the said intestate estate.

"Therefore the undersigned commissioners present this report to the court, asking that they be relieved from their charge and that the above-entitled intestate estate be  declared free from all obligation and liability."

On the 31st of August, 1907, the  Hon. A. S. Crossfield approved the report of the said commissioners.

On the 24th of June, 1909, the defendant, La Compania Maritima  [by their  counsel], presented in the  Court of First Instance the following motion:

"1. That counsel's  clients hold against the above-entitled intestate estate a credit of P31,517.16 and have filed  suit before the  Court of First Instance.

"2. That, in the intestate proceedings above mentioned, the administratrix did not state the true property owned by the deceased, thereby causing detriment to the creditors.

"3. That the deceased owned, since before his marriage, and was always in possession of a house of strong material situated on Calle Alix, No. 150, and a share  in  the steam launch  Ventura, which property continues to be held by his heirs, as the owners thereof.

"4. That a failure  to include the said property in  the inventory would result in detriment to the creditors.

"Therefore, this counsel petitions the court to order the administratrix to include the said property in the inventory and explain for what reasons  she did not do so in  due season, notwithstanding that the said property is and was always  considered as having belonged to the deceased  Jose Reyes y Mijares and now to his heirs."

On the 3d of July, 1909, the said motion was  denied by the Hon. A. S.  Crossfield.

On the 23d of July, 1909, the said administratrix made the following report:

"After having filed  the inventory, such as it appears in these proceedings, vouchers were found among the papers of the  deceased attesting  to  the  latter's ownership of  a house of strong material  situated  in the district of Sampaloc, designated under No. 150 of  Calle Alix, and likewise of a share  in the launch Ventura.   Neither of these properties appeared in the  name of Jose Reyes y Mijares at the time of his death, as the house was registered in the name of other persons; but among the papers discovered there were  private documents which proved  the ownership of the deceased.   Therefore this administratrix,  through her attorneys, took the proper steps to ascertain the truth of the facts, and  the investigations made brought about as a final  result the registration 'of  the  property situated  on Calle Alix, No. 150, in the name of the deceased Jose Reyes y Mijares, on September 3, 1908.

"With respect to  the launch Ventura, the documentary records pertaining thereto are not very clear, and although from letters and documents  it can be concluded that the deceased during his lifetime had, and his estate now has, a share therein, just what this share is this administratrix is unable exactly to say, as the value of the same and the offers  made therefor are very indefinite, the highest bid being P5,000."

On the 24th of  July,  1909, the Hon. A.  S.  Crossfield approved the said report.

On the  6th  of  August, 1909, La Compania  Maritima presented another motion, which was amended on the  18th day of August in the  following language, asking that the court, in accordance with section 690 of the Code of  Procedure in Civil Actions, appoint a new commission for the purpose of appraising the property of said estate, to  hear claims against it, and for other relief:

"I.  Jose Reyes y Mijares  died  on  the  10th day of November, 1906, leaving  his wife, Buenaventura  Galvez, and his children and heirs, Leonor, Maria, Jose, Dolores, and Manuel, Leonor being married to  Ramon Lopez.  Buenaventura Galvez, the widow of the deceased, was appointed administratrix  of the estate and  guardian of the other defendants,  with the exception of the married  daughter, Leonor.

"II. The defendants are residents of the city of Manila.

"III. On March 1, 1904, it was  discovered that the deceased, Jose Reyes y Mijares, by misappropriation of property belonging to the plaintiff party, of which he was agent and employee,  was  owing the same the sum of ?65,500; wherefore he signed an instrument, dated March 1, 1904, acknowledging  the said debt.

"IV.  By means of the aforesaid instrument, Jose Reyes y Mijares pretended, and convinced the plaintiff company, that he had delivered to the same, in partial payment of the deibt thus contracted, all his property, and the plaintiff so believed  in  good faith,  which belief was erroneous as evidenced by the facts hereinbelow enumerated.

"V.  After deducting all  the amounts  and property delivered by the instrument referred to in the next preceding paragraph,  the said  deceased still owed the  plaintiff the sum of P31,517.16.

"VI.  The said Jose Reyes y Mijares  left at his death property valued at P50,000.

