GR 44109; (September, 1935) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44109 ; September 26, 1935
In re Intestate of the deceased Eugenio Casimiro. SILVESTRE C. PASCUAL, administrator-appellant, vs. PETRA SANTOS, ET AL., heirs-appellees.
FACTS
This case involves the intestate estate of Eugenio Casimiro. The administrator, Silvestre C. Pascual, previously submitted his statement of accounts, which was appealed to the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 40053 ). In a 1934 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order with a correction, fixing the administrator’s cash balance payable to the estate at P4,465.15. Upon remand, the lower court ordered the administrator to deposit this amount. Instead of complying, the administrator filed an amended petition seeking allowance of additional expenses allegedly omitted from his earlier account. The lower court disallowed almost all new items, ordering the administrator to deposit the adjusted balance. The administrator appealed this order. The heirs-appellees filed a motion in the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was filed out of time and that the orders appealed from were interlocutory.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal interposed by the administrator should be dismissed.
RULING
Yes, the appeal is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that its prior decision on the administrator’s account was final and conclusive under Section 778 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A final settlement of an account, once affirmed by the Supreme Court, has the force of a judgment and cannot be reopened by litigating the same or related questions in a subsequent hearing. To permit an administrator to raise belated claims after losing on appeal would lead to endless controversy, frustrate the administration of justice, and leave heirs at the mercy of a dilatory administrator. The policy of the law is to close estates promptly and economically. The Court found the appeal to be a dilatory tactic and dismissed it, with costs against the administrator.
Note: A dissenting opinion, joined by another Justice, argued that the appeal should not be dismissed merely on motion, as the grounds for dismissal did not fall under the specific rules for dismissal of appeals, and that the appellant was entitled to a determination on the merits.*
AI Generated by Armztrong.