CITY OF MANILA VS. ARCHBISHOP The proof shows that Ana Sarmiento did not die intestate.

The proof shows that Ana Sarmiento did not die intestate. She left a will. The
G.R. No. L-10033 / August 30, 1917
FACTS:
In 1668, Ana Sarmiento resided with her husband in the City of Manila. She
owned properties consisted of five parcels of land in Malate and Paco. She made
a will and later on added a codicil to said will. The will contained provisions for
the establishment of a "Capellania de Misas"; that the first chaplain of said
capellania should be her nephew Pedro del Castillo; that said will contained a
provision for the administration of said property in relation with the said
"Capellania de Misas" succeeding administration should continue perpetually. In
1672, Ana Sarmiento died. For more than two hundred years, respondent
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, through his various agencies, has
administered said property.
will provides for the administration of said property by her nephew as well as
for the subsequent administration of the same. She did not die without an heir
nor without persons entitled to administer her estate. It further shows that she
did not die without leaving a person by law entitled to inherit her property.
Therefore, the property in question cannot be declared escheated.
The will clearly, definitely and unequivocally defines and designates what
disposition shall be made of the property in question. The heir mentioned in
said will evidently accepted its terms and permitted the property to be
administered in accordance therewith. And, so far as the record shows, it is still
being administered in accordance with the terms of said will for the benefit of
the real beneficiary as was intended by the original owner

Petitioner city of Manila filed an action before the CFI to have declared
escheated to the city of Manila the mentioned property. The theory of the
petitioner is that one Ana Sarmiento was the owner of said property and died in
the year 1668 without leaving "her or person entitled to the same." However,
the respondent opposed alleging that it has rightfully and legally succeeded to
the possession and administration of the property in accordance with the terms
and provisions of the will of Ana Sarmiento.

The trial court denied the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the property can be escheated in favor of City of Manila.

RULING:

No

Section 750 of Act No. 190 provides when property may be declared escheated.
It provides, "when a person dies intestate, seized of real or personal property . . .
leaving no heir or person by law entitled to the same," that then and in that case
such property under the procedure provided for by sections 751 and 752, may
de declared escheated.