7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

1/14

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURTManila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L-6889March23,1915

JOAQUINIBAESDEALDECOAYPALET,ETAL.,plaintiff-appellants,vs.THEHONGKONGANDSHANGHAIBANKINGCORPORATION,ETAL.,defendants-appellants.

ChicoteandMiranda,andTirsodeIruretaGoyenaforplaintiffs.Haussermann,CohnandFisherfordefendants.

TRENT,J.:

ThisisanappealfromthejudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofthecityofManilaenteredonthe27thdayofJanuary,1911.

ThisactionwascommencedinOctober,1908,byJoaquinIbaezdeAldecoaandZoiloIbaesdeAldecoatocancelacertaininstrumentofmortgageexecutedbythem,jointlywithAldecoaandCo.andIsablePalet,infavoroftheHong ongandShanghaiBan ingCorporation.BythismortgagevariouspropertiesofAldecoaandCo.,ofIsabelPalet,andoftheplaintiffwerehypothecatedtosecurethepaymentuntotheban ofanoverdraftofAldecoaandCo.amountingtoP475,000.ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtdismissestheactionastoJoaquindeAldecoaandgrantsthereliefsoughtinfavorofZoiloIbaezdeAldeoca.BothJoaquinIbaezdeAldecoaandtheban appealed.

Theplaintiffs,JoaquinIbaezdeAldecoaandZoiloIbaezdeAldecoa,wereborninthePhilippineIslandsonMarch27,1884,andJuly4,1885,respectively,thelegitimatechildrenofZoiloIbaezandIsabelPalet.BothparentswerenativesofS

pain.Thefather'sdomicilewasinManila,PhilippineIsland,andhediedhereonOctober4,1895.Thewidow,stillretainingherManiladomicile,leftthePhilippineIslandsandwenttoSpainin1897,becauseofherhealth,anddidnotreturnuntil1902.Thetwoplaintiffsaccompaniedheronthisjourneyandreturnedwithher.Afterthedeathofthefather,thefirmofAldecoaandCo.,ofwhichhadbeenamember,wasreorganized,andhiswidowbecameoneofthegeneral,or"capitalistic,"partnershipofthefirm.Inhepublicinstrumentwhichconstitutesthearticlesofcopartnership,theplaintiffsappearaspartners.

OnJuly31,1903,IsabelPalet,themotheroftheplaintiff,whowerethenovertheageof18years,wentbeforeanotarypublicandexecutedtwoinstruments(ExhibitsDandE)whereinandwherebysheemancipatedhertwosons,theplaintiffs,withtheirconsent.Noguardianofthepersonorpropertyofthesetwoplaint

iffshadeverbeenappliedfororappointedunderandbyvirtueoftheprovisionsoftheCodeofCivilProceduresincethepromulgationofsaidCodein1901.Instead,theplaintiffshadcontinuedfromthedeathoftheirfatherunderthecustodyoftheirmotheruntiltheexecutionofExhibitsDandE.

OnFebruary23,1906,thefirmofAldecoaandCo.washeavilyindebtedtotheHong ongandShanghaiBan ,andthelatterwasdesirousofcollectingorsecuringthepaymentofthisindebtedness.ThecorrespondencebetweenAldecoaandCo.andIsabelPalet,theplaintiffs,andtheban disclosedthattheban wouldforeclosethisaccountunlessthesamewassufficientlyguaranteedbyadequatesecurit

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

2/14

ies.ItwasfinallyproposedthatIsabelPaletandhertwosons,theplaintiffs,shouldmortgage,inadditiontocertainsecuritiesofAldecoaandCo.,certainoftheirrealpropertiesassecurityfortheobligationsofAldecoaandCo.So,onFebruary23,1906,themortgage,whichisthesubjectmatterofthepresentaction,wasexecuted.OnDecember31,1906,thefirmofAldecoaandCo.expiredbylimitationofthepartnershipterm,andthefirmwentintoliquidation.

OnJune30,1907,AldecoaandCo.inliquidation,forthepurposesofcertainlitigationabouttobecommencedinitsbehalf,requiredaninjunctionbondinthesumofP50,000,whichwasfurnishedbytheban upontheconditionthatanyliabilityincurredonthepartoftheban upontheinjunctionbondwouldbecoveredbythemortgageofFebruary23,1906.AnagreementtothiseffectwasexecutedbyIsabelPalet,bytheplaintiffJoaquinIbaesdeAldecoa,whohadthenattainedhisfullmajority,andbyZoiloIbaezdeAldecoa,whowasnotyet23yearsofage.Subsequentthereto,andin1908,theplaintiffscommencedanactionagainsttheirmother,IsabelPalet,andAldecoaandCo.,inwhichtheban wasnotapartyandinSeptemberofthatyear,procuredajudgmentannullingthearticlesofcopartnershipofAldecoaandCo.,insofarastheplaintiffswereconcerned,anddecreeingthattheywerecreditorsandnotpartnersofthatfirm.

ThequestionispresentwhetherDoaIsabelPaletcouldlegallyemancipatetheplaintiffsunderthelawinforceinthiscountryinJuly,1903andthusconferuponthemcapacitytoexecuteavalidmortgageontheirrealpropertywithherconsent.Thesolutionofthisquestioninvolvesaninquiryastotheeffectofthep

rovisionsofthenewCodeofCivilProcedurerelatingtoguardianshipuponcertainprovisionsoftheCivilCoderelatingtothecontrolbyparentsoverthepersonsandpropertyoftheirminorchildren.

UndertheCivilCodeparentshadgeneralcontroloverthepersonsoftheirchildrenandalsoovertheirproperty.ThefollowingarticlesoftheCivilCodeillustratetheextentoftheparentalauthorityoverthepropertyoftheirminorchildrenunderthatcode:

159.Thefather,orinhisabsence,themother,isthelegaladministratorofthepropertyofthechildrenwhoareundertheirauthority.

160.Theownershipofpropertywhichachildnotemancipatedmayhaveacquired,

oracquiresbyitswor orindustryorforanygoodconsideration,isvestedinthechild,andtheusufructinthefatherormother,whohashimorherunderhisorherauthorityandinhisorhercompany;butifthechild,withtheconsentoftheparents,livesindependentlyofthem,heorsheshallbeconsideredasemancipatedforallpurposewithregardtosaidpropertyandshallownitandenjoytheusufructandadministrationthereof.

