Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Emnace vs. Court of Appeals
Emnace vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 126334. November 23, 2001.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017448a7650f3d35a7a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
9/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 370
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
432
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017448a7650f3d35a7a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/19
9/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 370
433
fee in the proper amount should be adhered to, there are certain
exceptions which must be strictly construed. In recent rulings,
this Court has relaxed the strict adherence to the Manchester
doctrine, allowing the plaintiff to pay the proper docket fees
within a reasonable time before the expiration of the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period.
Same; Venue; Partnerships; An action for accounting,
payment of partnership shares, division of assets and damages is a
personal action which, under the Rules, may be commenced and
tried where the defendant resides or may be found, or where the
plaintiffs reside, at the election of the latter.—On the matter of
improper venue, we find no error on the part of the trial court and
the Court of Appeals in holding that the case below is a personal
action which, under the Rules, may be commenced and tried
where the defendant resides or may be found, or where the
plaintiffs reside, at the election of the latter.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017448a7650f3d35a7a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/19
9/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 370
434
she can file an action based on the rights of her deceased husband
—she and her children are complainants in their own right as
successors, the deceased’s rights being transmitted to his heirs
from the moment of death.—On the third issue, petitioner asserts
that the surviving spouse of Vicente Tabanao has no legal
capacity to sue since she was never appointed as administratrix
or executrix of his estate. Petitioner’s objection in this regard is
misplaced. The surviving spouse does not need to be appointed as
executrix or administratrix of the estate before she can file the
action. She and her children are complainants in their own right
as successors of Vicente Tabanao. From the very moment of
Vicente Tabanao’s death, his rights insofar as the partnership
was concerned were transmitted to his heirs, for rights to the
succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the
decedent. Whatever claims and rights Vicente Tabanao had
against the partnership and petitioner were transmitted to
respondents by operation of law, more particularly by succession,
which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property,
rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance
of a person are transmitted. Moreover, respondents became
owners of their respective hereditary shares from the moment
Vicente Tabanao died.
Same; Same; Same; The heirs, as successors who stepped into
the shoes of their decedent upon his death, can commence any
action originally pertaining to the decedent.—A prior settlement of
the estate, or even the appointment of Salvacion Tabanao as
executrix or administratrix, is not necessary for any of the heirs to
acquire legal capacity to sue. As successors who stepped into the
shoes of their decedent upon his death, they can commence any
action originally pertaining to the decedent. From the moment of
his death, his rights as a partner and to demand fulfillment of
petitioner’s obligations as outlined in their dissolution agreement
were transmitted to respondents. They, therefore, had the
capacity to sue and seek the court’s intervention to compel
petitioner to fulfill his obligations.
435
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
_______________
436
_______________
437
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017448a7650f3d35a7a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/19
9/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 370
_______________
438
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017448a7650f3d35a7a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/19
9/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 370
Petitioner
11
filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals, raising the following issues:
On August 8, 1996,12
the Court of Appeals rendered the
assailed decision, dismissing the petition for certiorari,
upon a finding that no grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction was committed by the trial
court in issuing the questioned orders denying petitioner’s
motions to dismiss.
Not satisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for
review, raising the same issues resolved by the Court of
Appeals, namely:
_______________
439
_______________
440
17
the Clerk of Court.” There is evident willingness to pay,
and the fact that the docket fee paid so far is inadequate is
not an indication that they are trying to avoid paying the
required amount, but may simply be due to an inability to
pay at the time of filing. This consideration may have
moved the trial court and the Court of Appeals to declare
that the unpaid docket fees shall be considered a lien on
the judgment award.
Petitioner, however, argues that the trial court and the
Court of Appeals erred in condoning the non-payment of
the proper legal fees and in allowing the same to become a
lien on the monetary or property judgment that may be
rendered in favor of respondents. There is merit in
petitioner’s assertion. The third paragraph of Section 16,
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court states that:
_______________
441
In Pilipinas
19
Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, this Court pronounced that the above-quoted
provision “clearly contemplates an initial payment of the
filing fees corresponding to the estimated amount of the
claim subject
20
to adjustment as to what later may be
proved.” Moreover, we reiterated therein the principle
that the payment of filing fees cannot be made contingent
or dependent on the result of the case. Thus, an initial
payment of the docket fees based on an estimated amount
must be paid simultaneous with the filing of the complaint.
Otherwise, the court would stand to lose the filing fees
should the judgment later turn out to be adverse to any
claim of the respondent heirs.
The matter of payment of docket fees is not a mere
triviality. These fees are necessary to defray court expenses
in the handling of cases. Consequently, in order to avoid
tremendous losses to the judiciary, and to the government
as well, the payment of docket fees cannot be made
dependent on the outcome of the case, except when the
claimant is a pauper-litigant.
Applied to the instant case, respondents have a specific
claim—1/3 of the value of all the partnership assets—but
they did not allege a specific amount. They did, however,
estimate the partnership’s total assets to be 21
worth Thirty
Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00), in a letter addressed to
petitioner. Respondents cannot now say that they are
unable to make an estimate, for the said letter and the
admissions therein form part of the records of this case.
They cannot avoid paying the initial docket fees by
conveniently omitting the said amount in their amended
complaint. This estimate can be made the basis for the
initial docket fees that respondents should pay. Even if it
were later established that the amount proved was less or
more than the amount alleged or estimated, Rule 141,
Section 5 (a) of the Rules of Court specifically provides that
the court may refund the excess or exact additional fees
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017448a7650f3d35a7a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/19
9/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 370
_______________
19 Supra.
20 Ibid., p. 680.
21 Record, p. 32.
442
The court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the
initiatory pleading is accompanied by the payment of the requisite
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017448a7650f3d35a7a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/19
9/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 370
fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the
pleading, as of the time
_______________
443
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017448a7650f3d35a7a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/19
9/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 370
_______________
444
27
against the person. Furthermore, there is no showing that
the parcels of land involved in this case are being disputed.
In fact, it is only incidental that part of the assets of the
partnership under liquidation happen to be parcels of land.28
The time-tested case of Claridades v. Mercader, et al.,
settled this issue thus:
The fact that plaintiff prays for the sale of the assets of the
partnership, including the fishpond in question, did not change
the nature or character of the action, such sale being merely a
necessary incident of the liquidation of the partnership, which
should precede and/or is part of its process of dissolution.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017448a7650f3d35a7a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/19
9/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 370
_______________
445
_______________
446
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017448a7650f3d35a7a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/19
9/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 370
_______________
447
——o0o——
448
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017448a7650f3d35a7a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/19