Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC DECISION October 6, 1 1! "#R# No# $% !

&' JOSE CALDERON, plaintiff%appellee, (s# LA PROVINCIA DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO DE PP. DOMINICOS DE FILIPINAS , )efen)ant%appellant# Perfecto Gabriel for appellant. Gibbs, McDonough & Blanco for appellee. MORELAND, J.: *his is an action brou+ht to reco(er a le+ac, be-ueathe) to the )efen)ant b, the .ill of Maria Cristina Cal)eron )e la Barca .hich has been )ul, pai) b, the a)/inistrator of sai) .ill an) recei(e) b, the )efen)ant, an or)er of Do/inican friars# *he basis of the action is that the be-uest .as (oi) un)er article &'0 of the Ci(il Co)e in that the .ill in .hich the be-uest is foun) .as /a)e )urin+ the last illness of the testatri1 an) sai) be-uest .as in fa(or of the reli+ious societ, to .hich the priest belon+e) .ho a)/inistere) the last rites to the testatri1# *he trial court hel) the be-uest (oi) an) or)ere) the return of the su/ pai) in pursuance thereof# It is a)/itte) that the le+ac, in -uestion, .hich .as one of P2,333, .as /a)e b, the testatri1 )urin+ her last illness an) that, )urin+ sai) last illness, she .as confesse) b, 4riar 5lpiano 6errero, a priest an) a /e/ber of the co//unit, of the )efen)ant an) that the testatri1 )ie) the )a, after the confession .as /a)e# *he )efense is base) upon t.o propositions7 4irst, that article &'0 of the Ci(il Co)e has been repeale) b, the pro(isions of the Co)e of Ci(il proce)ure, especiall, section 600 thereof8 an), secon), tat the plaintiff accepte), .ithout ob9ection, the pro(isions of the .ill an) the )istribution of the propert, thereun)er, inclu)in+ the pa,/ent of the le+ac, co/plaine) of, an) is, therefore, estoppe) fro/ -uestionin+ such )istribution an) speciall, the (ali)ation of the le+ac,, the -uestion ha(in+, it is clai/e), beco/e res judicata b, the final or)er of )istribution in the probate procee)in+s# Article &'0 of the Ci(il Co)e rea)s as follo.s7 :*esta/entar, pro(isions /a)e b, the testator )urin+ his last illness in fa(or of the priest .ho too; his confession )urin+ the sa/e, of the