161.Theownershipandusufructofwhatthechildacquiredwiththecapitalofhisorherparentsisvestedinthelatter;butshouldtheparentsexpresslyassigntohimorherthewholeorpartoftheprofitswhichheorshemayobtain,suchprofitsshallnotbechargeabletothelatterintheinheritance.

162.Theownershiporusufructofthepropertyorincomedonatedorleftbywill

toachildnotemancipated,tocoverthecostofhisorhereducationandinstruction,isvestedinhimorher;butthefatherorthemothershallhavetheadministrationthereofifnootherprovisohasbeenmadeinthegiftsorbequest,inwhichcasethewillofthedonorsshallbestrictlyobserved.

Nothingisheresaidofaboundedguardianappointedbythecourtandrequiredtoaccounttothecourtforthepropertyandincomeofthechild'sestate.FiliationstoodinlieuofthoselegalsafeguardswithwhichthepresentCodeofProcedureenvelopsthepropertyofaminorchild.Notonlythis,buttheincomeorusufructorpropertyinheritedbythechildorbequeathedtoitbelongedtothepa

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

3/14

rentunlessthechildhadbeenformallyemancipatedorlivedapartfromhisparentwiththelatter'sconsent.(Art.160.)Trueitisthatthelawpreventedtheallegationorincumbranceofrealpropertyofthechildwithoutpermissionofthecourt(CivilCode,art164;MortgageLaw,art.205)andrequiredtheparenttogivesecurity,bindinghimselforherselftocomplywiththeobligationsimposeduponusufructuariesincasetheparentcontractedasecondmarriage.(CivilCode,art.492;Mort.Law,art200.)Butrestrictionssuchasthesedidnotma eaparentaguardian.TheCivilCodedrewasharpandclearlydistinguishablelinebetweenguardianship,properlysocalled,andthepatriapotestad,orparentalauthority.Theywereprovidedforinseparatetitles,andthedefinitionsofguardianshipcontainedinarticle199ofthatcodeprovidedthatit'isthecustodyofthepersonandproperty,orofthepropertyonly,ofthosewho,notbeingunderparentalauthority,areincapableoftal ingcareofthemselves."

ThecontrastbetweenthepatriapotestadoftheCivilCodeandguardianshipunderourpresentcodeofprocedureisnonethelessmar ed.Thelatterrequiresaguardiantoobtainhisappointmentfromthecourt;toexecuteabondforthefaithfulperformanceofhisduties;toma eaninventoryoftheproperty,themanagementofwhichheunderta esandtorenderaccountsatspecifiedintervals;tomanagetheestateofhiswardfrugallyandwithoutwasteandapplytheincomeandprofitsthereoftothesupportofthewardsofarasmaybenecessary.Aguardianisacourtofficer,responsibletothecourt,anddischargeablebythecourtalone.

Therewas,however,noconflictbetweenthepatriapotestadandguardianshipundertheCivilCode.Thiswasforthereason,asstatedabovethatthelawofguardianshipexpresslyexcludedthepatriapotestadfromitsoperation.Butintheenactmentofthepresentcodeofprocedure,noattemptwasmade,indealingwiththesubjectofguardianshiptoexcludedthepatriapotestadfromtheoperationofthelawofguardianship.Forthepurposeofinauguratingaprocedureonthesubjectofguardianshipmoreinconsonancewiththeremainderofthenewprocedure,wholesectionsoftheCaliforniaprobateprocedurewereincorporatedalmostverbatiminthenewcode.Theseborrowedsectionscomprisepracticallyallofourpresentlawofguardianship.AsthereisnosuchinstitutionintheStatesofCaliforniaasthepatriapotestaditismanifestthatnoprovisionsavingitfromtheoperationofthelawofguardianshipwouldbefoundinthelawsoftheStates.Inotherwords,thelawofguardianshipinCaliforniaextendedtoandinclude

dminorchildrenwhoseparentswerestillliving.Itwasthislawwhichwasincorporatedintothenewcodeofprocedure,andthePhilippinesCommissioninsertednoexceptionsavingtheinstitutionofpatriaprotestedfromitsoperation.Thelanguageofthenewlawistooplaintopermitofthecourtsgivingitaninterpretationwhichwouldpermitofhecontinuedexistenceofthepatriapotestadwithregardtothechild'sestateunlesslanguagebewhollydisregarded.Section551providesthatthecourtmayappointaguardianofthepersonorestateofminor.Certainly,thislanguageiscomprehensiveenoughtoincludeallminors,whethertheirparentsarelivingornot.ifthelawdoesnotcommandorprohibit,itpermits;andwherethegrantisrestricted,itreachesallsubjectswithinthegrant.Section553expresslyabolishedtheprerogativeofthefatherandthemotherintheordernamed,ofadministeringthepropertyoftheirminorchildren,andgivesthecourtpowertoappointanotherperson.herethespecificlanguageo

fthelawshowsthatguardianshipismeanttoincludeminorchildrenwhoseparentsoroneofthemareliving.

Undersection553,thepersonappointedguardianofthechild'sestateisentitledtopossession.Thisisclearlyinconsistentwiththeparent'srightsofusufruct,fortheusufructuaryisentitledestateandthereinvestmentoftheproceeds.Itisapparentthatthissectioncontemplatesanabsolutesale,andthatsuchasaleisnotconsistentwithusufructuaryinterestvestedintheparent.These,aswellasotherspecificprovisionsofthenewcode,madeitclearthattherepugnancebetweenthepatriapotestadandthenewlawofguardianshipissuchth

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

4/14

attheparent,assuch,nolongerhasthepowertoenjoytheadministrationandusufructofthepropertyofhisminorchildren.

Keepingthisresumeoftherepugnancebetweenthepatriapotestadandthenewlawofguardianshipinmind,letusnownoticetheargumentthattheappointmentofaguardianunderthenewlawforaminorchildwhoseparents,oroneofthem,islivingisadiscretionarydutyofthecourt;andthatthepatriapotestadmaystillexist,subjectonlytothepowerofthecourttobringthechildandhispropertyundertheoperationofthenewlawofguardianship.

