Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1903 > February 1903 Decisions > G.R. No. 847 February 12, 1903 - EULALIO HERNAEZ v. ROSENDO HERNAEZ

001 Phil 718:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 847. February 12, 1903. ]

EULALIO HERNAEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROSENDO HERNAEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

Ramon N . Orozco, for Appellant.

Ramon Avanceña, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. DESCENT; COLLATION. — An heir can not be required to bring into collation property claimed as his own unless the evidence shows clearly that he acquired the same gratuitously from the deceased.


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


This action was brought in connection with the proceedings on the administration of the interstate estate of Pedro Hernaez, father of the plaintiff and of the defendant. The purpose of the action is to obtain the inclusion in the estate by collation of the values of the Naga and Panaogao properties, owned by the defendant, that the same may be included in the inventory of the mass of the intestate succession. The facts set up in the complaint are the following: (1) That as Rosendo Hernaez was a poor man after his return from his student life in Manila, he was supported by his father. (2) That shortly afterwards he purchased the Naga estate, he at that time not being engaged in any profitable trade or industry. (3) That he was the administrator of the property of his parents. (4) That the money with which he purchased the Naga estate belonged to his father. (5) That the Panaogao estate was purchased by Rosendo after the death of his father.

The legal principle upon which the plaintiff relies is that established by article 1035 of the Civil Code, in accordance with which a forced heir in certain cases is required to bring into the mass of the succession properties or moneys which he may have received gratuitously from the decedent during the lifetime of the latter. Therefore it is evident that of the facts set up in the complaint the only one relevant to the issue is the fourth, concerning the acquisition of the Naga estate. With respect to the fifth, as to the Panaogao estate, apart from the fact of its irrelevancy, it is not apparent what connection the simple statement that a forced heir acquired the said estate after the death of the causante can possibly have with the question of collation.

But, whatever might be said about the facts alleged, none of them have been proven. In the replication an allegation was added to the effect that Rosendo Hernaez was never in partnership with Julian Hernaez, his brother, this fact having been set up in the answer of the defendant.

Two witnesses, Miguel Solis and Severino Duran, testified that they had never seen any articles of copartnership recorded in a public or private instrument. Rosendo, however, in answering interrogatories, testified that he had been an industrial partner and that no written articles had been executed. Of the nine witnesses presented by the defendant, Domingo and Magdalena Hernaez and Peregrina Jarapa, the latter a nephew and the former brothers of both the contending parties, denied that Rosendo purchased the Naga estate with money belonging to his father, but testified that it was purchased with money acquired by his own labors.

The Naga and Panaogao estates were acquired by the defendant, the first from his brother Julian on the 25th of November, 1881, and the second from Pedro Garganera on the 2d of November, 1898. There is not the slightest indication that the money with which these estates were purchased was or could be other than that of the purchaser himself. (Public instruments on pp. 350 and 401 of the record.)

It not having been proven that the property which it is sought to require one of the forced heirs, the defendant herein, to bring into collation was acquired gratuitously from the intestate, the action can not be maintained.

We therefore dismiss the complaint, with the costs of both instances to the plaintiff. So ordered.

Torres, Cooper, Willard, Mapa and Ladd, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1903 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 413 February 2, 1903 - JOSE FERNANDEZ v. FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA

    001 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 971 February 3, 1903 - UNITED STATES ET AL. v. PONCIANO VILORIA

    001 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 858 February 5, 1903 - FRANCISCO MARTINEZ v. PEDRO MARTINEZ

    001 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 949 February 6, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO DE SOSA

    001 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 857 February 10, 1903 - EULALIO HERNAEZ v. ROSENDO HERNAEZ

    001 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. 873 February 10, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. SECUNDINO MENDEZONA

    001 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. 910 February 10, 1903 - PRAUTCH v. DOLORES HERNANDEZ DE GOYENECHEA

    001 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 999 February 10, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS SANTIAGO ET AL.

    001 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. 847 February 12, 1903 - EULALIO HERNAEZ v. ROSENDO HERNAEZ

    001 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. 905 February 12, 1903 - ISABEL VELASCO v. FRANCISCO LOPEZ

    001 Phil 720

  • G.R. No. 979 February 12, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO SANTA CRUZ

    001 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. 571 February 14, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. THOMAS E. KEPNER

    001 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 900 February 14, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO LARDIZABAL

    001 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. 506 February 16, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SANTA CRUZ DE MALABON

    001 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. 1018 February 17, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO CRUZ

    001 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. 1043 February 17, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN ATIENZA

    001 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. 1012 February 19, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. ISABELO DINSING ET AL.

    001 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 1032 February 19, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN ABLAZA

    001 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 980 February 20, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO BARBOSA

    001 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. 1195 February 20, 1903 - TRANQUILINA ALMADIN v. CELESTINO ALMADIN

    001 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. 1001 February 21, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. GERONIMO TORRENTE

  • G.R. No. 1070 February 28, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO JUDIT

    002 Phil 5