When the heirs were resident in Spain, or in some colony other than the Philippines, the estates of deceased persons were sold and the money was set aside to be remitted to Spain. The collective sum of these properties, sold and unsold, was designated as the bienes de difuntos. [329] At stated periods the juez de difuntos was required to turn over the funds that he had collected, or received in the execution of his duties, to the oficiales reales, first deducting three per cent of their gross amount for his services. [330] His accounts, which were sent to the Council of the Indies, were also audited by these officials, and the audiencia likewise held him accountable for any abuses or errors other than financial. He was also held responsible in his residencia. The fiscal was his prosecutor in case of suit. The juez de difuntos, on his part, was authorized to require reports from the agents and administrators who served him in the provinces, and all necessary safeguards were taken for his protection. [331] Theoretically, the juez de difuntos, acting through the oficiales reales, sent such money as he had collected to the Casa de Contratación of Seville, or, after June 18, 1790, the date of the extinction of that body, to the juez de arribadas in Cádiz. [332] Thence it was distributed among the heirs in various parts of Spain, or, in case no heirs were found, it was to remain in a fund by itself, until otherwise appropriated or disposed of by the crown. The money was sent at the risk of the heirs, eighteen per cent of the gross amount being deducted to pay the costs of transfer. [333] In actual practice, however, the funds derived from the Philippines were retained at Manila, itemized accounts of them being forwarded to Acapulco, the proper amount being deducted there from the annual subsidy. [334] This rendered unnecessary the actual transfer of money. The juez de difuntos in Mexico received the funds from the Philippines, together with reports and accounts relating thereto, and remitted them to Spain. There occurred many instances in which this magistrate in Mexico found mistakes in the reports rendered by his subordinate in Manila. A great deal of criticism was made from time to time, of alleged irregularities in the administration of these funds in the Philippines; in fact, successive royal cédulas repeatedly charged the Philippine officials with maladministration. [335] The general superintendent of finance, Aparici, in a report to the Council, stated on July 19, 1797, that these funds had never been properly accounted for, and that glaring defects--even dishonesty, had always existed. [336] These faults, he alleged, were owing to the fact that the funds were not directly administered, but were paid into the treasury of Mexico, and that because of this roundabout method direct control could not be exercised. Although this high official pointed out these defects and made recommendations for the betterment of the