The document discusses a legal case regarding the trusteeship of three minors. J. Antonio Araneta was appointed trustee in 1950 to manage property bequeathed to heirs including the three minors. In 1959, Araneta proposed selling some land under the trusteeship to Ortigas & Co. The judicial guardian of the minors objected to the sale. The issues in the case were whether the trustee had the power to sell trust properties without court approval, and whether the proposed sale would harm the interests of the beneficiaries. The court ultimately ruled that the will setting up the trust showed confidence in Araneta's judgment and discretion as trustee, and that there was no clear proof the sale would prejudice the minors.
The document discusses a legal case regarding the trusteeship of three minors. J. Antonio Araneta was appointed trustee in 1950 to manage property bequeathed to heirs including the three minors. In 1959, Araneta proposed selling some land under the trusteeship to Ortigas & Co. The judicial guardian of the minors objected to the sale. The issues in the case were whether the trustee had the power to sell trust properties without court approval, and whether the proposed sale would harm the interests of the beneficiaries. The court ultimately ruled that the will setting up the trust showed confidence in Araneta's judgment and discretion as trustee, and that there was no clear proof the sale would prejudice the minors.
The document discusses a legal case regarding the trusteeship of three minors. J. Antonio Araneta was appointed trustee in 1950 to manage property bequeathed to heirs including the three minors. In 1959, Araneta proposed selling some land under the trusteeship to Ortigas & Co. The judicial guardian of the minors objected to the sale. The issues in the case were whether the trustee had the power to sell trust properties without court approval, and whether the proposed sale would harm the interests of the beneficiaries. The court ultimately ruled that the will setting up the trust showed confidence in Araneta's judgment and discretion as trustee, and that there was no clear proof the sale would prejudice the minors.
The document discusses a legal case regarding the trusteeship of three minors. J. Antonio Araneta was appointed trustee in 1950 to manage property bequeathed to heirs including the three minors. In 1959, Araneta proposed selling some land under the trusteeship to Ortigas & Co. The judicial guardian of the minors objected to the sale. The issues in the case were whether the trustee had the power to sell trust properties without court approval, and whether the proposed sale would harm the interests of the beneficiaries. The court ultimately ruled that the will setting up the trust showed confidence in Araneta's judgment and discretion as trustee, and that there was no clear proof the sale would prejudice the minors.
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as txt, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
G.R. No.
L-16708 October 31, 1962
TRUSTEESHIP OF THE MINORS BENIGNO, ANGELA and ANTONIO all surnamed PEREZ Y TUASON, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Judicial Guardian of BENIGNO PEREZ, ANTONIO M. PEREZ, judicial guardian-appellant, vs. J. ANTONIO ARANETA, trustee-appellee.
Facts Appellee J. Antonio Araneta was on March 24, 1950, appointed, in Special Proceedings No. Q-73 of the same Court, as trustee of property bequeathed by the deceased to some of her heirs, including her grandchildren, the aforementioned minors. On October 4, 1950, appellee moved for the approval of accounts and the fixing of his compensation as such trustee. Appellant's wife, Angela I. Tuason, hereafter referred to as Mrs. Perez, as well as the mother and guardian at the time, of said minors, objected thereto and urged the court to remove appellee as trustee and appoint the Philippine Trust in his place and to revoke, not only certain sale made by him, but, also, an order of the court dated March 24, 1950, granting him the power to sell trust properties without special judicial authorization therefor.
Appellee wrote on June 23, 1959, to appellant, as the then judicial guardian of said minor a letter informing him of a proposed sale to Ortigas & Co., Ltd., of several lots under trusteeship, located in Marikina, Rizal, and aggregating 42.6091 hectares, at the rate of P2.93 a square meter.
Appellant informed appellee by letter (Exhibit C) of his (appellant's) objections
to the proposed sale. Moreover, on July 1, 1959 appellant filed, in the trusteeship proceedings, a motion praying for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain appellee from proceeding with the sale. Subsequently, the Philippine National Bank, as guardian of the estate of Benigno Perez y Tuason, one of the heirs of Angela I. Tuason, deceased, adopted said motion of appellant herein as its own. At the instance of appellant, a notice of lis pendens was, on July 29, 1959, annotated on the original certificates of title to the property in question.
Issues: (2) whether the sale thereof would be injurious to the interest of the beneficiaries or cestui que trust.
Held
It is next urged that the sale of the property in question is not only unnecessary, but also injurious to the minors represented by appellant herein, by reason of possible devaluation, and high income taxes. This pretense is predicated, however, upon sheer speculation.
Referring to this provision of said will, we had occasion to say in G.R. No. L- 6182:
. . . throughout clause 4 of the will, one can see that the testatrix placed implicit confidence and trust in Araneta whom she designated as trustee, and for him to continue for a long time, not only until the minor children of Angela S. Tuason including those yet unborn, attained the age of majority but only when a majority of them decided to end the trust.
In short, the trustor had such faith and confidence appellee that she relied fully upon his judgment and discretion. The exercise thereof by appellees should not be disturbed, therefore, except upon clear proof of fraud or bad faith, or unless the transaction in question is manifestly prejudicial to the interest of the minors aforementioned petitioned. Such is not the situation obtaining in the present case.