Itistruethatsection551confersthepowerofappointmentuponthecourtasamatterofdiscretion"whenitappearsnecessaryorconvenient."Butthescopeofthisdiscretionisrestrictedtothequestionofwhetherthereshallorshallnotbeappointedastatutoryguardian.ItdoesnotdelegatetothecourtthepowerofdecidingwhetherthechildandhispropertyshallbegovernedbytheSpanishpatriapotestadorbytheprovisionsofthepresentCodeofCivilProcedure.itdoesnotleavetothecourtthepowertobestowtheusufructofthechild'spropertyupontheparentasamatterofgrace.Aswehavestateabove,thenewlawofguardianshipwasenactedwithouttheslightestattemptbeingmadetopreservetheinstitutionofpatriapotestad.Aswehavealsoseen,theCivilCodeselectedminorchildrenwhoseparentsoroneofthemwaslivingasaspecialclassofincompetentsforwhomaspecialformofguardianshipwasprovided,andthiswasrecognizedasanexceptionfromtheoperationofthelawofguardianship(art.199).Thenewlawofguardianship,ascontainedintheCodeofCivilProcedure,

wasenactedwithoutreferencetothepreexistinglawrelatingtoincapacitatedpersons.Itwasborrowedalmostverbatim,andcertainlyinallsubstantialparticulars,fromthestatuteofCalifornia,wheretheSpanishpatriapotestadwasunnown.Wemustinterpretandapplythatlawasitcomestousandallowtoitthefullvigorofitslanguage.Itsapplicationhere,inaccordancewithwell nownrulesofstatutoryconstructionandinterpretation,shouldcorrespondinfundamentalpoints,atleast,withitsapplicationinthejurisdictionfromwhenceitwasta en.Itmustbeta enastheintentofthelegislaturethatthepracticalapplicationofthoseprovisionsoftheCodeofCivilProcedurerelatingtoguardianshipshouldconforminthemainwiththepracticeunderthesamestatuteinCalifornia.ItisobligatoryuponthejudicialdepartmenttofollowtheintentofthelegislativebranchoftheGovernmentintheapplicationoflaws.Itisbutstatingthepropositionindifferenttermstosaythatourpresentlawofguard

ianshipdoesnotcontemplateareferencebythecourttotheprovisionsoftheCivilCoderelatingtothepatriapotestadinresolvingthequestionofwhetheraguardianoughttobeappointedforaminorchildwhoseparentsoroneofthemisliving.Thatthefactofthechild'shavingaparentorparentsmaybeta enintoconsiderationbythecourtindeterminingthequestionmaynotbedisputed.Section553,aswehaveseen,recognizestheclosetbondof inship nowntonatureasasufficientguarantyforthefaithfulcareofthechild'sperson.Butsuchisnotthecasewiththechild'sproperty.Thelawsaysthatastotheadministrationoftheestateofaminorchildaparentshallonlyhaveapreferentialrights;and,whentheparentdoessecureanappointmentasguardianofachild'sestate,hemustqualityasanystrangerwould,andperformthesamedutiesandacceptthesamecompensationasastranger.Cananythingbemoreinconsistentwiththerightwhichthepatriapotestadgrantstheparentofadministrationandu

sufructinthechild'spropertybymereoperationoflaw,andrequiringneitherappointmentnorsupervisionbythecourt(exceptinaverylimitedsense,CivilCode,art160;MortgageLaw,arts.200and205)?Thetruthisthatthepatriapotestadandthepresentlawofguardianshipcoverthesamesubject;i.e.,thecustodyandcareofhepersonandpropertyofminorchildrenwhoseparentsoroneofthemisliving.Bythis,ofcourse,wedonotmeantorestrictthenewlawtothisclassofincompetentsalone.Theprovisionsofthetwolawsareentirelyrepugnanttoeachother;theyaretotallyirreconcilableifanyproperrespectbehadforthelanguageusedinthelatestlaw,andtheevidentintentofthelegislativedepartmentinenactingit.Theformermust,therefore,yieldtothelatte

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

5/14

r.

Theprovisionsofthenewcodeofprocedureonguardianshipbeingapplicabletominorchildrenwhoseparentsoroneofthemarestillliving,itisclearthatthosearticlesoftheCivilCoderelatingtoemancipationofminorsbytheirparentsarealsopartiallyatleast,repealed.Byreferencetothesearticles(314-319),itwillbenotedthatbyemancipatinghischildtheparentsurrenderstoittherighttotheusufructandadministrationofhisproperty.This,ofcourse,isbasedupontheaprioriconditionofthelawofpatriapotestadthattheparenthastheusufructandadministrationofthechild'spropertytogive,which,aswehaveseen,henolongerhas.Nothavingtherightinthefirstplace,and,hence,noauthoritytoconcedeittohischild,theformalemancipationofaminorchildbytheparentcannotnowhavetheeffectprescribedinarticles314-319oftheCivilCode.For,werethispowerofemancipatinghisminorchildstillretainedbytheparents,thelattercouldbuttheexerciseofit,deprivethecourtguardianoftheadministrationandcontroloftheestate,or,inotherwords,thecourtproceedingswithreferencetothepersonandpropertyoftheminorchildwouldbytheparent'sact,beannulled.

Wehavenowdeterminedthattherightofadministrationandusufructofthechild'sproperty,grantedbytheformerlawtotheparent,andtherightofthelattertoemancipatehischildinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofarticle314etseq.,oftheCivilCode,wherebythechildta esovertheadministrationandusufructofhisownproperty,havebeenrepealedbythechapterofthenewcodeofp

rocedurerelatingtoguardianship.Butwedeemitnecessary,beforeproceedingfurther,tosaythattherearesomeprovisionsofthepatriapotestadwhicharenotnecessarilyinconflictwiththenewcodeofprocedure.Parentsareneverdeprivedofthenewcodeofprocedure.Parentsareneverdeprivedofthecustodyandcareoftheirchildrenexceptforcause.Thisisauniversalruleofallsystemsoflaw,asbeneficenttothechildasitisjusttotheparent.Indeed,itmightwellbesaidtobelongtotherealmofnaturaljustice.Happily,however,itisunnecessarytoresorttogeneralitiestoshowthatthepatriapotestadoftheCivilCodewithrespecttothepersonofminorchildrenisnotinconsistentwiththenewlawofguardianship.Section553ofthenewcodeprovidedthatthefatherandthemother,intheordernamed,areconsideredthenaturalguardiansofthechildandassuchentitledtothecustodyandcarefortheeducationoftheminors."Section768providesthattheeffectofadoptionshallbetofreethe

child"fromalllegalobligationofobedience"tohisparents.Fromsection770,itseemsclearthatparentsmaynotbedeprivedofthecustodyoftheirchildrenbecauseofunworthinessexceptafterhearing.Section771providedthatinthecaseofspouseslivingseparateordivorcedthecourtshalldeterminewhichofthemshallhave"thecarecustodyandcontroloftheoffspring."Theitalicizedwordclearlyac nowledgearightintheparents,undernormalconditions,toexerciseparentalauthorityoverthepersonsoftheirminorchildren.

