Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 9679. October 6, 1914. ]

MATEO LABIANO, in the double capacity of heir and administrator of the estate of Domingo Lamadrid, deceased, Petitioner, v. W. E. McMAHON, Judge of First Instance of the Mountain Province, ET AL., Respondents.

A. Mabanag, for Petitioner.

Judge McMahon, in his own behalf.

Abad Santos, Manglapus & Pinzon, for the other respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. JUDGES; DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO ANOTHER. — The powers and the duties of a judge are strictly personal in their nature and are to be performed by such officer alone. He cannot delegate his authority to another except where a delegation is specially authorized by statute and is not in violation of the Constitution.

2. REFERENCE WITHOUT CONSENT OF PARTIES; CERTIORARI TO ANNUL DECISION OF REFEREE. — Where the statute authorizes the appointment of a referee by a court upon the "written consent of both parties, filed with the clerk," but requiring also that "referees, before commencing the performance of their duty, shall be sworn to a faithful and honest performance thereof, and the fact that they have taken such oath shall be certified to on the commission by the authority administering the oath," and the court appoints a referee without the consent, oral or written, of the parties and without any of the provisions of the statute being complied with, and the person so appointed does not take the oath of office and does not receive a commission from the court or clerk, the decision of such person so appointed upon evidence taken before him is without force or effect in law and the judgment of the court based solely thereon is without force and effect as a judgment and on certiorari will be vacated and annulled.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J.:


This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment made by the Court of First Instance of the Mountain Province.

The court, when it performed the act complained of, was engaged in the determination of the ownership of certain real property which had been disposed of under a will duly probated in that court. During the settlement of the estate there was presented to the court a petition alleging that one-half of the real estate which the testator had attempted to dispose of by the will was not his property but belonged to his brother; that, therefore, the testator was the owner of only one-half of the property thus sought to be devised; that the petitioner was the daughter of the brother of the testator and, the brother having died, she was the owner of one-half of the property disposed of by the will. The petitioner, after other appropriate allegations, prayed that the court adjudge and decree that the petitioner was the owner of one-half of the real estate described in the will and that that portion be excluded from its dispositions.

The court made an order denying the petition and adjudging that all the real estate described in the will was owned by the testator. This decree was made and entered through a misunderstanding resulting from a bad translation to the court of the statement of the parties in interest made in open court, by virtue of which the court was led to believe that the parties agreed that such a decree should be made and entered. After ascertaining its mistake, the court set aside the decree and made in place thereof the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When this case was called for trial on the 2d day of May 1913, the court understood that the parties had come to an agreement by which all the property should be awarded to the legatee in the will, as was interpreted to the court. But the parties have now explained to the court that there was misunderstanding. The court therefore revokes the order dictated on May 2, 1913, adjudging all the property to the legatee, and will turn this case over to a commissioner to examine the land and witnesses and to report the matter in thirty days. The court names for this purpose Mr. E. de Mitkiewicz, lieutenant-governor of Amburayan, who shall determine what property, if any, in the inventory, belongs to the opponent, Antonia Lamadrid, and in case he shall find any of it to belong to her he shall state that fact and shall adjudge such part to her; but in case he shall not find any to belong to her he shall adjudge all the property to the legatee, Mateo Labiano.

"It is agreed between the parties through their attorneys in open court that the decision of the commissioner shall be final with respect to who is the owner of the land."cralaw virtua1aw library

In pursuance of this order the commissioner named therein viewed the land in question, took the testimony of witnesses for and against the claim of petitioner, and, after duly considering the case upon the merits, wrote an opinion setting forth the facts as found by him from the testimony of the witnesses, discussed them therein at some length, investigated and considered the questions of law applicable thereto, and arrived at a decision in the following words:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the above evidence, which was all that was available, it appears that Antonia Lamadrid, daughter of the deceased Juan Lamadrid, is entitled to the share of the land which constituted part of her father’s estate, but in view of the fact that her uncle Domingo assumed charge of the estate for her, after the death of his brother, the father of Antonia, I have decided as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For the administrator one-half (
Top of Page