Johannes Vs Harvey

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 18600. March 9, 1922. ]
B.E. JOHANNES, husband of Carmen Theodora Johannes, deceased, as

administrator; CARLOS D ALMEIDA and IDA JOHANNES, with her
husband, J.E. JOHANNES, relators, v. Honorable GEORGE R. HARVEY, as
judge of First Instance of Manila, ALFRED D ALMEIDA, brother of Carmen
Johannes, as administrator, and PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, as late
guardian for a certain cash deposit of Carmen Johannes, Respondents.
Amzi B. Kelly for relators.
Fisher & DeWitt and Francis B. Mahoney for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. CONFLICT OF LAWS; ADMINISTRATION OF STATES; PRINCIPAL

ADMINISTRATION AND ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATION, COMPARED. One J, a
married woman, died intestate in Singapore, Straits Settlements. Her husband
was named the administrator of her property by the Supreme Court of the Straits
Settlements. Her brother was appointed by the Court of First Instance of the City
of Manila administrator of the Manila Estate. Held: That the Court of First
Instance of the City of Manila did not act in excess of jurisdiction in naming the
brother of the deceased as the ancillary administrator of the estate.
2. ID.; ID.; ID. When a person dies intestate owning property in the country of
his domicile as well as in the foreign country, administration is had in both
countries. That which is granted in the jurisdiction of decedents last domicile is
termed the principal administration, any other administration is termed the
ancillary administration.
3. ID.; ID.; ID. A grant of administration does not proprio vigore have any
effect beyond the limits of the country in which it is granted. Hence, an
administration appointed in a foreign state has no authority in the United States.
4. ID.; ID.; ID. 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 decedent, liable for his individual
debts or to be distributed among his heirs.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; SECTION 642 CODE FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONSTRUED. It
is almost a universal rule to give the surviving spouse a preference when an
administrator is to be appointed, unless for strong reasons it is deemed advisable
to name someone else. This preference has particularly force under Spanish law
precedents.
6. ID.; ID.; ID. The Code of Civil Procedure, in section 642, while naming the
surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, as one to whom administration
can be granted, leaves this to the discretion of the court to determine, for it may
be found that the surviving spouse is unsuitable for the responsibility.
7. ID,; ID,; ID. Ancillary letters should ordinarily be granted to the domiciliary
representative, if he applies therefor, or to his nominee, or attorney; but in the
absence of express statutory requirement the court may in its discretion appoint
some other person.
8. ID.; ID.; ID; SECTION 783, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONSTRUED.
Pursuant to section 783 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order of a Court of First
Instance appointing an administrator of the estate of a deceased person
constitutes a final determination of the rights of the parties thereunder, within the
meaning of the statute, and is appealable. (Sy Hong Eng v. Sy Lioc Suy [1907], 8
Phil., 594)
DECISION
MALCOLM, J. :
The relevant facts disclosed by this petition for certiorari and the return thereto
may be stated as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Mrs. Carmen Theodora Johannes nee Carmen D Almeida, died intestate in

Singapore, Straits Settlements, on August 31, 1921. Of her immediate family
there remained the husband, B.E. Johannes, the brothers, Frederick Charles D
Almeida and Alfred D Almeida, and the sister, Ida D Almeida Johannes. Of these,
the Husband, the brother Frederick, and the sister Ida, were residents of
Singapore, while the brother Alfred was in Manila. The Singapore heirs apparently
joined in asking that the letters of the administration be granted by the Supreme
Court of the Straits Settlements to B.E. Johannes, the lawful husband of the
deceased. At least, on September 19, 1921, the husband was named the
administrator of the property of the deceased wife, which was locally situate
within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements. (Under
the British law [ 22 & 23 Charles II c 10, 29 Charles II c 3, and James II c 17 ], it
would seem that the husband is entitled to the whole of the state of his wife if she
die intestate, to the exclusion of any other of kin.) On October 1, 1921, the
brother Alfred D Almeida was, on his petition, appointed administrator of the
Manila estate of the deceased consisting of P109,732.55. This sum, it appears,
was on deposit in the Manila banks under and by virtue of guardianship
proceedings for the late Carmen Theodora Johannes, which were finally
terminated by the discharge of the guardian, the Philippine Trust Company, on
January 16, 1922.
The burden of the relators contention is that the Honorable George R. Harvey, as
judge of First Instance of the City of Manila, has acted in excess of his jurisdiction
in the appointing Alfred D Almeida administrator of the funds of the estate on
deposit in the Philippines, and that an administration in this jurisdiction is
unnecessary. Accordingly, relators pray the court to annul the appointment of
Alfred D Almeida and to issue an order directing the Judge of First Instance to
have placed to the credit of B.E. Johannes as administrator of the estate of
Carmen Theodora Johannes all of the funds of the late Carmen D Almeida
Johannes, now on deposit and subject to the order of the court, with P5,000 as
damages. The respondents, Judge Harvey, and the administrator Alfred D
Almeida, in compliance with the order to show cause why the writ should not
issue, content that the respondent judge has not in any manner acted in excess
of the jurisdiction duly conferred upon and exercised by him in the manner
provided by law, and that an order appointing an administrator is a final and
appealable order.
Certain general observations may possibly serve to clarify the situation.
It is often necessary to have more than one administration of an estate. When a