Butsofarasthepropertyofsuchchildrenisconcerned,therightsoftheparentmustbesubordinatedtotheefficientwor ingofthenewlawofguardianship.Itisnot,ofcourse,truethataguardianofthepropertyoftheminorchildwillbeappointedinallcases.Itisalwayswithinthediscretionofthecourttodoso.Weapprehendthatnopropercaseforsuchanappointmentwouldbeprese

ntedtothecourtwhereachild'swor orindustrywereproductiveofsmallearningswhichwouldnecessarilybeconsumedinitsownsupport,andwhichtheparentsisrequiredtogive.Thesamemightpossiblybesaidwithreferencetopropertyacquiredbythechildforagoodconsideration.Thepurposeofthelawistoprotecttheestateofthechildfromtheavariceofdesigningpersonsbetheywhomtheymay.Itwouldhardlyseemnecessarytocarrythisdoctrinetothepointwheretheparenthavingthecustodyofthepersonoftheminorchildshouldnotbeentitledtoitsearningsorthatportionthereofnecessaryforitssupportascompensationforthecareandsupportwhichsuchparentiscalledupontogive.Wedonotthin therepealofthatbranchofthepatriapotestadrelatingtoth

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

6/14

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

7/14

utterlythrownuponthetendermerciesofselfishworldastorequiretheinterventionofaguardianappointedunderthenewlaw.Unlessthenewlawofguardianshipabrogatedtherightsofthoseparentsadministeringtheestatesoftheirminorintochildrenunderthepatriapotestadatthetimeitwentintoeffect,itdidnotabrogatetherightsofthosesameparentsoftosubsequentlyemancipatesuchchildrenundertheprovisionsofarticles314-317oftheCivilCode.Theparent'srightofemancipatinghischilddependedupontheantecedentrighttoexercisethepatriapotestad.Theformerwasnecessarilyaconsequenceofthelatter,andiftheparentexercisingthepatriapotestadatthetimethenewlawtooeffectwasnotmolested,neitherwashedeprivedoftherighttosubsequentlyemancipatehischildandtherebyconferuponthelattercapacitytocontractwiththirdpersons.

HavingdeterminedthattheparentCodeofCivilProcedurehasrepealedthepatriapotestadwithreferencetothechild'sandthepowerofemancipationbyconcessionoftheparent,thequestionremains,Doestheneworderofthingsapplytoaparentwhoassumedchargeofthepropertyofherminorchildrenin1895?Ifitdoes,thentheexecutionofthemortgagewhichtheappellantchildrennowsee tohaveannulledwasanactproperlydevolvinguponaguardianappointedbythecourt,whomusthaveas edforandreceiveditcouldbindthepropertyofthechildren.Ontheotherhand,ifthenewlawdoesnotaffectestateofminorchildrenwhoseparentsassumedchargethereofpriortotheenactmentofthenewcode,thevalidityofthemortgagemustbedeterminedbytheprovisionsoftheCivilCode.Tostatethepropositioninanotherform,Wereallparentsadministeringth

epropertyoftheirminorchildrenbyvirtueoftheprovisionsoftheCivilCodeonOctober1,1901(thedatethenewlawofguardianshipbecameoperative),ipsofactodeprivedoftheircontrolovertheestateoftheirminorchildren?Diditimmediatelybecomenecessarytobringtheseestatesundertheoperationofthenewlaw?

Undercoverofprocedurearadicaldepartmentfromthesubstantivelawhadbeenmade.TheCivilCodeprovidedamethodofconservingtheestateofminorchildrenthroughtheagencyoftheirparents,withoutthenecessityofjudicialintervention(exceptinaverylimitedsense).Ithad,furthermore,endowedtheminorchildafteremancipationbyconcessionoftheparentwiththecapacitytofreelycontractwiththirdspersons,requiringonlytheparent'sapprovalofcontractsinalienationoforencumberingthechild'srealpropertyandfortheborrowing

ofmoney.Andlastly,itgavetothirdpersonenteringintocontractswithemancipatedchildrenassurancethatsuchcontractwerebindingandvaliduponthechildren.Thenewlawofguardianshippracticallyplacedtheparentinthepositionofastrangertothechild'sestate,givinghimonlyapreferentialright,otherthingsbeingequal,toanappointmentasguardianoftheestate.Itbroughtthechild'sestateunderthecontrolofthecourt.Andfinally,theincapacityofthechildrenbetweentheageof18andtheageofmajoritytocontractwiththirdpersonscouldnotbemodifiedintheleastbymutualconsentoftheparentandchild,andhence,contractsmadeinthatmannerwerenolongerbindinguponthechild.Thechangewasabrupt,itwasentire,and,unfortunately,itwasnotspecifiedbutimplied.Whetherthechangewascasualorintended,itisunnecessarytodetermine.Thatitoccurredistheunavoidableconclusion.Underthesecircumstancestheinquirynaturallyarises,Doesthenewlawcontainanysavingprovi

sionexceptingfromitsoperationthoseestateofminorchildrenwhichwerebeingadministeredeitherbytheparentsunderthepatriapotestadorbythechildrenthemselvesundertheprovisionsoftheCivilCoderelatingtoemancipationbyconcessionoftheparent?Thattheauthorsofthenewcoderecognizedaconflictbetweenthenewlawofguardianshipandtheexistingsystemofcaringfortheestatesofincompetentsisevidentfromanexaminationofsection581thereof.Thatsectionreads:

PendingguardianshiptoproceedinaccordancewithSpanishlaw,withcertainexceptions.AndproceedingsincasesofguardianshippendinginthePhilippineIsla

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

8/14

ndatthetimeofthepassageofthisAct,shallproceedinaccordancewiththeexistingSpanishprocedureunderwhichtheguardianswereappointed:Provided,nevertheless,ThatanyguardianappointedunderexistingSpanishlawmayberemovedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsectionfivehundredandseventy-fourofthisAct,andhissuccessormaybeappointedasthereinprovided,andeverysuccessortoaguardiansoremovedshall,intheadministrationofthepersonorestate,oreither,oreither,asthecasemaybeofhisward,begovernedbytheprovisionsofthisAct.

