Rule 87 sales, as well as the proceeds of the products of the mill,

were applied by Antholtz to the obligations incurred by

#4
him in running the business, without the improper
G.R. No. L-31672 February 14, 1930 diversion of a single cent.
EUGEN MARSCHALL, as judicial administrator of the
estate of Walter Toehl, deceased, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
CARL ANTHOLTZ, ET AL.,defendants. #5
CARL ANTHOLTZ, appellant.
G.R. No. 129008 January 13, 2004
STREET, J.:
TEODORA A. RIOFERIO, VERONICA O. EVANGELISTA
assisted by her husband ZALDY EVANGELISTA, ALBERTO
FACTS:
ORFINADA, and ROWENA O. UNGOS, assisted by her
husband BEDA UNGOS, petitioners, vs.
Walter Toehl was the manager of Behn, Meyer & Co and
COURT OF APPEALS, ESPERANZA P. ORFINADA,
also its chemist. He was also the owner of a parcel of
LOURDES P. ORFINADA, ALFONSO ORFINADA, NANCY
land located in Sta. Ana, Manila. Toehl contracted
P. ORFINADA, ALFONSO JAMES P. ORFINADA,
Antholtz to manage the land as oil mill. The two agreed
CHRISTOPHER P. ORFINADA and ANGELO P.
that Antholtz would conduct the business in his own
ORFINADA, respondents.
name. Meanwhile, Antholtz was the owner of A. Murray
TINGA, J.:
& Co. Toehl assumed possession of the corporation with
a view to reviving it using the assets of the oil mill. After
Toehl’s death, it was found that he was short in his On May 13, 1995, Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a
account with Behn to the extent of P150 Million. A claim will in Angeles City
was made against the estate of Toehl. Marschall was leaving several personal and real properties located in
appointed administrator of the estate, and the present Angeles City, Dagupan City and
action was institute to recover possession of the oil mill Kalookan City. He also left a widow, respondent
property and hold Antholtz personally liable. Behn Esperanza P. Orfinada, whom he
presupposes that Toehl and Antholtz were in collusion to married on July 11, 1960 and with whom he had
put the money in the oil mill. seven children who are the herein
respondents.
ISSUE: Apart from the respondents, the demise of the decedent
Whether or not Antholtz is liable. left in mourning his
paramour, Teodora Rioferio and their children.
RULING:
On November 14, 1995, respondents Alfonso James and
YES. Any person, before the granting of letters Lourdes Orfinada,
testamentary or of administration on the estate of a legitimate children of Alfonso, discovered that on June
deceased person, embezzles, or alienates, any of the 29, 1995, petitioner Teodora
effects of such deceased person, such person shall be Rioferio and her children executed an Extrajudicial
liable to an action in favor of the executor or Settlement of Estate of a
administrator of such estate for double the value of the Deceased Person with Quitclaim involving the properties
property sold, embezzled, or alienated, to be recovered of the estate of the decedent
for the benefit of the estate. But this provision has located in Dagupan City.
reference primarily to funds that are lost by
embezzlement or alienation, and it cannot be On December 4, 1995, respondents filed a Complaint for
understood as making the manager of a going concern the
liable for proceeds of sales applied by him to the proper Annulment/Rescission of Extra Judicial Settlement of
uses of the business, as occurred in this case. The proof Estate of a Deceased Person with
shows that the personal property other than the products Quitclaim, Real Estate Mortgage and Cancellation of
of the mill, sold by Antholtz in the manner mentioned, Transfer Certificate of Titles.
was sold with the consent of the manager of Behn, Petitioners filed their Answer to the aforesaid complaint
Meyer & Co., H. Mij., and with the consent of the interposing the defense that the property subject of
administrator of Walter Toehl, and the proceeds of these the contested deed of extra-judicial settlement pertained
to the THE DECEASED PETITIONER, Petitioner v. REPUBLIC OF
properties originally belonging to the parents of Teodora THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU OF
Riofero and that the titles CUSTOMS, Respondent.
thereof were delivered to her as an advance inheritance DEL CASTILLO, J.:
but the decedent had managed
to register them in his name. FACTS:

ISSUE: Assailed in this Petition for Review1 on Certiorari are the

July 29, 2013 Decision2 and February 5, 2015
Whether or not the heirs have legal standing to Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which granted
prosecute the rights belonging
the Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 118442 and
to the deceased subsequent to the commencement of
denied herein petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration,
the administration proceedings.
respectively.
RULING:
In 2002, the herein respondent, through the Bureau of
YES. Even if administration proceedings have already Customs, filed an Amended Complaint4 for collection of
been commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an sum of money with damages and prayer for injunctive
administrator has not yet been appointed. The heirs writ against Mannequin International Corporation
cannot be expected to wait for the appointment of an (Mannequin) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
administrator; then wait further to see if the administrator Manila, on the cause of action that Mannequin paid its
appointed would care enough to file a suit to protect the 1995-1997 duties and taxes using spurious Tax Credit
rights and the interests of the deceased; and in the Certificates (TCCs) amounting to P55,664,027.00. The
meantime do nothing while the rights and the properties case was docketed as Civil Case No. 02-102639 and
of the decedent are violated or dissipated. assigned to Branch 8 of the Manila RTC. The original
complaint was amended to include other individuals -
Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence among them herein petitioner Genoveva P. Tan
recognizes two exceptions, viz: (1) if the executor or (Genoveva) - as one of the defendants.
administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit; and (2)
when the administrator is alleged to have participated in After the respondent rested its case, petitioner filed a
the act complained ofand he is made a party demurrer to evidence followed by an urgent
defendant. Evidently, the necessity for the heirs to seek manifestation with leave of court to allow her to change
judicial relief to recover property of the estate is as the caption of her demurrer to that of a motion to
compelling when there is no appointed administrator, if exclude and drop her from the case and/or dismiss the
not more, as where there is an appointed administrator same as against her.
but he is either disinclined to bring suit or is one of the
guilty parties himself. ISSUE:

All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have no legal RULING:
standing to sue for the recovery of property of the estate
during the pendency of administration proceedings has Court denies the Petition.
three exceptions, the third being when there is no
appointed administrator such as in this case. With Genoveva's death, Civil Case No. 02-102639 need
not be dismissed. The action against her survives as it is
one to recover damages for an injury to the State. Rule
87, Section 1 of the Rules of Court17enumerates actions
G.R. No. 216756,
August 08, 2018 that survive against a decedent's executors or
GENOVEVA P. TAN, DECEASED, SUBSTITUTED BY administrators, and they are: (1) actions to recover real
MELCHOR P. TAN AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF and personal property from the estate; (2) actions to
enforce a lien thereon; and (3) actions to recover
damages for an injury to person or property.

It goes without saying then that xxx Genoveva's exclusion

would virtually render the entire proceedings a futile
recourse as far as the petitioner is concerned. Verily,
even if petitioner Republic of the Philippines wins this
case, the government will end up with a pyrrhic victory as
it cannot recover even a single centavo from the other
defendants. On the other hand, it would be the height of
injustice, and surely unacceptable, that those who were
responsible for this grand fraud and benefited therefrom
would laugh their way to the bank and enjoy their loot
with impunity. It was, thus, essential for the public
respondent to exercise extreme caution in dealing with
xxx Genoveva's Motion to Exclude. In the end, though,
the public respondent chose to mechanically and blindly
adhere to the presumption of regularity of public
documents without due regard and consideration to the
palpable inconsistencies that those public documents,
themselves, reveal. There was obviously a failure to
exercise sound, judicial discretion on the part of the
public respondent in this respect.20 (Emphasis in the
original)