"VII. On November 19, 1906, the said widow, falsely pretending that she wished to administer the property of the deceased, succeeded in having the latter's estate placed in probate by her appointment as administratrix of the property and guardian of the defendants, with the exception of the defendant Leonor and her husband Ramon Lopez.

"VIII. When the  said widow  learned  of  the plaintiff's belief that the  deceased Jose Reyes y Mijares had in  good faith delivered to the plaintiff all his property in partial payment of  the debt  which he had contracted, she alleged in her petition for the opening of the probate proceedings and her appointment  as administratrix of the property left by the deceased, that the said Jose Reyes y Mijares left no other property  than some household furniture and vehicles, the value of which did not exceed the total sum of P1,300, an allegation which was absolutely false and  made for the purpose of deceiving both the court and the creditors of the deceased.

"IX. The  court, being deceived by the false allegation concerning the value  of the property left by  the deceased, was  induced to fix the bond of the administratrix in the nominal sum of P1,300.

"X.  The purpose of the widow was not  in fact to administer the estate  of the  deceased, but,  in a fictitious manner,  to  avail herself of the provisions  of law and to hasten the lapse of the time limits prescribed, in order that the  claims, and especially that of the plaintiff, might be exhibited and established, as in  fact was done,  before the fraud should be  discovered, so that  she  and her children could appropriate to their  use the valuable estate left by the  deceased, thereby completely eluding payment of the latter's debts; and for this purpose,  on January 12, 1907, the administratrix presented what she called an  Inventory and Appraisement' of the property belonging to the intestate estate of the deceased, which consists of a statement of the furniture and  some jewelry,  but without any appraised valuation of  the same nor  of  any part  thereof. Later, on  February IS, 1907, she presented to the same court a motion in which she stated that a considerable part of the jewelry was pawned for money, and she  gave  it to be understood, in a general  way, that  the estate, if not insolvent, was of very scant value, and she thus continued to present motions, under the same  supposition, until the expiration of the term fixed by the court for the presentation of claims against the estate, and in consequence thereof the plaintiff company failed to file its claim, as  it believed that it would be entirely useless to do so.

"XI, The administratrix, on  presenting  the  alleged inventory, fraudulently omitted  and concealed from the court and  the creditors of the estate the fact that there existed more than sufficient property to pay the debts and that the said estate, far from  being insolvent,  was very valuable and comprised a good deal of property.

"XII. The deceased, Jose Reyes y Mijares, owned at the time of his death a house on Calle Alix, No.  150, in the city of Manila, and  a share,  together with  Felipe  Caballero, in the steam  launch Ventura, which properties had, and have at the present time, a value of more than P30,000.

"XIII. Moreover,  on November 15, 1907, the said  administratrix, together  with her daughter,  Leonor, executed the instrument ratified  before the notary public, Antonio M. Opisso, which was recently filed in the probate proceedings, in which instrument she clearly acknowledges the said house and share in the launch to belong to the estate left by the deceased Jose Reyes y Mijares.

"XIV. The  aforementioned administratrix omitted the said properties from the inventory and gave it to be understood  that the estate  was insolvent,  for  the  purpose of deceiving  the creditors of the same, with  the result that, according to the report of the  committee to hear claims against  and value the  estate, which report is included in the record of the probate proceedings, not a single claim was presented.

"XV.  The said house and share in the launch were only included in the inventory a long while  after the expiration of the term fixed for  the presentation of  claims, for the purpose  of their allotment to the widow and her  children and in order that they might perfect their title and  have it recorded in the property registry, and the said inclusion was effected after  this plaintiff  party had presented  a motion,  on July  24, 1909, praying the  court to order the said property to be included in the inventory.

"XVI. So well did the administratrix know of the  existence of  the said house that it was in it that her husband died and her children by him  were born, and she continues up to the present  date to reside therein.

"XVII. Neither the administratrix nor the committee of appraisal has complied  with her or its duty to file the inventory  and appraisement as prescribed in  sections  688, 689, and  670 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, and the former,  with the purpose of deceiving the  creditors, presented a statement of some furniture, without appraisement whatever, many articles of which might be included within the provisions of section 671 as property which may not be inventoried, and consequently  not  subject to the payment of debts.

