Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-24843 July 15, 1968
MEMBERS OF THE CULT OF SAN MIGUEL ARCANGEL, petitioners-appellees,
vs.
PEDRO NARCISO, trustee-appellant.
Eudocio Cacho for petitioner-appellee.
Bernabe de Aquino for trustee-appellant.
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to Us, upon the ground that only questions of law are involved in the appeal. Upon the death of Policarpio Narciso, a bachelor, without forced heirs, residing in the barrio of San Miguel Abu, Municipality of Barin, Province of Pangasinan, sometime before August 9, 1920, special proceeding No. 546 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, for the settlement of his estate, was commenced. A document, executed by the deceased, on January 3, 1910, as his last will and testament, and allowed to probate in said proceeding, provided, inter alia:
... que en caso me llamara la Divina Justicia tendran derecho mis sobrinos de primer grado y mis parientes que debieran heredar de mis bienes expresados en este testamento repartiran en tres; que en la primera parte es el deber que repartiran los mismos herederos; en la segunda parte es mi donacion que sirve en la Ermita de este barrio con las imagenes de los Santos precisamente el Patron Sr. San Miguel Archangel para sostener los necesarios ocasionados, y la tercera parte me compremeto dar voluntariamente al Albacea que to nombre para que cuidase arreglar todos mis bienes, lo cual es el Sr. Tranquilino Jimenez.
Todos los bienes espresados en los documento que entregue a dicho Albacea, desde hoy en adelante, digo en realidad traspase al poder para que tendra derecho de distributor en la espresada primera parte, a los herederos, en la segunda parte es mi donacion aue cuidase de mi Albacea que no podran reclamar de mis herederos en la espresada segunda parte, por que donde previene los gastos que sirve en la Ermita, los bultos y vestuarios de los santos con la casa como convento de la citada Ermita; en la tercera parte es mi promesa que le doy a mi albacea libre de toda gravamen como corresponde de sus trabajos que no podran renovar de mis herederos y parrientes de ambas partes, y todos los bienes que ya entregue al citado Albacea son los siguientes:
x x x x x x x x x1äwphï1.ñët
Purporting to act in conformity with these provisions of the will, on August 9, 1920, the court ordered the executor therein named, Tranquilino Jimenez, (1) to segregate from the mass of the estate of the deceased a building used as Chapel (Ermita), a house of wood intended for convent, a bell, and the religious images and ornaments specified in said instrument; (2) to divide the rest of the estate into three (3) equal parts; (3) to distribute one part among the nearest relatives1 of the deceased; and (4) to keep another part for himself, as compensation for his (executor's) services.
The order, likewise, provided that the remaining third part:
... se destina para las atenciones y sostenimiento del culto en la Ermita y tambien de la casa-convento y los ornamentos y estara bajo el cuidado y administracion del albacea Tranquilino Jimenez, quien como tal fideicomisario prestara una fianza igual al valor de los bienes y de la Ermita, convento y demas cosas, presentando ademas un inventario de todos los bienes puestos a su cuidado como fideicomisario; ...
By an order, dated April 21, 1921, the court directed that said third party be administered by the executor, as trustee thereof, for the application of its products to the support of the Cult (to St. Michael Archangel) as ordained by the testator, without authority to alienate the chapel and other religious objects mentioned in the order of August 9, 1920, but with the duty to conserve them, according to the testator's will. Another order, dated September 13, 1921, commanded the executor to institute a trusteeship proceeding for the administration of the property bequeathed for the support of the Cult in the Chapel (Ermita) in the barrio of San Miguel. In compliance with this order, Tranquilino Jimenez commenced special proceeding No. 979 of the court above mentioned, which, on December 18, 1922, appointed him trustee, for the administration of said property.
Since then, said proceeding No. 979 was included in the monthly report, to the Department of Justice, of cases pending in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, up to October 31, 1956, when its presiding judge ordered that it be no longer included in said report, because for all practical purposes", it should be "considered as terminated without prejudice, however, that the annual report of accounts of the trustee and/or any incident that may hereinafter arise ... be presented to the court for its resolution."
