THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHIU GUIMCO, defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. 12184

September 27, 1917

EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; COMMITMENT FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE WILL.
A court cannot make a valid order committing a person to jail for failure to produce the will of a deceased
person, pursuant to section 629 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except when acting in the exercise of its
jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons.

Facts:
Joaquin Cruz, a chinese merchant living for many years in the municipality of Gingoog, Province of
Misamis, died while visiting China. Before his departure from the Philippines he had executed a will before
Anastacio Servillon, a notary public, in which Chiu Guimco and Co-Iden were named as executors. Chiu
Guimco is Joaquin Cruzs brother.

Guimco, as attorney in fact and manager of the estate of his deceased brother, entered into an agreement
with his brothers Filipina wife, whereby she relinquished her claims to the estate for a consideration. He
also entered into an agreement with Uy Cuan, his brothers Chinese wife, for the distribution of the estate
and for the payment of rentals on her interest in the real estate. No payments have, however, been made by
Guimco.

Ramon Contreras, acting on behalf of Uy Cuan, wrote a letter to Guimco urging him to produce the will of
the decedent for the institution of lawful proceedings in accordance therewith. Guimco replied that the will
in question had never been in his possession and that he had never seen it.

A complaint was filed under section 628 of the Code of Civil Procedure charging Guimco with the failure
to produce the will within the time required by law. The court found the accused guilty and imposed upon
him a fine of P1800. Subsequently, the court, believing that the will was in his possession, ordered him to
produce it but Guimco still failed to do so. The court ordered the confinement of Guimco in the provincial
jail.

Issue: Whether the judge was acting within his power when he ordered the commitment of Guimco to the
provincial jail?

Held:
No. Section 629 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 5 of Rule 75), which allows imprisonment of
a person who neglects to deliver a will after the death of the testator without reasonable cause, can only be
applied when a court is acting in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the administration of the estates of
deceased persons. Where administration proceedings are not already pending, the court, before taking
action under this section, should require that there be before it some petition, information, or affidavit of
such character as to make action by the court under this section appropriate.

The remedy provided in section 629 of the Code of Procedure is clearly a totally different remedy, having
no relation with that provided in section 628 (now section 4 of Rule 75). It is not permissible in a
prosecution under Sec. 628 to superimpose upon the penalty of fine therein prescribed the additional
penalty of imprisonment prescribed under Sec. 629.

To enforce the production of the will by the accused at a trial under Sec. 628 would virtually compel him to
convict himself, since the mere production of the will by him would be conclusive that he had possession of
it as charged in the criminal complaint. This would constitute an infringement of the provision of law
which says that in a criminal action the defendant shall be exempt from testifying against himself.