"XVIII.  The plaintiff was entirely unaware of the fact that the deceased  had left property of any importance until the last part of June  of the  present year,  when, by a chance, the fact was divulged to it.

"XIX.  The fictitious  administration of the estate is still in course, none of the properties pertaining thereto having been divided up to this date, which properties in fact have never been administered.

"XX.  The fact is that there never has been an administration of £he property of the deceased, and that of which a pretense was made to begin and perform  was false and fraudulent.   An attempt was made merely to comply with the letter of the  law, the mandates  of which were abused in order to affirm the fraud and assure the benefit thereby derived,  while  at the same time the entire spirit and substance of the legal provisions applicable to the administration of intestate estates was eluded and not complied with.

"XXI. The desire to defraud the  creditors, as  stated  in the preceding paragraphs, has been  the sole  motive of the proceedings initiated by the administratrix, who never has had the intention.to administer the property of the deceased; in other words, there has been an administration  on paper and in form, but in reality and in fact there never has been one.

"XXII. The administratrix, being cognizant of the deceit that had been practiced upon the plaintiff party and of the latter's belief of  the complete insolvency of the deceased, proposed nothing less than to take advantage of plaintiff's error in order that the property which belonged to the deceased might be awarded to her and to her children and not in any manner  applied to the payment  of  the  debts that encumbered it.

"XXIII. The administration had in this case was no  more than an invention devised by the widow in order to convey the property of the deceased to his heirs, thereby defrauding the former's creditors.

"XXIV. Reduced to its last analysis, the administration in this case amounts to nothing more than  a disposal of the property of Jose Reyes y Mijares for the purpose of defrauding his  creditors.

"Therefore, the plaintiff prays  the court,  after the  issuance of summons  to the defendants in accordance  with law, to order:

"1. That the committee of appraisal  and claims be renewed,  and that the  term within  which claims may  be presented and heard be extended.

"2. That in  case the committee can not be renewed the proceeding's already had in connection with the administration of the estate of the deceased Jose Reyes y Mijares be set aside  and annulled, and that  a new administrator  be appointed who shall proceed with the administration of the said estate as if no proceedings had ever been had therein.

"3. That, in case neither of the remedies above requested can  be granted, the defendants shall pay to the plaintiff party damages to the  amount of the debt which they owe to it on account of their  fraud; that the property left by the said deceased Jose Reyes y Mijares  shall be  especially subject  to the payment directed to  be  made  in  the  said judgment, and  that in  any case the partition prayed for in the probate proceedings be denied until the questions raised in this suit shall have been decided.

"4. The plaintiff also prays the court to grant him any further  remedy or  protection which, in  view of  the facts, justice may demand."

Accompanying the said  motion were several exhibits presented in support of the facts alleged in said motion.   (See bill of exceptions, pp. 25-31.)

In opposition to said motion the  attorney for the administratrix presented  the affidavits of several persons  (see bill of exceptions, pp. 31-39), the most important of them being that of Antonio M. Opisso, which is as follows:

"Antonio M. Opisso, after being duly sworn, states:

"That he is a member of the firm of attorneys of Rosado, Sanz &  Opisso, who are duly authorized to  practice their profession in the Philippine Islands.

"That the said firm of Rosado, Sanz & Opisso are the attorneys for the administratrix in the above-entitled case.

"That the commissioners of appraisal and  claims, appointed  by the court in  the above-entitled intestate  proceedings, were  Messrs. Luis P. Torres and Emilio Camps, both of the city of Manila,  Philippine Islands.

"That, as one of the attorneys of the administratrix, as above said, he directed the commissioner Luis P. Torres to draw up the notice to the creditors, in accordance with section 687 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

"That five copies of the said notice were made and were signed by the said commissioners  in the presence of the deponent.

"That the deponent, in conformity with the section just above mentioned,  ordered the  posting of these notices in the places designated in the order of the court.

