[ G.R. No. 8447. January 22, 1913 ] 24 Phil. 127
[ G.R. No. 8447. January 22, 1913 ]
RAFAEL REYES, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF LUZ CIRIA DE REYES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MANUEL CIRIA Y VINANT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
TORRES, J.:
Various documents and certified portions of the record from the proceedings in the Court of First Instance of this city in the probate of the will of the deceased Mrs. Luz Ciria Reyes have been forwarded here in connection with the appeal from the decision of October 2, 1912, filed by counsel for Rafael Reyes; also, the written assignment of errors on appeal, and therein it is requested that in printing the evidence all the proofs submitted in the probate proceedings be included with the transcript of the stenographic notes in the case. But in view thereof counsel for Manuel Ciria, appellee, objects to the printing of all the proofs presented at the trial, consisting of public documents, letters, post cards, accounts, and stenographic notes, as appellant requests in paragraph 8 of his petition, on the ground that such is not according to the rules. In another petition counsel for the same Manuel Ciria asks that the court disallow said appeal, because it has been raised at an improper time, and even had it been, the judgment appealed from is not final, for it contains no statement of the hereditary property nor of the proportional part, expressed in number and amount, belonging to Manuel Ciria. Hence, to shorten the proceedings and avoid a new appeal that may be taken as a result of the division of the property, the procedure in the Court of First Instance should be terminated by compelling the testamentary executor to submit the itemized inventory of the property of the inheritance, appraisal thereof by commissioners and indication of the amount that would appear for the heir Manuel Ciria. Therefore the appeal is improper until final judgment of partition has been rendered, which has not yet been done. It is to be noted that by the order appealed from of October 2, 1912, Manuel Ciria y Vinant is declared to be heir by force of law of the deceased Luz Ciria, with right to share in her property to the extent the law authorizes and, by a supplementary order of the 28th of the same month and year, the share to which the said heir is declared to be entitled is one-sixth of the property of the conjugal partnership between said deceased and the appellant Reyes. The only question for the court to decide now is whether the judgment of October 2, 1912, supplemented by the order of the 28th of the same month and year, is in itself final and therefore susceptible of appeal, or whether it is not, as appellee contends. Said judgment of October 2 with its supplement determines two important points of law essentially affecting the interest of the litigants, to wit: (1) The declaration that Manuel Ciria y Vinant is heir by force of law of the deceased Luz Ciria; and (2) the declaration that the claimant as such heir is entitled to one-sixth of the property of the conjugal partnership between said deceased and the appellant Rafael Reyes. If in due time this judgment should become final, there can be no question that the controversy between the parties would be finally settled, as it would also be finally decided by reversal on this pending appeal, should final decision be handed down in the case that the said Manuel Ciria y Vinant is not entitled to the inheritance from the deceased Luz Ciria. Section 782 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the following:
“Appeal from decree of distribution.—If there shall be a controversy before the Court of First Instance as to who the lawful heirs of the deceased person are, or as to the distributive share to which each person is entitled under the law, the testimony as to such controversy shall be taken in writing by the judge, under oath, and signed by the witnesses. Any party in interest whose distributive share is affected by the determination of such controversy may appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance determining such controversy to the Supreme Court, within the time and in the manner provided in the last preceding section, and it shall thereupon be the duty of the clerk of the Court of First Instance forthwith to transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of all the testimony taken upon that issue, and of the judgment of the court thereon,”
Manuel Ciria’s claim regarding his right to inherit from the deceased Luz Ciria to the extent fixed by law is dealt with in the probate proceedings on her account. The testamentary heir appealed from the decision of the judge recognizing such right, and this appeal of his, duly interposed, must be admitted and heard in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing section of the law of procedure, perfectly applicable to the case, for the testamentary inheritance of the appellant Reyes is substantially affected by the judgment; and in granting the right to appeal from said judgment to this court, within the time and in the manner provided by the next preceding section 781, said section directs that the clerk of the Court of First Instance shall immediately transmit to the clerk of this court a certified copy of all the testimony taken upon that issue and of the judgment of the court. The decision of the court, therefore, declaring Manuel Ciria heir of the testatrix with right to one-sixth of the conjugal partnership property belonging to her is final as a declaration of heirship, and as such is susceptible of exception and the consequent appeal. Nor should this appeal be postponed or hearing thereon suspended but it should be carried forward at once without delay or hindrance, as provided in the section cited from the law of procedure. It is neither rational nor just that final partition of the property in litigation should await settlement of the controversy pending over a right to inherit, when this partition really depends upon the determination of who are the heirs that are entitled to the hereditary property. Appellee’s right to inherit from the testatrix depends upon affirmation of the judgment appealed from, for otherwise partition of the property of the inheritance in litigation would be unnecessary. In view of these facts, we hold that there is no ground for disallowing the appeal interposed by Rafael Reyes as requested by counsel for Manuel Ciria, and for the carrying forward of said appeal it is proper to print the will, documents, record, and testimony to which appellant’s petition refers along with the statement of errors it assigns, with exception of the documents, letters, and post cards mentioned in appellee’s petition of December 9 last. Arellano, C. J., and Mapa, J., concur.