AgencyDPFebruary32014

14 with legal interest thereon from thedate of the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: was the representative and attorney­in­fact of the plaintiffs in the partnership (Tren de Aguadas). ● Plaintiffs filed separate claims with the committee of claims and appraisal against the intestate estate of Benigno Goitia at CFI Manila, the first for the amount of P5,940, and the second, P2,376. The committee disapproved their claims. Both claimants appealed from the report of the committee, and in accordance with section 776 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed a new complaint, which was later, amended with the approval of the court. ● The trial court deemed it proven that during the period from 1915 to 1926, Benigno Goitia collected and received certain sums as dividends and profits upon the plaintiffs's stock in the "Tren de Aguadas" in his capacity as representative and attorney­in­fact for both of them, which he has neither remitted nor accounted for to the plaintiffs. ● Lower court also ordered defendant to enter a judicial account of the intestate estate of the deceased Benigno Goitia, to render an account of the amounts collected by her aforesaid husband Benigno Goitia, as attorney­in­fact and representative of the plaintiffs. ● The defendant manifested that after a painstaking examination of the books of account of the copartnership "Tren de Aguadas," and several attempts to obtain data from Ruperto Santos, the manager and administrator thereof, she has found no more evidence of any amount received by her late husband, Benigno de Goitia, than a book of accounts where she came upon an item of P90 for Leonor Mendezona, and another of P36 for Valentina Izaguirre. ● In view of this report and the evidence taken at the hearing the court rendered a suppletory judgment, taking into account chiefly the testimony of Ruperto Santos and Ramon Salinas, it was held that, upon the basis of the dividends received by the witness Salinas on his fifteen shares in the "Tren de Aguadas" from 1915 to 1925, it appears that the dividends distributed for each share w...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online