remembrance of things awry

If there will only be one defining post of this blog, the height of things awry, THIS IS IT [ ala Michael Jackson ].

It is universal:  the Biblical stories of Cain and Abel, of Joseph and his brothers, happens over and over again, like an unshakable curse, in the lives of privileged families all over the world… and there is no exception even here in the Philippines…

INHERITANCE.  What a lovely, utterly desirable word to those who wish to have it.  And what a weird word it is to those who have had the fortune, and more often the misfortune, to have it.

In the annals of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Sy Joc Lieng et. al. vs. Petronila Encarnacion, et. al. [ 04 December 1905 - 19 March 1920 ], aside from being a landmark case of the validity of the celebration of marriage, was an early example of a War of Inheritance.  Unlike the contemporary archetype, the first SY QUIA was no poor Chinese immigrant who migrated to Las Islas Filipinas;  he was already a man of substantial means who lived in the biggest house in Am Thau town, near Amoy.  After Sy Quia [ Don Vicente Ruperto Romero Sy Quia ] passed away on 09 January 1894 in Manila, leaving a vast fortune in commercial real estate and other holdings, mostly in Manila, worth about Php 1,000,000.00/xx to his Chinese-Filipina wife Dona Petronila Encarnacion [ whom he married in 1853 in Vigan, Ilocos Sur ] and their five children Gregorio, Pedro, Juan, Apolinaria, and Maria [ surnamed Sy Quia y Encarnacion ], his hitherto unknown first family in Amoy, China, the descendants with his Chinese wife Yap Puan Niu [ whom he married in 1847 in Am Thau, Amoy, China ] suddenly appeared, claiming his estate.  The Supreme Court case chronicled the war between his Filipino family in Manila and his Chinese family in Am Thau, Amoy, China.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1920/mar1920/gr_l-4718_1920.html

The Sy Quia wars of inheritance did not end there.  Don Vicente Sy Quia’s second son Don Pedro Sy-Quia y Encarnacion married Srta. Asuncion Michels de Champourcin y Ventura and had three sons:  Pedro Jr., Gonzalo, and Leopoldo [ surnamed Sy-Quia y Michels de Champourcin ].  Pedro Jr. married Caridad Arguelles Cruz;  Gonzalo married Ramona Vargas;  Leopoldo married Maria Chanco.  The three brothers forthwith engaged in a protracted inheritance dispute over the vast real estate holdings of their parents, which included the first high rise apartment buildings in Malate PreWar.  When Pedro Jr. and Gonzalo had finally become exasperated, they offered the best properties to their youngest brother Leopoldo, who oddly enough, refused to accept the settlement.  He thought it was too good to be true and that there had to be a “catch” to it.

The Sy Quia wars of inheritance did not end there either.  To this day, the various Syquia descendants are still locked in bitter inheritance disputes.

According to the patrician social historian Martin “Sonny” Imperial Tinio Jr., every death in the affluent and prominent TUASON family of Manila from the late 1800s all the way to the 1900s was followed by a barrage of lawsuits, intrafamily and otherwise.   It was not a Tuason death if it wasn’t followed by lawsuits aplenty.

It has never been and will never be discussed in any official ZOBEL or ROXAS family history, but I’ve always wondered what the Zobel-Roxas siblings Jacobo, Alfonso, and Mercedes thought about their Roxas inheritance of the “Hacienda San Pedro de Makati” outside Manila in 1914 [ following the unexpected passing of their maternal grandfather Don Pedro Pablo Roxas in Paris in 1912; they were only children at the time; their mother, Don Pedro's daughter Dona Consuelo Roxas de Zobel, passed away during the cholera epidemic of 1908 ], way before the serendipitous McMicking developments PostWar.  Weren’t they resentful that it was among the less valuable of the assets in the portfolio of Don Pedro Pablo Roxas?  Yes, it was a big, picturesque piece of land — originally 1,616 hectares  purchased by their maternal great grandfather Don Jose Bonifacio Roxas for 52,800 pesos from Simon Bernardino Velez  in 1851 — but, aside from the pasture and rice lands, it was mostly nonproductive marshland and practically worthless then, most probably more a burden than a blessing in those times.  At that time, among the crown jewels of the vast holdings of Don Pedro Pablo Roxas and Dona Carmen de Ayala were the large sugar hacienda in Nasugbu, Batangas and the recently established centrifugal sugar mill in 1912 [ and finally incorporated as the "Central Azucarera de Calatagan" in 1927 ], which were assigned to their uncle Don Antonio Roxas de Ayala [ brother of their mother Dona Consuelo Roxas de Zobel; married to Dona Carmen Gargollo ], who headed the newly formed Vda. e Hijos de Pedro P. Roxas.  Dona Margarita Roxas viuda de Soriano, Don Antonio’s and Dona Consuelo’s sister, received the large Roxas hacienda in Calauan, Laguna which devolved to her son, Don Andres Soriano y Roxas.  However, in a happy twist of fate, the Zobel-Roxas siblings Jacobo, Alfonso, and Mercedes also inherited the vast Roxas family playground, the 10,000 hectare Hacienda Calatagan in Batangas, following the passing of their maternal grandmother Dona Carmen Ayala viuda de Roxas in 1930 [ who had inherited it in 1876 upon the death of her father Don Antonio de Ayala;  it had been purchased by the couple Dona Margarita Roxas and Don Antonio de Ayala from Sociedad Roxas Hijos, the family partnership, in 1862;  it had been inherited by the siblings Margarita, Jose Bonifacio, and Mariano Roxas y Ubaldo from their father Don Domingo Roxas upon his passing in 1843 ].  Also, in 1934, the title of the “Central Azucarera de Calatagan” was transferred from the Roxas to the Zobel.