ThissectionsavesfromtheoperationofthenewActallproceedingsincasesofguardianshippendinginthePhilippineIslandsatthetimeofitspassage.DoesthisrefertoandincludetheadministrationofthepropertyofminorchildrenbytheirparentsundertheprovisionsoftheCivilCode?ifitdoesthentheauthoritywhichIsabelPaletexercisedoverthepropertyofherminorchildrenwasnotaffectedbytheenactmentofthenewcodeofprocedure,andshewasatlibertytoproceedasshedid,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheCivilCode,toemancipateherchildrenbyaformaldeclaration,andtheythereuponacquiredthecapacityextendedtoemancipatedchildrenbyarticle317ofthatcode.

Examiningthesectionwithaviewtoascertainthemereliteralmeaningofthelanguageused,weareatoncemetwiththeargumentthatitrefersonlytocasesofguardianshipandthattheparentadministeringtheestateofhisminorchildinaccordancewiththeCivilCodeisnotaguardian,eitherundertheCivilCodeorasthatwordsisusedintheCodeofCivilProcedure.Hence,accordingtoth

isargument,thepatriapotestadandtheancillaryrightofemancipationpertainingtotheparentarenotsavedfromtheoperationofthenewlawbysection581.Butweareoftheopinionthatthisargumentamountstoaplayuponwordsratherthantoareasonableinterpretationofthesection.Inthefirstplace,thequestionarises,Inwhatsensewerethewords"guardian"anditsderivative,"guardianship,"usedinsection581?WeretheyusedinthesamesenseasintheprecedingsectionsofChapter27ofthenewAct,thechapterprescribingthenewlawofguardianship?Ifso,theyincludetheadministrationoftheestatesofallincompetents,includinginfantswhoseparentsareliving,forthatisthedesignofthenewlawofguardianship.Iftheargumentunderexaminationissound,itmustbeheldthattheauthorofthecodedescendedfromthisall-inclusivemeaningofthewordwhentheyfinallycametotheconsiderationofwhatoughttobesaved,andattemptedtodealonlywithguardianshipasthattermisunderstoodin

thecivillaw.AcarefulexaminationoftheentireAct,inthelightoftheconditionsunderwhichitwaspassed,revealsconvincingevidencethattheauthorsofthecodeattemptednosuchnicelyofexpressioninsection581.WiththeadventofAmericansovereigntyin1898therecameaninfluxofAmericanideaofadministrationofjustice.Anewcodeofcriminalprocedurewasenactedunderauthorityofthemilitarygovernorin1900,andearlyin1901thefirstPhilippineCommissionundertoo asoneofitsfirsttas stherecognizationofthecourtsandtheenactmentofanewcodeofcivilprocedure.ThenewlegislationdidnotpurporttobeanamendmentoftheSpanishlawonthesubject.Onthecontrary,itwasavirtualsubstitutionoftheonefortheother.ThevarioussectionsoftheCodeoutmaterialalterationfromoneoranother,adoptedwithoutmaterialalterationfromoneoranotheroftheStatesoftheAmericanUnion.Bothexecutiveandlegislativeaffairswere,atthetime,beingdischargedbyasinglebodythePhi

lippineCommissionandthepreasureofbusinessaffordedlittleopportunityortimetocarefullysurveythefiledcoveredbythenewlegislationanddiscoverhowmuchoftheformerlawwouldbeaffectedbythenewAct.Theonlymethodsthatcouldbesafelyfollowedunderthecircumstances,wastoruthlessbrushasidetheSpanishlawandinauguratethenewintheformwhichhadwithstoodthetestoftimeintheUnitedStates,andleavetheextentofthechangetobeascertainedbythecourtsintheactualadministrationofthenewcodebydeterminingimpliedrepeals.Hence,theauthorsofthenewcodeexpressedthemselvesentirelyintermsofAmericanlaw.Instancespointingtothisfactarenumerous.Thus,"embezzlement"insection30;"adversepossession"insection41"battery"and"slan

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

9/14

der"insection43;"corporation"insection198andvariousothersection;mayofthetermsusedinthechapteronevidence;"residuarylegatee"insection644;"heir"asitisusedinvarioussectionsoftheprobateprocedure;allshowquiteclearlytheextenttowhichtheauthorsofthenewcodeheldtothetechnicaltermsofAmericanlawincompilingthenewcode.Bearinginmindsuchextremeinstancesofthetermsinwhichtheauthorsofthenewcodeexpressedthemselves,isitpossiblethattheystoppedtoma eadistinctioninsection581betweentheadministrationofaminor'sestatebyhisparentandtheadministrationoftheestatesofallotherincompetents?They newthatthesystemtheywereintroducingwasapplicabletotheestateofallincompetents.Thefactthattheyinauguratedthisnewsystemofcaringfortheestatesofincompetentsclearlyshowsthattheydisapprovedwithoutdistinction,ofalltheexistinglawonthatsubject.Theadministrationoftheestateofaminorbyhisparentwasimpliedlyrepealedbythenewlaw.Isitnotreasonabletosupposethatthesavingclause,whichitwasdeemeddesirabletoinsertinthelaw,wasintended,byimplication,toincludedthosependingcasesofthatnature?Asavingclauseisenactedtosavesomethingwhichwouldotherwisebelost.Whenexistingprocedureisalteredorsubstitutedbyanother,itisusualtosavethoseproceedingspendingundertheoldlawatthetimethenewlawta eseffect.Thiswasthepurposeofsection581.Itwasdesignedtosaveundisturbedallpendingproceedingsinguardianshipcases:thatis,thoseproceedingsalreadybegunandstillunfinished,whichwouldotherwisehavebeenaffectedthenewlaw,weretobeallowedtocontinuetodeterminationinaccordancewiththeoldlaw.Therewasnoreasonforallowingguardianships,socalledundertheCivilCode,pendingatthetimethenewcodewent

intoeffect,tocontinueundisturbedbythenewlaw,whileparentswhowereadministeringthepropertyoftheirminorchildrenunderthesamecodedmustsubmittothenewregulations.Bothwereequallyfavoredinstitutionsunderthecivillaw,andbothwereequaldisapprovedbytheauthorsofthenewcode.

