TAYAG, ancillary administrator-appellee, vs.
Confronted by an obstinate and adamant refusal of the domiciliary administrator, the County Trust Company of New York, United States of America, of the estate of the deceased Idonah Slade Perkins, who died in New York City on March 27,to surrender to the ancillary administrator in the Philippines the stock certificates owned by her in a Philippine corporation, Benguet Consolidated, Inc.
After considering the motion of the ancillary administrator, dated February 11,as well as the opposition filed by the Benguet Consolidated, Inc.
The appeal cannot possibly prosper. The challenged order represents a response and expresses a policy, to paraphrase Frankfurter, arising out of a specific problem, addressed to the attainment of specific ends by the use of specific remedies, with full and ample support from legal doctrines of weight and significance.
The facts will explain why.
As set forth in the brief of appellant Benguet Consolidated, Inc. Marquez was appointed ancillary administrator, and on January 22,he was substituted by the appellee Renato D.
A dispute arose between the domiciary administrator in New York and the ancillary administrator in the Philippines as to which of them was entitled to the possession of the stock certificates in question. On January 27,the Court of First Instance of Manila ordered the domiciliary administrator, County Trust Company, to produce and deposit them with the ancillary administrator or with the Clerk of Court.
The domiciliary administrator did not comply with the order, and on February 11,the ancillary administrator petitioned the court to issue an order declaring the certificate or certificates of stocks covering the 33, shares issued in the name of Idonah Slade Perkins by Benguet Consolidated, Inc.
As was made clear at the outset of this opinion, the appeal lacks merit. The challenged order constitutes an emphatic affirmation of judicial authority sought to be emasculated by the wilful conduct of the domiciliary administrator in refusing to accord obedience to a court decree.
How, then, can this order be stigmatized as illegal? As is true of many problems confronting the judiciary, such a response was called for by the realities of the situation.
It can truly be said then that the result arrived at upheld and vindicated the honor of the judiciary no less than that of the country. Thus did the lower court, in the order now on appeal, impart vitality and effectiveness to what was decreed.
Unless such a blatant disregard by the domiciliary administrator, with residence abroad, of what was previously ordained by a court order could be thus remedied, it would have entailed, insofar as this matter was concerned, not a partial but a well-nigh complete paralysis of judicial authority.
Appellant Benguet Consolidated, Inc. Such a power is inherent in his duty to settle her estate and satisfy the claims of local creditors.
It is often necessary to have more than one administration of an estate. That which is granted in the jurisdiction of decedent's last domicile is termed the principal administration, while any other administration is termed the ancillary administration.
Hence, an administrator appointed in a foreign state has no authority in the [Philippines]. The ancillary administration is proper, whenever a person dies, leaving in a country other than that of his last domicile, property to be administered in the nature of assets of the deceased liable for his individual debts or to be distributed among his heirs.
For appellant is a Philippine corporation owing full allegiance and subject to the unrestricted jurisdiction of local courts. Its shares of stock cannot therefore be considered in any wise as immune from lawful court orders.
Our holding in Wells Fargo Bank and Union v. In the instant case, the actual situs of the shares of stock is in the Philippines, the corporation being domiciled [here]. To the force of the above undeniable proposition, not even appellant is insensible.
It does not dispute it. Nor could it successfully do so even if it were so minded. In the face of such incontrovertible doctrines that argue in a rather conclusive fashion for the legality of the challenged order, how does appellant, Benguet Consolidated, Inc.
It would assign as the basic error allegedly committed by the lower court its considering as lost the stock certificates covering 33, shares of Benguet belonging to the deceased Idonah Slade Perkins, That certainly does not suffice to call for the reversal of the appealed order.
Since there is a refusal, persistently adhered to by the domiciliary administrator in New York, to deliver the shares of stocks of appellant corporation owned by the decedent to the ancillary administrator in the Philippines, there was nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in considering them as lost and requiring the appellant to issue new certificates in lieu thereof.
Thereby, the task incumbent under the law on the ancillary administrator could be discharged and his responsibility fulfilled. Any other view would result in the compliance to a valid judicial order being made to depend on the uncontrolled discretion of the party or entity, in this case domiciled abroad, which thus far has shown the utmost persistence in refusing to yield obedience.
Certainly, appellant would not be heard to contend in all seriousness that a judicial decree could be treated as a mere scrap of paper, the court issuing it being powerless to remedy its flagrant disregard. It may be admitted of course that such alleged loss as found by the lower court did not correspond exactly with the facts.
There should be then on the part of the appellant a further refinement in the catholicity of its condemnation of such judicial technique.
If ever an occasion did call for the employment of a legal fiction to put an end to the anomalous situation of a valid judicial order being disregarded with apparent impunity, this is it. What is thus most obvious is that this particular alleged error does not carry persuasion.
In the first place, there is no such occasion to apply such by-law. It is admitted that the foreign domiciliary administrator did not appeal from the order now in question.Philippine Jurisprudence - TESTATE ESTATE OF IDONAH SLADE PERKINS.
RENATO D. TAYAG vs. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. Tayag vs. Benguet consolidated INC 26 SCRA Facts: Idonah Slade Perkins died in New York on March , the domestic administrator in New York refused to give the Stock Certificates owned by Perkins in the Benguet Consolidated Inc.
to the Ancillary administrator here in the Philippines for the purpose of satisfying the legitimate claims of local creditors.5/5(1). 1-Tayag vs. Benguet mtb15.com - Free download as Word Doc .doc /.docx), PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. Digest. Tayag v.
Benguet, Corporation Law in the Philippines. TAYAG VS. BENGUET CONSOLIDATION G.R. No. L November 29, Lessons Applicable: Theory of Concession (Corporate Law) FACTS: + March 27, Idonah Slade Perkins died in New York City + August 12, Prospero Sanidad instituted ancillary administration proceedings appointing ancillary administrator Lazaro A.
Marquez later on substituted by Renato D. Tayag + On January 27, . Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L November 29, TESTATE ESTATE OF IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, deceased.
RENATO D. TAYAG, ancillary administrator-appellee, vs. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., oppositor-appellant.