relati(es of the latter .ithin the fourth )e+ree, or of his church, chapter, co//unit,, or institute shall not be (ali)#< Section 600 of the Co)e of Ci(il Proce)ure rea)s as follo.s7 :When devise or legacy to witness void. = If a person attests the e1ecution of a .ill, to .ho/ or to .hose .ife or husban), or parent, or chil), a beneficial )e(ise, le+ac,, or interest, of or affectin+ real or personal estate, is +i(en b, such .ill, such )e(ise, le+ac,, or interest shall, so far onl, as concerns such person, or the .ife or husban), or parent or chil) of such person, or an,one clai/in+ un)er such person, or such .ife or husban), or parent or chil), be (oi), unless there are three other co/petent .itnesses to such .ill, an) such person so attestin+ shall be a)/itte) as a .itness as if such )e(ise, le+ac,, or interest ha) not been /a)e or +i(en# But /ere char+e on the real or personal estate of the testator, for the pa,/ent of )ebts, shall not pre(ent his cre)itors fro/ bein+ co/petent .itnesses to his .ill#< >e are unable to see .hat bearin+ section 600 of the Co)e of Ci(il Proce)ure 9ust -uote) has upon the -uestion at issue# Before a statute can be hel) to ha(e repeale) a prior statute b, i/plication, it /ust appear, first, that the t.o statutes touch the sa/e sub9ect /atter, an), secon), that the later statute is repu+nant to the earlier# Neither one of these con)itions is present in the case before us# *he article of the Ci(il Co)e -uote) refers e1clusi(el, to testa/entar, )ispositions an) the circu/stances un)er .hich the, .ill be ille+al an) unenforceable# It has nothin+ to )o .ith the for/ or /anner of e1ecution of the .ill or .ho shall not be .itnesses thereto# Section 600 of the Co)e of Ci(il Proce)ure, on the other han), refers e1clusi(el, to the e1ecution of a .ill# It has nothin+ to )o .ith the le+alit, of its )ispositions e1cept so far as the, are affecte) b, the for/ an) /anner of its e1ecution# Moreo(er, both sections can been applie) to the sa/e .ill# If in the case before us there ha) been another le+ac, in the .ill to a person .ho .as a .itness thereto, there .oul) ha(e been presente) a case in .hich both sections .oul) be applicable# Article &'0 .oul) be applicable because the .ill .as /a)e )urin+ the last illness of the testatri1 an) the priest .ho a)/inistere) the last rites to the )ecease) .as a /e/ber of the or)er that recei(e) the le+ac,# Section 600 .oul) be applicable because one of the .itnesses to statutes /a, be e-uall, applicable to the sa/e .ill, an) neither be in conflict .ith the other, it is clear that the, cannot be repu+nant to each other, that the, can both stan) to+ether, an) that, therefore, the one is not i/plie)l, repeale) b, the other# 4urther/ore, as the case no. stan)s, section 600 cannot possibl, be applicable, because no one .as a .itness to the .ill .ho recei(e) a le+ac, thereun)er# If there can arise a case in .hich t.o statutes alle+e) to be repu+nant to each other cannot both be applicable, then it is clear that the, )o not treat of the sa/e sub9ect /atter, are, therefore, not repu+nant an), as a necessar, conse-uence, the later )oes not repeal the earlier# Co/in+ no. to the contention that the (ali)it, of the le+ac, to the )efen)ant has alrea), been )eter/ine) an) that the plaintiff is estoppe) fro/ -uestionin+ such (ali)it,, .e /a, sa, that the e(i)ence sho.s that the plaintiff .as a /inor )urin+ all of the procee)in+s lea)in+ up to an) inclu)in+ the final settle/ent of the estate of his /other# No +uar)ian ad lite .as appointe) for hi/ an) it )oes not appear that he .as represente) b, an,one .ho ha) authorit, to bin) hi/#

It is conten)e), ho.e(er, that the plaintiff is estoppe) fro/ /aintainin+ this action in that on the 0!th of ?anuar,, 1 11, he si+ne) the follo.in+ paper7 :No. co/es ?ose Cal)eron, heir in the abo(e%entitle) case, an) respectfull, represents, that he has e1a/ine) carefull, the state/ent of account ren)ere) b, the a)/inistrator, as .ell as the pro9ect of partition, an) the bill of the a)/inistrator for fees, an) belie(es that the sa/e are 9ust an) reasonable#< *he plaintiff insists that in si+nin+ sai) )ocu/ent he belie(e) that he .as appro(in+ /erel, the a)/inistrator@s accounts an) reasonableness of his fees an) .as not en+a+e) in passin+ upon the le+alit, of an, particular pro(ision of the .ill or the pa,/ent of le+acies as or)ere) b, the .ill or the )istribution of the estate as finall, /a)e# *he .or)in+ of the )ocu/ent len)s so/e color to this contention an) its )ate sho.s that it .as e1ecute) about one ,ear before the pro9ect of partition .as /a)e .hich the plaintiff is suppose) to ha(e ratifie) b, sai) )ocu/ent# *he learne) trial court .as not satisfie) that the plaintiff e1presse) his confor/it, .ith the propose) )istribution or the propose) pa,/ent of le+acies# >e a+ree .ith the trial court upon this point an) also are of the opinion that such appro(al, if it /a, be calle) an appro(al, is not bin)in+ upon the plaintiff, .ho, at that ti/e, .as a /inor an) .as not represente) b, an,one .ho .as authoriAe) to contract for hi/# Not bein+ boun) b, that ratification, the plaintiff, on co/in+ of a+e, .as entitle) to attac; the pro(isions of the .ill if the, .ere (oi) b, reason of ille+alit,# 6e reache) the a+e of 01 on the 0) )a, of 4ebruar,, 1 12, an) this suit .as institute) on the 0!th of the sa/e /onth# No ratification can be i/plie) fro/ this short lapse of ti/e, in the absence of con)uct on the part of the plaintiff in)icatin+ clearl, an intention to ratif,# *he 9u)+/ent is affir/e), .ith costs a+ainst the appellant# !rellano, ".#., $orres, "arson and !raullo, ##., concur.