Butitissaidthatthosependingcasewhereintheparentswereadministrationthepropertyoftheirminorchildrendonotcomewithinthesavingprovisionsofsection581,becausethatsectionrefersonlytopendingcasesofguardianshipwhereintheguardianswereappointedinaccordancewiththeSpanishprocedure;thatis,guardianswhoweresubjecttoremovalbythecourtinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsection524ofthenewcode,andwhosesuccessorscouldbeappointedasthereinprovided.

Guardianship,socalledundertheCivilCode,wasconferred(a)bywill;(b)bylaw;and(c)bythefamilycouncil.Guardiansthusdesignatedwereremovablegenerallybythefamilycounsel.Therighttoadministerthepropertyofaninfantchildwasconferredupontheparentbylaw.Underarticle169oftheCivilCodetheparentlosttheauthorityoverhismindchild(1)byafinaljudgmentinacriminalcase;and(2)byafinaljudgmentinacasefordivorse.Andunderarticle171thecourtshadthepowertodepriveparentsoftheparentalauthorityorsuspendtheexercisethereofwhentheytreatedtheirchildrenwithexcessivecruelty,oriftheygavethemcorruptingorders,advice,orexamples.thecourtscouldalsodeprivetheparentseithertotallyorpartiallyoftheusufructofthechild'sproperty.

Allpendingcasesoftestamentaryguardianships,legitimateguardianship,andgu

ardianshipsconferredbyfamilycouncilsfallwithintheprovisionsofsection581.Theguardiansinthesecasesmayberemovedbythecourtinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsection574,andtheirsuccessorsappointedasthereinprovided.Whatsoundreasoncanbeadvancesforexcludingthosependingcaseswhereinthepersonandpropertyoftheminorchildwerebeingcaredforbytheparentunderthepatriapotestad?Thepatriapotestadwasconferredbylaw.Ineachinstancethelawspecificallydesignatedintheirorderthepersonswhowereentitledtothecareandcustodyofthechildandtheadministrationofitsproperty.Inthoseparticularsbotharethesame.Buthowmayacourt,undertheauthorityconferreduponitbysection581,removeaparentwhoisexercisingthepatriapot

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

10/14

estadoverthepersonandpropertyofhisminorchildandappointaguardianinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsection574ofthepersonandpropertyofsuchchild?

Thequestionmightbeansweredbypointingoutthatiftheprobatecourtwasdulyinformedthataparenthadlosttheauthorityoverhisminorchild,orhadlosttheparentalauthorityoverboththechildanditspropertyasprovidedinarticle167and171oftheCivilCode,itcouldproceedtoappointaregularguardianforboththepersonandpropertyofthechild.Itmaybetruethattheprobatecourtwouldnothavethepowertodepriveaparentwhowasexercisingthepatriapotestadoverthepersonandpropertyofhisminorchildofeitherthepossessionofthechildoritsproperty,andappointaguardiantota echargeofeitherorboth.This,iftrue,isnot,inouropinion,asufficientreasonforexcludingfromtheoperationofsection581thosependingcaseswhereintheaffairsofminorchildrenwerebeingadministeredbytheirparentsinaccordancewiththeformerlaw.

Inthefinalanalysis,itseemsthatprotectionfromtheeffectofthenewlawisclaimedfortheCivilCodeguardianbecausehewasexercisinghisdutieseonomine,whiletheparentandpartiesdealingwiththatparentaretobedeniedthatprotectionbecausetheparentactedunderthepatriapotestadorunderthoseprovisionsofthecoderelatingtoemancipationofthechildbyconcessionoftheparent.

Thefirstpremiseoftheplaintiffs'caserestsuponthepropositionthattheparent'srighttoadministerthepropertyofhischildhadbeenabolishedbythenewlawofguardianship.Thisconclusionisreachedbydeterminingthatthisrightandthepresentlawofguardianshipcoverthesamesubject,thattheyarerepugnanttoeachother,thattheycannotstandtogether,andthat,therefore,thelatterlaw,repealstheformer.thesecondpremiseoftheplaintiffscaseisthatpendingcasesofpatriapotestadarenotwithinthesavingclauseofsection581.Thisconclusionisreachedbydisregardingthesubstanceofthetwomethodsofcaringfortheminorchildrenandtheirproperty,andcaringfortheminorchildrenandtheirproperty,andchildrentothewordforms"patriapotestad"and"guardianship."Inthefirstpremisetheintentofthelawisthedeterminingfactor.Inthesecondpremise,theintentisdisregarded.

Butitisas edwhytheplaintiffswerenotgiventhesamestatuswhentheywereemancipatedin1903asanyotherincompetentswhoseCivilCodeguardianshaddied,resigned,orbeenremoved,inasmuchastheplaintiffsandtheirmotheroccupiedthesamepositionforthepurposeofbringingthemwithinthesavingprovisionofsection581asaCivilCodeguardianandhiswards.Wehaveattemptedtoshowthattheemancipationoftheplaintiffswasnotaninterruptionofthedependencyofthechildupontheparent;thattheparentdidnottherebydivestherselfofcontroloverthechild'sproperty.hence,therecouldnotfollowanysuchhiatusintheprotectionaffordedthechildasoccursbyresignationorremovalofaguardiansocalledundertheCivilCode.Thedifferencebetweenthestatusofthetwogroupsofchildrenisclearandfundamental.

Wethereforeconcludethatitwasintendedbythesavingprovisionofsection58

1towithholdtheapplicationofthenewlawfromallthosecaseswhichwerealreadybeingta encareofundertheprovisionsoftheCivilCode,andthattheplaintiffshadfullpowertochargetheirestateswiththemortgagewhichtheynowsee todisaffirm.

