SLC lAL 8CCLLulnC

(LscheaL)
THE CITY OF MANILA vs. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF
MANILA G.R. No. L-10033; August 30, 1917
FACTS: This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the city of
Manila on the 15th day of February, 1913. Its purpose was to have declared
escheated to the city of Manila certain property situated in and around said city;
that said property consists of five parcels of land located on the districts of Malate
and Paco of the city of Manila. The theory of the plaintiff is that one Ana
Sarmiento was the owner of said property and died in the year 1668 without
leaving an "heir or person entitled to the same."
After hearing the evidence, the CFI denied the prayer of the plaintiff. Plaintiff then
appealed to the Supreme Court.
After an examination of the evidence adduced during the trial of the case, the
Supreme Court found by a large preponderance of the evidence that Ana Sarmiento
was able to make a will before she died. Said 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; that said Ana Sarmiento
died about the year 1672; that for more than two hundred years the intervener, the
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, through his various agencies, has
administered said property; that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila has
rightfully and legally succeeded in accordance with the terms and provisions of the
will of Ana Sarmiento.
ISSUE: Can the questioned properties be escheated?
HELD: 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 be declared escheated.
The proof shows that Ana Sarmiento did not die intestate. She left a will. The will
provides for the administration of said property by her nephew as well as for the
SLC lAL 8CCLLulnC
(LscheaL)
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. In view of the
facts, therefore, the property in question cannot be declared escheated as of the
property of Ana Sarmiento. If by any chance the property may be declared
escheated, it must be based upon the fact that persons subsequent to Ana Sarmiento
died intestate without leaving heir or person by law entitled to the same.