Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • Chiong Joc Soy V Vano

    Diunggah oleh

    craftersx
    207 tayangan2 halaman
    This case discusses when interest is owed to a legatee for a delayed payment of a legacy. The Supreme Court held that: 1) Unless a will expressly states otherwise, a legatee is only entitled to interest from the date they judicially demand payment of their legacy, not from the date of the testator's death. 2) In this case, the will did not state the legatee was owed interest from the date of the testator's death. Therefore, interest was only owed from when the legatee petitioned the court demanding payment. 3) A bond was not required from the legatee to ensure they used the money as suggested in the will, as the

    Deskripsi Asli:

    Chiong Joc Soy v Vano

    Judul Asli

    Chiong Joc Soy v Vano

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    DOCX, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    This case discusses when interest is owed to a legatee for a delayed payment of a legacy. The Supreme Court held that: 1) Unless a will expressly states otherwise, a legatee is only entitled to interest from the date they judicially demand payment of their legacy, not from the date of the testator's death. 2) In this case, the will did not state the legatee was owed interest from the date of the testator's death. Therefore, interest was only owed from when the legatee petitioned the court demanding payment. 3) A bond was not required from the legatee to ensure they used the money as suggested in the will, as the

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai DOCX, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    207 tayangan2 halaman

    Chiong Joc Soy V Vano

    Diunggah oleh

    craftersx
    This case discusses when interest is owed to a legatee for a delayed payment of a legacy. The Supreme Court held that: 1) Unless a will expressly states otherwise, a legatee is only entitled to interest from the date they judicially demand payment of their legacy, not from the date of the testator's death. 2) In this case, the will did not state the legatee was owed interest from the date of the testator's death. Therefore, interest was only owed from when the legatee petitioned the court demanding payment. 3) A bond was not required from the legatee to ensure they used the money as suggested in the will, as the

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai DOCX, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 2

    Chiong Joc-Soy v.

    Vano, 8 Phil 119

    Doctrine: If the testatrix did not expressly provide that legatee is entitled to interest for
    the delay in giving him his legacy from her death, then interest will only be imposed from
    the time the legatee demands payment of his legacy.

    Facts:

    ● Testatrix was Genoveva Rosales of Cebu, executed a will on 26 October 1903


    ● Rosales bequeathed a legacy of P50,000 Mexican pesos to Chinaman Chiong Joc-
    Soy
    ○ P20,000 for Chiong
    ○ P30,000 to be used for the interment of Rosales’ husband, another Chinese –
    Don Nicasio Veloso
    ● Rosales’ will allowed probate on 24 November 1903
    ○ Administrator allowed 1 year from 24 November 1903 to pay debts of the
    estate and legacies
    ● 1905: Chiong petitioned court to direct administrator to pay him the legacy of
    P50,000
    ● Court ordered Administrator to pay only P30,000 and imposed an interest of 6%
    p.a. from date Chiong presented his claim
    ● Heirs of Rosales appealed
    ISSUES:

    1. WON court should require bond from Chiong that he would dispose of the money
    as indicated in the will? – No
    2. WON interest should be imposed from the date Chiong judicially demanded the
    payment of his legacy until it is full paid? - Yes
    HELD:
    ● Bond not required because testratrix did not intend to impose upon the legatee any
    condition in making this gift of 30,000 pesos.
    ○ Not a conditional gift
    ○ No intention for her to perpetuate memory of deceased husband through the
    legacy
    ○ No wish to impose a definite condition, but merely to express a desire or
    personal opinion as to the best disposal of the estate
    ● Art. 884 now Art. 949 of the NCC: If bequest should not be of a specific and
    determined thing, but generic or of quantity, its fruits and interest from the death of
    the testator shall belong to the legatee if the testator should have expressly so
    ordered
    ○ Legacy is of quantity governed by Art. 949 of the NCC
    ○ Legatee is entitled to interest after testator’s death if testator expressly orders
    ○ In this case, testatrix did not expressly provide that Chiong is entitled to
    interest from her death
    ○ Therefore, Chiong is only entitled to interest from the time of his demand for
    payment

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai