RIAN VINCENT A.

NEBAB
riannebab85@gmail.com
0956 3011 937

1. Notarial Instrument Exhibit 8 shows that on December 28, 1905, Benito

legarda appointed Ramon S. Gavito as administrator of the Nagtajan

Hacienda. Gavito was authorized to offer for lease parcels of hacienda, on the

condition that all contracts executed by him should first be approved by

Legarda. Gavito continued administration over said property until May 7,

1914. However, prior to this date, Legarda executed two notarial instruments

granting his son Benito Legarda y de la Paz and his sons-in-law Mauro Prieto

y Gorricho and Benito Valdez full power over the same property, dated

December 20, 1907 and November 12, 1909, respectively (Record pp. 99-107).

Thus, acts made by Gavito on May 7, 1914 (Record pp 23-32) are in serious

doubt by reason of the execution of the two notarial instruments.

2. The appellant complains that the trial court erred in holding the following:

that counsel of the loan association could not testify regarding the loan

distribution as this violates the attorney-client privilege; and that a garnishee,

appearing for examination concerning his indebtedness to the debtor and as

witness of the creditor, could not be cross-examined by the latter.

3. Spanish Jurisprudence provides, as a rule, that penal laws should not be

given retroactive effect, except if its is favorable to the accused. If the

repealing penal law does away with the criminal liability, the accused who is

charged under the former law will be relieved of liabilities. But if the

repealing penal law merely diminishes criminal liability, the accused should
still be prosecuted under the old law but the proper penalties to be imposed

are those provided by the subsequent law.