"That the said  notices were thus posted  in  the Court of First Instance  of  Manila, in the office of the chief of police or the municipal building of  the city  of  Manila, in the office of the Executive Secretary, in the post office, and, finally, the last copy was sent to the office of the 'La Democracia,' for its insertion and publication  in that newspaper, as was  done and so published  appears among the  records of this court.

"That a long while after  these notices had been sent to the places above named and before the expiration of the six months' period fixed therein for the presentation of claims  to the  committee, the deponent  himself  saw these notices posted in their proper places.

"That the court approved the report of the commissioners of appraisal and found the same correct, in an order issued on August 31, 1907.

"That the allegations made by the attorney, J. R. Serra. under oath,  in  the motion  now pending before  the court, filed by the Compania  Maritima, in Paragraph XIV of the same, concerning noncompliance with the order to publish, are openly and manifestly false.

"That the firm  of  Rosado, Sanz & Opisso are not the general  attorneys  of  the Compania  Maritima,  and  have never been such; they having merely represented that  company in some cases which were intrusted to them, for which they charged separately and  have never collected any salary whatever as attorneys of the said company, and every case or consultation which has been or may be confided to the said firm was or will be charged for separately in the same manner as has been or may be done  by Mr. Kincaid  or Mr. Serra themselves, without it being proper on such account to call them general attorneys of the aforementioned company.

"That the deponent was present during the appraisement of the property belonging to the estate of the deceased Jose Reyes y Mijares, which property was valued at P23,476.30,. not  including 26 pawn tickets for jewelry pawned in the Monte de  Piedad which appear in  the inventory  filed by the administratrix.

"That the  statement which  the  attorney  J.  R. Serra made  under oath in paragraph 4  of the motion  presented to the  court on August 6, 1909, to the effect  that a  considerable  part of the things inventoried were  pawned for money, is incorrect and  untrue,  as none  of  the  articles included in the inventory was in pawn.

"That the sworn statement of the attorney, J.  R. Serra, in the  same paragraph 4  of  the  said motion, to wit, 'so much  was the idea  insinuated of the scant assets  of the estate that the court was  induced to fix the  bond  of the administratrix in the nominal  sum of P1,300.' is false, inasmuch as at the time of giving the bond the  inventory had  not yet been made, and the court fixed that amount of its own accord without any insinuation  whatever  on the part of the petitioner.

"That neither the administratrix of the intestate estate nor her attorneys have ever alleged  or represented  to the court that the estate was in bad condition or insolvent, as may be seen by the records themselves.

"That it never has been the intention  of the  administratrix fraudulently to conceal any property belonging to the estate,  for the court could  not but know that the administratrix could not make any  transfer of the property in question without  previously passing through  probate; moreover, it is ill advised to allege a desire to conceal on the part  of  the administratrix  when, as  stated  by the Compania Maritima itself  in paragraph 13 of its motion, the administratrix in her zeal even included property which it  was unnecessary to inventory, a statement which will also be found to  be  incorrect if the  court will compare section 671 with the property inventoried.

"That  the  property inventoried and valued by the administratrix,  as  well as by the above-mentioned committee of appraisal, amounted to a sufficient sum to pay what was owing to the  Compania Maritima, for  with  the P23,476.30 of the inventory, covering jewelry and furniture not pawned, together  with the  value of the pawned jewelry, there was sufficient money to pay the claim, were it a true one.

"That the right of the Compania Maritima has prescribed, according to law.

"In witness of the foregoing, I affix my signature hereto, in Manila, this 10th day of  August, 1909.

       (Sgd.)   "Antonio M. Opisso."

Upon a full consideration of the said  motion and the evidence  presented pro and con, the Hon.  A. S.  Crossfield, after  a full statement of all of the facts  in  his decision, concluded as follows:

"A  partial  inventory  is not a compliance with law, and creditors are  only bound  to take notice of the inventory made, and as  to property  which  has been left out of the inventory, intentionally or not, creditors have no notice and the limitation does not run against them.

"Creditors having notice of the inventory and appraisal, as in this case, that it consisted only of jewelry and household furniture, might well say that they would not seek to collect their claims out of  such property, and suffer the claims to default,  but it would not be equitable, nor does the law contemplate that there is default as to that which has been concealed, and of which they  have not been notified, as the law requires, by the filing of a true inventory.

