Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:
Sometime in 1950, petitioner Bernardo Picardal entrusted to respondent Cenon Lladas a piece of land in Lanao del Norte. Said land was part of the conjugal partnership between petitioner Bernardo Picardal and his late wife Aurea and was under judicial administration in Special Proceedings and this property was not yet partitioned among the heirs. When Bernardo Picardal entrusted the land to Cenon Lladas they had a verbal agreement that they would divide the coconut produce and promise that he would keep the coconut plantation clean.

 

In 1959 Cenon Lladas was appointed as the special administrator of the land by the Clerk of Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte with a condition thah respondent LLadas would take care of the coconut plantation or else if he failed to do so within 30 days he would be charged and liable for it.

Lladas then harvested coconut and processed it for copra then Picardal sold it to Lian Hong Company of Iligan City, but said company made a complaint about the product contending that it was mixed with fresh coconut to add weight to the product. Knowing this facts, Picardal the sent Lladas a notice to vacate because of his unsatisfactory practices. Lladas then filed a petition to CAR against Picardal and said that he suffered damages because of the notice given to him. In his answer Picardal told the court the the property was a part of the conjugal partnership of him and his wife and belied the allegation of LLadas of having been sent a notice to vacate and also that the property was under custodia legis.

Respondent Lladas never made further harvests after May, 1960 although he still had his house on the land and continued to raise short term crops therein.

Lladas the filed an amended petition which substituted Cesar Montoya with Sebastian Picardal in his place and alleged that he was ejected and as a result he suffered damages in not receiving his share of the produce.

Picardal belied this allegation and said that LLadas abandoned the property.

The CAR and the SC found that LLadas was indeed ejected.

 

ISSUE:
Whether or not the estate should be liable for damages.

 

HELD:
NO. Bernardo Picardal and Sebastian Picardal should be held liable because they are the one who ejected Cenon Lladas. Rule 85 section 5 states that When an executor or administrator neglects or unreasonably delays to raise money, by collecting the debts or selling the real or personal estate of the deceased, or neglects to pay over the money he has in his hands, and the value of the estate is thereby lessened or unnecessary cost or interest accrues, or the persons interested suffer loss, the same shall be deemed waste and the damage sustained may be charged and allowed against him in his account, and he shall be liable therefor on his bond.