person dies intestate owning property in the country of his domicile as well as in a
foreign country, administration is had in both countries. That which is granted in
the jurisdiction of decedents last domicile is termed the principal administration,
while any other administration is termed the ancillary administration. The reason
for the latter is because a grant of administration does not ex proprio vigore have
any effect beyond the limits of the country in which is granted. Hence, an
administrator appointed in a foreign state has no authority in the United States.
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 decedent, liable for his individual debts or to be distributed
among his heirs. (23 C.J., 1010 et seq.; 24 C.J., 1109, et seq.; Wilkins v. Ellett
[1882], 108 U. S., 256; Perez v. Aguerria [1909], 1 Porto Rico Fed., 443; Vaughn
v. Barret[1833], 5 Vt., 333.)
The principal administration in this Instance is that at the domicile of the Carmen
Theodora Johannes in Singapore, Straits Settlements. What is sought in the
Philippine Islands is an ancillary administration subsidiary to the domiciliary
administration, conformable to the provisions of sections 601, 602, and 603 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The proper course of procedure would be for the
ancillary administrator to pay the claims of creditors, if there be any, settle the
accounts, and remit the surplus to the domiciliary jurisdiction, for distribution
among the next of kin. Such administration appears to be required in this
jurisdiction since the provisions of section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
which permit of the settlement of the certain estates without legal proceedings,
have not been met. The decision of this court in Baldemor v. Malangyaon ([1916],
34 Phil., 368), on which relators rely, is then not in point because predicated
directly on the provisions of the section last cited.
It is almost a universal rule to give the surviving spouse a preference when an

administrator is to be appointed, unless for strong reasons it is deemed advisable
to name someone else. This preference has particular force under Spanish law
precedents. (4 Escriche, Diccionario de Legislacion y Jurisprudencia, 1085.)
However, The Code of Civil Procedure, in section 642, while naming the surviving
husband or wife, as the case may be, as one to whom administration can be
granted, leaves this to the discretion of the court to determine, for it may be
found that the surviving spouse is unsuitable for the responsibility. Moreover, non-
residence is a factor to be considered in determining the propriety of the
appointment, and in this connection, it is to be noted that the husband of the
deceased, the administrator of the principal administration, resides in Singapore.
Undoubtedly, if the husband should come into this jurisdiction, the court would
give consideration to his petition he be named the ancillary administrator for local
purposes. Ancillary letters should ordinarily be granted to the domiciliary
representative, if he applies therefor, or to his nominee, or attorney; but in the
absence of express statutory requirement the court may in its discretion appoint
some other person. (24 C. J., 1114.)
There is still another aspect to the case. This is that pursuant to section 783 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, an order of a Court of First Instance appointing an
administrator of the estate of a deceased person constitutes a final determination
of the rights of the parties thereunder, within the meaning of the statute, and is
appealable. (Sy Hong Eng v. Sy Lioc Suy [1907], 8 Phil., 594.)
As we reach the conclusion that the Court of First Instance has not acted in
excess of its jurisdiction, and as there is an appeal, certiorari will not lie.
Accordingly, the writ prayed for cannot be granted. Costs against the relators.
So ordered.

Johannes Vs Harvey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Johannes Vs Harvey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Johannes Vs Harvey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 18600. March 9, 1922. ]

B.E. JOHANNES, husband of Carmen Theodora Johannes, deceased, as

Amzi B. Kelly for relators.

Fisher & DeWitt and Francis B. Mahoney for Respondents.

1. CONFLICT OF LAWS; ADMINISTRATION OF STATES; PRINCIPAL

Mrs. Carmen Theodora Johannes nee Carmen D Almeida, died intestate in

Certain general observations may possibly serve to clarify the situation.

It is often necessary to have more than one administration of an estate. When a

It is almost a universal rule to give the surviving spouse a preference when an

You might also like