"Whether or  not the omission of a part of  the  estate from  the inventory  was an intentional  fraud  does not clearly appear, though the administratrix, according to her accounts, paid taxes on real property on December 31, 1906, collected one thousand pesos from the Manila Jockey Club in December, 1906, while the inventory, in which  did not appear  any real estate or money from the Manila Jockey Club, was filed January 12,1907, There is no mention of the launch until October, 1909, when the administrator appears to have received funds from the use of it for the year from October, 1906, to September, 1907.

"The petitioner is not barred from the recovery of the claim against the deceased as to the property not included in the inventory or appraised by the committee,  and as  to such property there has been no administration as  the law requires, and I conclude that the petitioner's motion for a renewal of the committee of appraisal and to  hear claims should be granted.

"It is therefore ordered that the partition and distribution of  the estate  of the deceased, as  proposed by  the administratrix and heirs, be denied, and that a new committee of appraisal of property of the estate not before  appraised and to hear claims against the deceased, limited to recovery against the property so appraised, be appointed."

From that decision permitting the appointment of a new commission to appraise the  additional property  belonging to the  said estate of  Jose  Reyes y Mijares  and to hear claims against the said estate,  the administratrix appealed and made several assignments of error in this court, all  of which relate to the power of  the court to appoint  new commissioners under the facts  in the present case.

The appellee contends that the failure of the administratrix to  include in her  inventory all of the property of the estate and to make it appear that  the property of the estate was  of but little  value was  for the  purpose  of preventing the creditors of the estate from presenting their claims until after the time had expired for the presentation of claims and that such action was fraudulent.

The claim of the defendant  and  appellee amounted  to P31.517.16.  The administratrix alleged in her petition for the appointment that the value of the estate did not exceed Pl,300.   Had  that statement  been true there  would have been but little purpose in the presentation of the claim by the defendant and appellee.

From an examination of the record it will be found that the said commissioners, after due notice to all the creditors, made their report upon the 80th of August,  1907, alleging that  no claims whatever had been presented  against the said estate.  The said commissioners appointed to appraise the property of  said  estate made their  report showing that the property inventoried  (all personal property)  was valued  at P23,496.30.   The date  of  the  presentation of this appraised  inventory by the commissioners  does not appear of record. The record does not disclose whether it was presented before or after the report of the commissioners,  relating to claims, above referred to.  The record does not disclose whether the report of the commissioners showing the appraised value of the estate  of the deceased was presented before or after the time had elapsed for the presentation of claims  against the estate.

On the 23d  of July, 1909, long after the time for the presentation of the claims against  the  said estate, the administratrix made a report (bill of exceptions p.  18) amending her inventory so as to include a house of strong materials located at No. 150 Calle Alix, district of Sampaloc, city of Manila, as well as the launch Ventura.  From this additional report it is made to appear that the administratrix did not  know  that these two  properties belonged  to the estate until some time  after the first inventory had  been made. This contention of the administratrix is  not tenable for the reason that from a public  document presented in this court (Rollo 21) it appears that the said administratrix, by a public instrument, purchased the interest of one of the children  of the intestate in said properties  on the 15th of November, 1907, a few months after the said commissioners made their  final report, and after the expiration of the period for the presentation of claims.  The contention that the,administratrix did not know that these properties belonged to the estate which she was administering is further refuted by the fact that on the  31st  of December, 1906, a few months after the death of  her husband,  she  paid the sum of 1M43.23 as taxes upon real property,  and there is no proof offered  by  her to show that there was any other real property belonging to the estate besides  the  property in said Calle Alix.

Under these facts and others the  Hon.  A.  S. Crossfield ordered that a new  commission be appointed  for  the purpose of appraising  the  additional property  not  included in the first inventory and to hear claims against  the said estate, to  the extent of the additional property.  The appellant contends that the lower court committed an error in ordering the appointment of a  new commission, upon the theory that all claims  not  presented  within the time provided for by law were barred under the provisions of section 695 of the Code of Procedure in Civil  Actions.