When Senator Maria Ana “Jamby” Abad Santos Madrigal sued her Madrigal first cousins over the estate of their aunt, Consuelo “Chito” Madrigal [ ex-Vazquez ]-Collantes, it was not the first time there was an argument over inheritance in the affluent MADRIGAL family.  It had always been the case with the seven children of Don Vicente Madrigal and Dona Susana Paterno:  Macaria “Nena” [ married Juan Lichauco de Leon ], Maria Paz “Pacita” [ married Gustav Warns, later Atty. Gonzalo Walfrido Rafols Gonzalez ], Josefina “Pinang” [ married Francisco Bayot ], Antonio “Tony” [ married Amanda Teopaco Abad Santos ], Jose “Belek” [ married Victoria Teopaco Abad Santos ], Consuelo “Chito” [ married Dr. Luis Earnshaw Vazquez, later Manuel Collantes ], and Maria Luisa “Ising” [ married Daniel Earnshaw Vazquez ].

Brother Andrew Gonzalez F.S.C. of De La Salle University occasionally recalled with amusement how his first cousin Atty. Gonzalo W. Gonzalez once described his in-laws:  “They meet once a week to argue about money.  Unbelievable.”

Recently, the subject of inheritance came up while a dear friend [ a Madrigal granddaughter ] and I were merrily chatting away from the rest of the company at a dinner party.  I reminded her that her family was one of the last “Old Filipino,” non-taipan fortunes:  Roxas-de Ayala-Zobel-Soriano, Madrigal, Lopez, Cojuangco, Ortigas, Aboitiz…  She reflected blithely:  “I don’t know how it can stay that way.  They keep on arguing, arguing, and arguing.  How are we going to get anything done?”

It has never been and will never be discussed in any official LOPEZ DE ILOILO family history, but during PreWar, the siblings Eugenio and Fernando Hofilena Lopez sued their paternal uncle Don Vicente Lopez y Villanueva — one of the richest Lopez-Villanueva siblings at that time — for the “return” of the sugar hacienda which they inherited from their assassinated father, Don Benito Lopez y Villanueva.  It was an interesting episode in the Lopez family history, because not only was Don Vicente the brother of their father Don Benito, but Don Vicente’s wife Dona Elena Hofilena, was the sister of their mother, Dona Presentacion Hofilena.  Also, Don Vicente and Dona Elena took their young nephews Eugenio and Fernando into their home after the assassination of their father, Don Benito;  their mother, Dona Presentacion, retreated to the house on “Roca Encantada” in the Hofilena hacienda in Guimaras island.   However, it seems that an agreeable settlement was made, because close family relations were happily restored between the feuding families.  The Lopez-Hofilena siblings Nelly, Benito, Lilia, and Vicente were close to their Lopez-Hofilena first cousins twice over “Tatay Ening” and “Tatay Nanding” to the end of their lives.

After the passing of Don Vicente LOPEZ y Villanueva [ married Srta. Elena Hofilena y Javelona;  after Dona Elena's passing, married Rosario Umelin ] — one of the richest in the Lopez de Iloilo clan at the prime of his fortunes — his children Nelly [ married Salvador Zamora ], Benito [ married Leonor de la Rama ], Lilia [ married Francisco Lopez Jison ], and Vicente [ married Maria Rita Molina Zamora ] encountered difficulties and disagreements in partitioning the large estate which included several sugar haciendas, sugar centrals, Manila real estate like the Elena Apartments in Ermita and the Lopez Court in Paranaque, as well as the famous Nelly Gardens mansion in Jaro.  It reached the point that they were no longer on speaking terms.  It took many years for the Lopez-Hofilena siblings to reconcile, just before they all passed.

COJUANGCO.  “Politics has always divided our family ever since I can remember.”  sighed a senior Cojuangco daughter.

ARANETA.

There was also a War of Inheritance in the affluent and famously propertied PADILLA family of Manila.  Narciso A. Bibby Padilla passed away on 12 February 1934, leaving his childless widow, Concepcion PATERNO viuda de Padilla.  However, in his last will and testament, he named not his wife but his mother, Dona Ysabel Bibby viuda de Padilla, as heiress.  When, as due course, the childless Concepcion Paterno wanted to retrieve / separate her paraphernal properties from those of her husband’s, Narciso Padilla’s, his surviving mother Dona Ysabel contested.  Concepcion Paterno’s paraphernal properties included land and buildings on Calle Arquiza, Calle Juan Luna, Calle Camba, part of the Calle Martin Ocampo property, Callejon de la Fe, part of the Calle Regidor property, and 9/29 of the Calle R. Hidalgo property.  The case was finally settled by the Supreme Court decades later on 26 December 1961, years after the appellant Ysabel Bibby viuda de Padilla and the appellee Concepcion Paterno viuda de Padilla [ + 1943 ] had both passed.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1961/dec1961/gr_l-8748_1961.html

DE LEON.

TAMBUNTING.

When the big brouhaha over the estate of Potenciano ILUSORIO erupted between his widow Erlinda Lopez-Tejico Kalaw and his children years ago, it made for interesting dinner conversations, but it was nothing new.  Intrafamily Wars of Inheritance have been happening in the Philippines for ages and they will continue to happen in the future.

I fearlessly predict that when the taipans and the tycoons will pass away, and they will despite their USD $$$ billions, there will be the expected power struggles between surviving family members — rules of succession, stipulations, and deathbed last wishes notwithstanding.  Those who are alive will always get their way over those who are dead.

It’s just the way it is:  Where there is Money, There will be Arguments.

That’s Life!!!

*Personally, I don’t care about the arguments as long as there’s plenty of money to go around.  

*unfinished*