[G.R. No. 10033. August 30, 1917.

THE CITY OF MANILA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA and
THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF MARIA CONCEPCION SARMIENTO, interveners-appellees.

City Attorney Escaler for Appellant.

William A. Kincaid and Thomas L. Hartigan for the appellee Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila.

No appearance for the other appellee.

DECISION

JOHNSON, J. :

This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila on the 15th day
of February, 1913. Its purpose was to have declared escheated to the city of Manila certain
property situated in and around said city; that said property consists of five parcels of land
located in the districts of Malate and Paco of the city of Manila, as shown in a plan, in the office
of the Department of Engineering and Public Works of said city of Manila, No. B-10-27. The
theory of the plaintiff is that one Ana Sarmiento was the owner of said property and died in the
year 1668 without leaving "heir or person entitled to the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

After hearing the evidence, the Honorable A. S. Crossfield, in a carefully prepared opinion,
reached the conclusion that the prayer of the plaintiff should be denied without any finding as to
costs. From that conclusion the plaintiff appealed to this court and made a number of
assignments of error.

After an examination of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, we find that the
following facts were proved by a large preponderance of the evidence: That Ana Sarmiento
resided, with her husband, in the city of Manila sometime prior to the 17th day of November,
1668; that on said date she made a will; that on the 23d day of November, 1668, she added a
codicil to said will; that on the 19th day of May, 1669, she made another will, making a part
thereof the said codicil of November 23d, 1668; that said will contained provisions for the
establishment of a "Capellania de Misas;" that the first chaplain of said capellania should be her
nephew Pedro del Castillo; that said will contained a provision for the administration of said
property in relation with the said "Capellania de Misas" succeeding that of her nephew Pedro
del Castillo; that such subsequent administration should continue perpetually; that said Ana
Sarmiento died about the year 1672; that for more than two hundred years the intervener, the
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, through his various agencies, has administered said
property; that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila has rightfully and legally succeeded to
the possession and administration of said property in accordance with the terms and provisions
of the will of Ana Sarmiento.

Section 750 of Act No. 190 provides when property may be declared escheated. It provides,
"when a person dies intestate, seized of real or personal property . . . leaving no heir or person
by law entitled to the same," that then and in that case such property, under the procedure
provided for by sections 751 and 752, may be declared escheated.

The proof shows that Ana Sarmiento did not die intestate. She left a will. The will provides for
the administration of said property by her nephew as well as for the subsequent administration
of the same. She did not die without an heir nor without persons entitled to administer her
estate. It further shows that she did not die without leaving a person by law entitled to inherit her
property. In view of those facts, therefore, the property in question cannot be declared
escheated as of the property of Ana Sarmiento. If by any chance the property may be declared
escheated, it must be based upon the fact that persons subsequent to Ana Sarmiento died
intestate without leaving heir or person by law entitled to the same.

The will, clearly, definitely and unequivocally defines and designates what disposition shall be
made of the property in question. The heir mentioned in said will evidently accepted its terms
and permitted the property to be administered in accordance therewith. And, so far as the
record shows, it is still being administered in accordance with the terms of said will for the
benefit of the real beneficiary as was intended by the original owner.

The record fully and completely shows that the theory of the plaintiff is without foundation either
in fact or in law.

The judgment of the lower court is, therefore, hereby affirmed, with costs in this instance. So
ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.