From a  full examination of the record brought to this court,  we are of the opinion  and so hold that  the failure of the  administratrix  to include  in  her  inventory,  under the circumstances in the present case, property which she knew belonged to the estate, whether  intentional or not, was a fraud against the creditors of the said estate.

Claimants against an estate have a  right to  rely  upon the correctness of the inventory presented by the administrator, etc., and if the administrator knowingly and willfully omits to include  property in  the  inventory which should be included  and thus  induces claimants  not  to  present their claims  within  the period prescribed by  law, the  probate court, being  a court of equity,  should,  upon proof of that fact,  extend  the time  for  the presentation of  claims.  If the commission originally appointed  had been discharged, the court should appoint a new commission to  appraise the estate  and to hear claims.   The moment the probate court  discovers  that fraud has been  committed by  the administrator or the commission, he may set aside all that has  been done  and commence  de novo, except  in  cases where vested rights have been created in good faith.

Fraud vitiates all transactions which it touches.   (Stoddard  vs. Chambers, 2  How.  (U, S.), 284; Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat.  (U. S.)> 76; Graffam vs. Burgess, 117 U. S, 180; Kerr on Fraud, 51.)

If a transaction  has been originally founded on  fraud, the original vice will continue to taint it, however long the negotiations may continue or into whatever ramifications it may  extend.  No length of time however great will be a bar to relief if the injured party has been in ignorance of the fraud.  (Graffam  vs. Burgess  (supra); Charter vs. Trevelyan, 11 Clark and F. (English Reports), 714; Michoud vs. Girod, 45 U. S.,  503, 561; Duchess of Kingston, 20 How. St. Trials, 544.)

Where fraud is such as to prevent a party from presenting the merits of his  case to the court or works an imposition upon  the jurisdiction of the court, the judgment rendered in  such a  case may be impeached.   (Steel vs. St, Louis Ry. Co.,  106  U.  S., 389.)

In the case of Tibbetts vs. Tilton (31 N. H., 273)  it was held that  a creditor of an estate was allowed to avoid the decree of discharge by showing that a part of the estate of the intestate had been fraudulently kept back by the administrator and not reported in the inventory.

In the case of Bank vs. Fairbanks (49 N. H., 131) it was  held  that the bar for the presentation of claims did not apply to a case where the claimant  against an  estate had been  induced not to present his claim, and  where the administrator  had in his  possession property not  included in the inventory.

Where a creditor of an insolvent estate which has been closed  neglected to exhibit  his claim  within the time allowed, if he afterwards  discover and show to the administrator other estate not before inventoried, he may sustain an action for the recovery of his claim.   (Sacket vs.  Mead, 1 Conn., 13; Thorn vs. Watson, 10 111., 26; Stone vs. Clarke, 40 III., 411; Chase vs. Beeson, 92 Ind., 61.)

In the case of Henry vs. Bey (114  Iowa, 454) it was held that when the owner of a note against decedent waa induced to withhold the filing  of his claim by false and fraudulent representations of the executor as to the solvency of the estate, and the estate is still unsettled, the court will permit  the  filing of the claim, notwithstanding that the statutory time therefor has expired.  (State vs. Smith, 79 Minn., 257.)

In the case of Dariano vs. Fidalgo (14 Phil. Rep., 62) this court held that;

"Courts of probate  jurisdiction should  be very jealous in guarding the estates of| deceased persons, and when the action  of any party connected with the administration of such estate  is tainted with fraud in the  slightest degree such courts should take jurisdiction for  the purpose of remedying whatever injury the estate may have suffered."

For  all of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion and so hold that the petition of the defendant asking for the appointment of a new  commission to appraise the estate of the deceased Jose  Reyes y Mijares and  to hear claims against said estate should  have been granted, and to that extent  the judgment of the lower court is  hereby modified and it is hereby ordered and directed  that  the record be returned to the lower court and that said commission be appointed, with direction to proceed to appraise the property of said estate and to hear claims against it, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also that the said administratrix be required to add to her inventory such  other  property, not  already included, as may be found to belong to said estate:  Provided, however. That the lower court may accept the appraisement of the property heretofore inventoried, if he desires  so to do. It is so ordered.

Arellano,  C. J., Torres, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.