GR L 770; (April, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-770; April 27, 1948
ANGEL T. LIMJOCO, petitioner, vs. INTESTATE ESTATE OF PEDRO O. FRAGRANTE, deceased, respondent.
FACTS
Pedro O. Fragante, a Filipino citizen, filed an application with the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience to install, maintain, and operate an ice plant in San Juan, Rizal. During the pendency of the application, Fragante died. The Public Service Commission allowed the substitution of the legal representative (the special administrator) of Fragrante’s intestate estate as the party applicant and eventually granted the certificate to the estate. Angel T. Limjoco, an existing ice plant operator and an opponent to the application, appealed, arguing that the estate, as an abstract entity, cannot possess the required Filipino citizenship under the Constitution and Public Service Act, and that the grant was an unwarranted departure from commission policy.
ISSUE
Whether the intestate estate of a deceased Filipino citizen can be substituted as the applicant and be granted a certificate of public convenience for the operation of a public utility.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The right to apply for and obtain a certificate of public convenience, provided the legal conditions are met, is a property right that survives the death of the applicant. Since Pedro O. Fragante was a Filipino citizen and financially capable at the time of his death, and his estate was found financially capable to operate the ice plant, the right to prosecute the application passed to his estate and its legal representative. The estate, through its judicial administrator, acts in representation of the deceased and the heirs for the benefit of the estate’s creditors and successors. The constitutional and statutory citizenship requirement was satisfied because the original applicant was a Filipino citizen, and the grant to the estate is a continuation of his right. The Court rejected the argument that the estate itself must possess citizenship, holding that the focus is on the citizenship of the original applicant, and the estate merely steps into his shoes to complete the pending application. The dissent argued that the citizenship of the heirs should be determinative, but the majority held this was not required under the circumstances.
AI Generated by Armztrong.