Itisurgedfinallythatadmittingallelse,emancipationoftheplaintiffscouldnotbevalidbecausetheadmittedemancipationwasnotcontainedinapublicinstrument,asrequiredbyarticle316oftheCivilCode.Thisarticleprovidesthattheemancipationbytheconcessionofthefatherormotherexercisingthepatriapotestad,shallbegrantedbyapublicinstrumentorbyanappearancebefor

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

11/14

eamunicipaljudge.Inthecaseatbartheemancipationdocumentswereac nowledgedordulyexecutedbeforeanotarypublicin1903.ThenotarypublicexercisedhisauthoritynotbyvirtueoftheSpanishlaw,butunderauthorityofActNo.136.

Adocumentac nowledgedbeforeanotarypublic,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofanActofthePhilippineCommission,isapublicinstrumentwithinthemeaningofarticle1924oftheCivilCode.(Gochuicovs.Ocampo,7Phil,Rep.,15Solervs.Alzoua,8Phil.rep.,539;DelaRamavs.Robles,8Phil.,Rep.,712;McMic ingvs.Kimura,12Phil.,Rep.,98.)Thephrasereferredtoinarticle1924oftheCivilCodeandwhichwasbroughtinquestioninthesecasesreads;"Inapublicinstrument""escriturapublica."Exactlythesamewords,"escributurapublica,"areusedinarticle316.Ifadocumentwhichwasac nowledgedbeforeanotarypublicappointedunderanActoftheCommission,wasapublicdocumentwithinthemeaningofthatphraseinarticle1924,itcertainlymustbeheldtobeapublicdocumentwithinthemeaningofthatphraseinarticle316,asbothareexactlythesame.

Theconclusionswehavearrivedatma eitunnecessarytoconsidertheratificationofthemortgagecontractbytheplaintiff,JoaquinIbaezdeAldecoa,afterhavingarrivedattheageofmajority.Nevertheless,wemightsaythatwefullyagreewiththeholdingofthetrialcourtuponthispoint.WhethertheplaintiffwerecreditorsorpartnersofAldecoaandCo.isli ewiseunimportant.Neitherrelationwouldpreventtheminanywayfromguaranteeingthepaymentofthedebto

wnedbythefirm.Thejudgmentofthecourtbelow,insofarasitsustainsthevalidityofthemortgagecontractastoJoaquinIbaezdeAldecoa,isaffirmed.InsofarasthatjudgmentdeclaresthenullityofthemortgageastoZoiloIbaezdeAldecoa,itisreversed,andthemortgageisherebydeclaredbindinguponthelatter.

Nocostswillbeallowedinthisinstance.

Arellano,C.J.andAraullo,J.,concur.Johnson,J.,dissents.

SeparateOpinions

TORRES,J.,concurring:

Iconcurintheadmirableopinionofthemajorityofthiscourt,andasitisamatterthatconcernsthepersonalrightsandobligationsofafamilyofSpanishnationality,someoftheformerhavingbeenexercisedandthelatterhavingbeenenforcedinthiscountry,whereintheyarealiens,Ithin itnecessarytosetdownasonemoregroundforthedecision,inthepresentsuitthatthewidowofthedeceasedAldecoa,DoaIsablePalet,andherchildren,ZoiloandJoaquinIbaezdeAldecoa,beingSpaniardsborninwhatwasthenSpanishterritoryandsthechildrenofSpanishparents,broughtalongwiththemuponcomingtotheseIslandsthelawsoftheirpersonalstatuswithalltheeffectsthereof,forbygeneralag

reementofcivilizednations,whereinacompactofreciprocityhasbeenestablishedforthegreaterwelfareofsocietyandthebenefitsoftheirrespectivecitizens,thelawofpersonsaccompaniestheindividualwhomovestoaforeigncountry.

Man'sactivityisnotlimitedandcircumscribedwithinhisnativecountry.Hismanifolddealingwithotherssometimesimpelhimtoleaveitandsettleinaforeignland,andasthelawsoftheothercountriestowhichapersonmaymoveinsearchofwor ,ofimprovement,orforotherreason,arevariesanddiverse,ithasbeendeterminedbygeneralassentandcommonagreementamongcivilizednation

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

12/14

sthatthelawsrelatingtofamilyrightsandobligations,andthestatus,condition,andlegalcapacityofthepersons,accompanyapersonevenwhenhemovestoaforeigncountry;thatheiswhollyboundtoobservethelawsofhisnativeland,althoughhemayresideinanotheranddifferentcountry.Ithasbeenthusprescribedinarticle9oftheCivilCode,undertheprovisionswhereofthecitizenofonenation,asforexampletheSpanish,doesnotceasetobesuchbymovinghisresidencetotheseIslands,andtothatendthelawsgoverninghispersonalrightsaccompanyhiminhisemigrationbecausetheyaremoresuitedtohispersonalaffairs.

Althoughunderarticle10ofthesameCodepersonalpropertyissubjecttothelawsofthenationoftheownerthereofandrealpropertytothelawsofthecountryinwhichitissituated,stillthelegalandthetestamentarysuccessions,bothwithrespecttotheorderofsuccessionastotheextentoftherightsthereofandtheintrinsicvalidityoftheirprovisions,areregulatedbythelawsofthenationofthepersonwhosesuccessionisinquestion,whatevermaybethenatureofthepropertyandthecountrywhereitmaybesituate.

ThepositiverightsinconnectionwiththeprincipleofnationalityandthelawofpersonshasbeenupheldbytheSpanishsupremecourtevenbeforetheenforcementoftheCivilCode,initsdecisionofNovember6,1867,whereinthedoctrineislaiddownthatintheabsenceofaspecialtreatythelawofpersonsmustgoverntheactsthatconcernthealien'spersonincivilmatters,beingsubordinatedtothelawsinthecountryofwhichheisasubjectanddecisiveforhimofa

llthequestionsoffitness,capacity,andpersonalrights.Inanotherdecision,January29,1875,itisstatedthatthepersonallawfortheindividualisthelawofthecountrytowhichhebelongs,thatitaccompanieshimwhereverhemaymoveandregulateshispersonalrights,hiscapacitytotransmitbytestateorintestatesuccessionandthegovernanceofhismarriageandfamily.AndinthedecisionofJanuary13,1885,thefollowingwasestablished:Itisaprincipleofprivateinternationallawthatstatusandcapacityaccompanyapersonabroadandthepersonallawsofhisowncountrymustbeappliedtohim.

