BPI vs Posadas

BPI vs. Posadas

GR No. 34583, October 22, 1931

FACTS:

BPI, as administrator of the estate of deceased Adolphe Schuetze, appealed to CFI Manila
absolving defendant, Collector of Internal Revenue, from the complaint filed against him in
recovering the inheritance tax amounting to P1209 paid by the plaintiff, Rosario Gelano Vda de
Schuetze, under protest, and sum of P20,150 representing the proceeds of the insurance policy
of the deceased.

Rosario and Adolphe were married in January 1914. The wife was actually residing and living in
Germany when Adolphe died in December 1927. The latter while in Germany, executed a will
in March 1926, pursuant with its law wherein plaintiff was named his universal heir. The
deceased possessed not only real property situated in the Philippines but also personal
property consisting of shares of stocks in 19 domestic corporations. Included in the personal
property is a life insurance policy issued at Manila on January 1913 for the sum of $10,000 by
the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Manila Branch. In the insurance policy, the estate
of the deceased was named the beneficiary without any qualification. Rosario is the sole and
only heir of the deceased. BPI, as administrator of the decedent’s estate and attorney in fact of
the plaintiff, having been demanded by Posadas to pay the inheritance tax, paid under protest.
Notwithstanding various demands made by plaintiff, Posadas refused to refund such amount.

ISSUE: WON the plaintiff is entitled to the proceeds of the insurance.

HELD:

SC ruled that(1)the proceeds of a life-insurance policy payable to the insured's estate, on which
the premiums were paid by the conjugal partnership, constitute community property, and
belong one-half to the husband and the other half to the wife, exclusively; (2)if the premiums
were paid partly with paraphernal and partly conjugal funds, the proceeds are likewise in like
proportion paraphernal in part and conjugal in part; and (3)the proceeds of a life-insurance
policy payable to the insured's estate as the beneficiary, if delivered to the testamentary
administrator of the former as part of the assets of said estate under probate administration,
are subject to the inheritance tax according to the law on the matter, if they belong to the
assured exclusively, and it is immaterial that the insured was domiciled in these Islands or
outside.
Hence, the defendant was ordered to return to the plaintiff one-half of the tax collected upon
the amount of P20,150, being the proceeds of the insurance policy on the life of the late
Adolphe Oscar Schuetze, after deducting the proportional part corresponding to the first
premium.
RAILROAD COMPANY
MARCH 26, 2011  ~ VBDIAZ

LILIUS, ET AL. vs. THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

G.R. No. L-39587
March 24, 1934
FACTS: Lilius was driving with his wife and daughter for sightseeing in Pagsanjan
Laguna. It was his first time in the area and he was entirely unacquainted with the
conditions of the road and had no knowledge of the existence of a railroad crossing.
Before reaching the crossing in question, there was nothing to indicate its existence
and, it was impossible to see an approaching train. At about seven or eight meters
from the crossing the plaintiff saw an autotruck parked on the left side of the road.
Several people, who seemed to have alighted from the said truck, were walking on the
opposite side. He slowed down and sounded his horn for the people to get out of the
way. With his attention thus occupied, he did not see the crossing but he heard two
short whistles. Immediately afterwards, he saw a huge black mass fling itself upon
him, which turned out to be locomotive No. 713 of the MRC’s train. The locomotive
struck the plaintiff’s car right in the center. The 3 victims were injured and were
hospitalized.
Lilus filed a case against MRC in the CFI. Answering the complaint, it denies each
and every allegation thereof and, by way of special defense, alleges that the Lilius,
with the cooperation of his wife and coplaintiff, negligently and recklessly drove his
car, and prays that it be absolved from the complaint.

The CFI decided in favor of Lilius. The 2 parties appealed said decision, each
assigning errors on said judgement.

ISSUE:
1. WON Manila Railroad Company is liable for damages
2. WON the sums of money fixed by the court a quo as indemnities for damages
proper
 

1. Injuries sutained by Lilius

2. for injuries sustained by wife and child
3. for loss of domestic service of wife to husband
HELD: The judgment appealed from is affirmed in toto, with the sole modification on
interest to be added on the indemnity in favor of Lilius.
 

G.R. No. L-39587             March 24, 1934

VILLA-REAL, J.:
 

Facts: 
Plaintiff Aleko Lilius, his wife Sonja Maria Lilius, and his 4-year old daughter Brita
Marianne Lilius, left Manila for a sight-seeing trip in Pagsanjan, Laguna. It was the
first time that he made said trip although he had already been to many places, driving
his own car, in and outside the Philippines. He was entirely unacquainted with the
conditions of the road at said points and had no knowledge of the existence of a
railroad crossing at Dayap.

Before reaching the crossing in question, there was nothing to indicate its existence
and inasmuch as there were many houses, shrubs and trees along the road, it was
impossible to see an approaching train. At about seven or eight meters from the
crossing, Lilius saw an autotruck parked on the left side of the road. Several people,
who seemed to have alighted from the said truck, were walking on the opposite side.
He slowed down and sounded his horn for the people to get out of the way.

With his attention thus occupied, he did not see the crossing but he heard two short
whistles. Immediately afterwards, he saw a huge black mass fling itself upon him,
which turned out to be locomotive No. 713 of the Manila Railroad Company’s train.
The train struck the plaintiff’s car right in the center causing injury to the three
victims.
Issue:
Whether or not Manila Railroad Company is liable for damages.

Held:
Yes, the court is of that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the
defendant-appellant company alone for not having any semaphore at the crossing to
serve as a warning to passers-by of its existence in order that they might take
necessary precautions before crossing the railroad and on the part of its employees for
not having remained at his post at the crossing in question to warn passers-by of the
approaching train.