Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Oppus Vs Gil

    Uploaded by

    careyssa Mae Ipil
    The petitioner sued the administrator of the estate of Florentino San Gil in civil court for possession of certain furniture. The civil court ruled in the petitioner's favor, but the administrator refused to comply. The petitioner then filed a motion in the probate court to enforce the civil judgment. The probate court denied the motion, finding that the furniture did not belong to the estate and that execution of the civil judgment must be sought in civil court. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the probate court's denial was incorrect, as the civil action was properly brought against the administrator and the judgment could be enforced against property in his possession as administrator.

    Copyright:

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

    Oppus Vs Gil

    Uploaded by

    careyssa Mae Ipil
    19 views1 page
    The petitioner sued the administrator of the estate of Florentino San Gil in civil court for possession of certain furniture. The civil court ruled in the petitioner's favor, but the administrator refused to comply. The petitioner then filed a motion in the probate court to enforce the civil judgment. The probate court denied the motion, finding that the furniture did not belong to the estate and that execution of the civil judgment must be sought in civil court. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the probate court's denial was incorrect, as the civil action was properly brought against the administrator and the judgment could be enforced against property in his possession as administrator.

    Original Description:

    OPPUS VS GIL SPECPRO

    Original Title

    Oppus vs Gil

    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 petitioner sued the administrator of the estate of Florentino San Gil in civil court for possession of certain furniture. The civil court ruled in the petitioner's favor, but the administrator refused to comply. The petitioner then filed a motion in the probate court to enforce the civil judgment. The probate court denied the motion, finding that the furniture did not belong to the estate and that execution of the civil judgment must be sought in civil court. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the probate court's denial was incorrect, as the civil action was properly brought against the administrator and the judgment could be enforced against property in his possession as administrator.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views1 page

    Oppus Vs Gil

    Uploaded by

    careyssa Mae Ipil
    The petitioner sued the administrator of the estate of Florentino San Gil in civil court for possession of certain furniture. The civil court ruled in the petitioner's favor, but the administrator refused to comply. The petitioner then filed a motion in the probate court to enforce the civil judgment. The probate court denied the motion, finding that the furniture did not belong to the estate and that execution of the civil judgment must be sought in civil court. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the probate court's denial was incorrect, as the civil action was properly brought against the administrator and the judgment could be enforced against property in his possession as administrator.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TITLE: Intestate estate of the deceased Florentino San Gil.

    JOSEFA R. OPPUS vs BONIFACIO GIL


    CITATION: G.R. No. 48115 October 12, 1942
    TOPIC: EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; CIVIL ACTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATOR
    FOR THE RECOVERY OF FURNITURE; EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
    DOCTRINE:
    A judgment for the manual delivery and possession of specific articles of personal property, the
    action for which survived by express provision of law "and may be commenced and prosecuted by or against
    the executor or administrator. Moreover, the prosecution of an action against an executor or administrator
    which the law allows regarding the possession of specific articles, necessarily includes the execution of the
    judgment that may be entered in said action.

    FACTS:
    • Petitioner herein sue the defendant in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of Florentino San Gil
    for the possession of certain furnitures.
    • The court rendered a judgment ordering the defendant to deliver the possession of the said furnitures to
    the plintiff. However, for some reasons, the judgment was not satisfied.
    • Petitioner presented a motion in the iintestate proceeding of Florentino San Gil to deliver to her the
    furniture however it was denined on the grounds (1) that the furniture in question does not belong to the
    estate of the deceased Florentino San Gil and (2) that in any event the execution of the judgement in the
    civil case should be applied for in said case.virtual law library

    ISSUE: Whether or not the probate court is correct in denying the motion of the plaintiff.

    RULING:

    YES.
    The court ruled that it finds no legal impediment to the execution of the said judgment by the order of the
    court that rendered it because the administrator Bonifacio San Gil having been sued as such in the ordinary
    count and judgment having been rendered there against him.
    The judgment in question is not one for a sum of money which has to be satisfied by levying execution on
    property belonging to the estate and therefore in custodia legis. It is a judgment for the manual delivery and
    possession of specific articles of personal property, the action for which survives by express provision of
    law "and may be commenced and prosecuted by or against the executor or administrator.
    Therefore, the prosecution of an action against an executor or administrator which the law allows regarding
    the possession of specific articles, necessarily includes the execution of the judgment that may be entered
    in said action. On the other hand, once the court determines in such action that the property in litigation
    belongs to the plaintiff and not to the estate of the deceased, it cannot be maintained that such property is
    in custodia legis, it not forming part of the estate of the deceased.
    Hence appellant's motion herein was not in order and was properly denied. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law libr

    You might also like