GR L 2836; (December, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2836. December 6, 1949.
ENGRACIA G. DE PONCE, petitioner-appellee, vs. ALICIA VASQUEZ SAGARIO, respondent. FRED RUIZ CASTRO, in his capacity as Judge Advocate General, Armed Forces of the Philippines, and BERNARDINO JARDELEZA, in his capacity as the Finance Service, Armed Forces of the Philippines, respondents-appellants.
FACTS
Engracia G. de Ponce, the legitimate mother of the deceased Lt. Genaro G. Ponce, filed a claim for his arrears in pay and allowances under Republic Act No. 136 . She alleged he died unmarried and without children. The Judge Advocate General’s Office initially adjudicated the amount in her favor. However, Alicia Vasquez Sagario filed a competing claim, asserting she was the legal wife of the deceased and had a daughter by him. The Judge Advocate General, after a hearing, found the marriage sufficiently established under the Act and decided to award the arrears to Sagario, excluding de Ponce. De Ponce then filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Judge Advocate General to initiate interpleader proceedings in court to resolve the conflicting claims, as provided under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 136 .
ISSUE
Whether the Judge Advocate General, under Republic Act No. 136 , has the quasi-judicial power to finally adjudicate conflicting claims of heirship, or whether his role is merely administrative/ministerial, requiring him to initiate court interpleader proceedings when a bona fide dispute exists.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The role of the Judge Advocate General under Republic Act No. 136 is purely administrative and ministerial. Section 8 of the Act expressly provides that when a dispute arises as to who are the legal heirs, the Judge Advocate General shall suspend distribution until the courts decide the controversy in an interpleader action. The existence of a “dispute” is determined by the good faith of the claimants and some showing of reason on each side, not by the Judge Advocate General’s assessment of the evidence’s strength. The power to weigh conflicting evidence and decide questions of law and fact in such contentious matters is a judicial function that resides in the courts. The summary investigation authorized by Section 3 is subject to the limitation in Section 8 and is intended for non-contentious situations, such as verifying a single claimant’s legitimacy. Therefore, the Judge Advocate General was ordered to bring the matter to the proper court via interpleader.
AI Generated by Armztrong.