Meanwhile, Tranquilino Jimenez had died2 and was succeeded, as trustee, by Pedro Narciso. Thereafter, two (2) petitions were filed for a change of trustee: one,3 by several members of the "Cult of San Miguel Archangel", alleging mismanagement by Pedro Narciso and praying that Bonifacio Orias, another member of the "Cult", be appointed in his stead; and another,4 by Bartolome Aquino, likewise, a regular member of said "Cult", who prayed that he be the one appointed as trustee. In view of the seeming division among the members of the "Cult", the court issued an order, dated November 8, 1962, postponing the hearing of the petitions for change of trustee and urging the different factions to get together and settle their internal conflicts.
On January 3, 1963, the trustee, namely, Pedro Narciso, and Carmen Narciso, Rafael Narciso and Felix Aquino, — hereinafter referred to as petitioners — as alleged heirs of the founder of the trust, objected to the Appointment of a new trustee and moved for the reversion, to the heirs of Policarpio Narciso, of the properties held in trust, upon the ground that the trust had been terminated by the aforementioned order of October 31, 1956, and that a trust cannot exist for more than twenty (20) years, pursuant to Art. 870 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. In due course, the lower court denied this petition for reversion and set a date for the hearing of the petition for change of trustee. Forthwith, the petitioners interposed the present appeal, in which they insist on the reasons adduced by them in the trial court.
We find no merit in the appeal. It is not true that the trust was terminated by the aforementioned order of October 31, 1956. The same declared Special Proceeding No. 979 terminated insofar only as the monthly report of pending cases were concerned "without prejudice to the annual report of accounts of the trustee and/or any incident that may arise" thereafter, which "should be presented to the court for its resolution." This qualification clearly refutes petitioners' pretense.
Moreover, the Civil Code of the Philippines became effective in 1950, or thirty (30) years after the establishment of the trust in 1920. Art. 870 of said Code, on which petitioners rely, is not applicable, therefore, to the case at bar, for5 "changes made and new provisions and rules laid down by this Code which may prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the old legislation shall have no retroactive effect," and6 "the Civil Code of 1889 and other previous laws shall govern rights originating under said laws, from acts done or events which took place under their regime, even though" the New Code "may regulate them in a different manner, or may not recognize them,"7 apart from the fact that8 "rights to the inheritance of a person who died, with or without a will, before the effectivity" of the Civil Code of the Philippines, "shall be governed by the Civil Code of 1889, by other previous laws and by the Rules of Court."9
It is next urged that, at any rate, perpetuities are void under the common law and against public policy and that, accordingly, the provision in the will of Policarpio Narciso seeking to establish a perpetual trust is null and void. The validity of said provision was, however, upheld, by necessary implication, in Special Proceedings Nos. 546 and 979 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan: in the first, when the Court ordered the executor therein to submit a project of partition, giving effect to said provision of the will, and later approved10 said project of partition, as well as directed him to initiate another judicial proceeding for the administration of the trust; and, in the second, when the Court appointed Tranquilino Jimenez as trustee and, then, for many years, passed upon11 his accounts as such and those of his successor.12
Even if erroneous, the orders of the Court in said two (2) proceedings recognizing and, hence, upholding, the validity of said trust and actually enforcing as well as implementing the same, were and are valid. The nullity of said trust cannot now be decreed without, in effect, reversing said valid orders, from which no appeal was taken by petitioners herein or their predecessors in interest, and which had become final and executory over 40 years ago. The least that can be said is that petitioners are barred, by the principle of laches, from assailing the validity and existence of said trust.13
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed and the records of this case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, in accordance with law, with costs against petitioners herein. It is so ordered.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur. Castro, J., concurs in the result.
Footnotes
1Nephews and nieces.
2In August 1955.
3On June 22, 1962.
4On November 8, 1962.
5Pursuant to Art. 2252 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
6Art. 2252 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides.
7Manalansang v. Manalang, L-13646, July 26, 1960; Uson v. Del Rosario, 92 Phil. 531.
8According to Article 2263 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
9Morales v. Yanez, 98 Phil. 677; Vidaurrazaga v. Court of Appeals, 91 Phil. 492.
10Presumably.
11Presumably.
12Petitioner Pedro Narciso.
13Vismanos vs. Municipality of Tagum, et al., L-20685, August 31, 1965; Felix Vda. de Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez, et al., L-23002, July 31, 1967;People's Homesite vs. Mencias, etc., et al., L-24114, Aug. 16, 1967.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