Theexerciseoftherightofparentalauthority,basedontheprovisionsofarticle154oftheCivilCode,isoneoftherightsgovernedbythelawsincludedin

thelawofpersons,totheeffectthatthefather,orinhisabsencethemother,eventhoughheresidesabroadwithhischildren,doesnotlosesuchrightbutcarriesitalongwithhimtothecountrywhereheresides.

Therightofgrantingemancipationonthepartofthefatherormotherwhoexercisesparentalauthorityisanotheroftherightsthathecarriesalongwithhimtotheforeigncountrywhereinheresides,becauseitisli ewiseincludedinthelawofperson,andaccompanieshimeventothecountryinwhichheintendstoresided.(Arts.314319,CivilCode.)

OnthesegroundstherecanbenoquestionthatthewidowofthedeceasedAldecoa,IsabelPalet,exercisedparentalauthorityoverherchildrenhadbyherdeceasedhusbandAldecoaandavailedherseflofaperfectlylegalrights,supportedby

theregulationsoftheirlawofpersons,asSpanish,ingrantingemancipationtohersonsZoiloandJoaquin,over18yearsold,andingivingthemherconsentsothattheymightencumbertheirrespectivesharesinrealtyorpropertywhichtheyhadinheritedfromtheirdeceasedfather,forthepurposeofmaintainingthecreditenjoyedbythecommercialfirmentitled"AldecoaandCo.,"andtoavoidprematureandunnecessaryliquidationattheinstanceoftheHong ongBan .

MORELAND,J.,concurring:

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

13/14

Iagreewiththejudgmentinthisdecisionbutreservemyopinionastothegroundsonwhichitisbasedandthereasoningadducedinsupportthereof.

DECISIONONMOTIONFORREHEARING.

AUGUST26,1915.

TRENT,J.:

Amotionforrehearinghasbeenmadeinthiscase.Itisurgedthatourdecisionoverloo sthefactthattheplaintiffchildrenarecitizensofthiscountry,and,hence,governedbythelawsthereof.Withoutdeterminingthepoliticalstatusoftheplaintiffs,wehaveatsomelengthendeavoredtoshowthat,clothingthemwithPhilippinecitizenship,thepresentlawofguardianship,ascontainedinourCodeofCivilProcedure,doesnotapplytothembyreasonofthesavingprovisionsofsection581.TheconcurringopinionassumestheirSpanishcitizenship,and,hence,theiramenabilitytothelawsofSapin.Wemightaddthattheadmirablebriefofcounselforthedefendantban containlengthyandstrongargumentstotheeffectthatthesechildrenarenotcitizenofthePhilippineIslands,butcitizensofSpain.ifthisbetrue,thenitmaybethatthiscaseoughttobedecidedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheSpanishCivilCode,asstatedintheconcurringopinion.Wepurposelyavoidedadiscussionofthepoliticalstatusoftheplaintiffs,basingourdecisionentirelyupontheexistinglawsoftheseIslands,asweunderstandthem.

Itisurgedthattheemancipationoftheplaintiffscouldnothavebeenvalidlymadeforthereasonthatitwasnotrecordedinapublicdocument.Thispointwasraisedinthebriefsandhasbeenalreadyansweredinourdecision.

Itisnexturgedthatthemortgageisvalidastotheplaintiffsbecausethemother'sinterestsasapartnerofthefirmweredirectlyopposedtothechildren'sinterests.Article165oftheCivilCodeisquotedinsupportofthiscontention.Thisarticleisclearlylimitedbyitsownwordstochildren"notemancipated."Article317confersfullcapacityuponanemancipatedchildtocontrolhispersonandpropertywiththelimitationsstated.Oneoftheseistheencumbranceofhisrealproperty,whichmaynotbedonewithouttheconsentoftheparentorinhisorherabsence,ofthetutor.TheresolutionsoftheDireccionGeneralde

losRegistros(Nov.4,1896;Jan.7,1907;andJan.30,1911)distinctlyholdthataformallyemancipatedchildmayparticipateinthedivisionofaninheritancewiththeparent'sconsent,evenwhenthelatterisalsointerested.Certainly,thedivisionofanundividedinheritancebetweentheparentandtheemancipatedchildisasstrongacaseofconflictinginterestsasisthecaseatbar.Manresaendeavorstoapplyarticle165toarticle317byanalogy,andcitestheresolutionofNovember19,1898insupportofthiscontention.Thatcase,however,wasnotoneofformalemancipation,butofemancipationbymarriage,andthelandcourtexpresslyhelditwasgovernedbyarticles315and59oftheCivilCodeandnotbyarticle317.ThecaseofNovember14,1896,oneofformalemancipationandcitedabovewasexpresslydistinguishedintheresolutionofNovember19,1898,uponwhichManresarelies.Forthatmatter,article165isnowherecitedordiscussedinthelastmentionedresolution.Wedonotfeelauthorizedtoaddto

thoselimitationsuponthecapacityofaformallyemancipatedchildinviewofthedecisionsofthehighestauthoritiesonthepointtowhichwehavereferredabove.

Itisurged,;lastly,thatthemortgagecontractisvoidastotheplaintiffsbyreasonofalac ofconsideration.ItisassertedthattheyexecutedthemortgageundertheimpressionthattheywerepartnersinthefirmofAldecoaandCo.,when,asdecidedbyafinaljudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstances,thewerenotsuchpartners.Article1276oftheCivilCodeprovides:

7/31/2019 Untitledsdf

14/14

Astatementofafalseconsiderationincontractsshallrenderthemvoid,unlessitbeproventhattheywerebasedonanotherrealandlicitone.

Bythesamejudgmentwhichreleasedtheplaintiffsfromtheirobligationsaspartnersofthefirm,theyweredeclaredcreditorsofthatfirm.Herewasavalidandsubsistingconsiderationforthemortgage;thecreditor'sdesiretopreservethefirmintactinthehopeofrecoveringfromitinduecoursetheirtotalcredits.Itseemsclearthatitwastheobjectofthemotherandtheplaintiffchildrentothussavethebusiness,anditmatterslittlethattheplaintiffswerecreditorsandnotpartners.

Weseenoreasonfordisturbingthedecisionheretoforerendered.Motiondenied.

Arellano,C.J.,TorresandAraullo,JJ.,concur.Carson,J.,reserveshisvote.

TheLawphilProject-ArellanoLawFoundation