Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1926 > March 1926 Decisions > G.R. No. 24367 March 11, 1926 - ROSA JALANDONI v. CONCEPCION CARBALLO

048 Phil 857:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 24367. March 11, 1926. ]

Intestate estate of the deceased Juan Carballo. ROSA JALANDONI, administratrix-appellant, v. CONCEPCION CARBALLO, Appellee.

Jose Lopez Vito and Francisco, Lualhati & Lopez for Appellant.

Hilado & Hilado and Angel S. Gamboa for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL PROCEDURE; FAILURE TO PRESENT MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW EVIDENCE. — Where the appellant has failed to present a motion for a new trial in the Court of First Instance upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision, the Supreme Court cannot review the evidence taken in the court below, and its jurisdiction is limited to a determination of the questions of law involved in the case.

2. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PROPERTY OF ESTATE; TITLE ADVERSE TO ESTATE. — An administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband is bound to account for all of the property of the deceased which comes into her hands as such administratrix, and cannot lawfully take title in her own name to such property adversely to the estate.

3. ID.; ID.; REGISTRATION IN NAME OF ADMINISTRATOR; ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PROCEEDS OF SALE OF PROPERTY. — If real property pertaining to the estate under administration is during the administration proceedings decreed and registered in the name of the administratrix and thereafter sold to an innocent purchaser, the proceeds of the sale must be accounted for by the administratrix and turned over to the estate.

4. ID.; ID.; WIDOW’S USUFRUCTUARY RIGHTS. — Upon the death of the husband the widow’s usufructuary interest in the land pertaining to the estate immediately attaches, and she may claim the same interest in the proceeds of the sale of the land in the course of the administration, unless such proceeds have been necessarily expended in payment of the debts of the estate or for legitimate expenses of administration.


D E C I S I O N


OSTRAND, J. :


This is an appeal from the following order of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros entered in the probate proceedings of the estate of one Juan Carballo:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The above entitled case was called for hearing, in order that the heirs of the deceased Juan Carballo may be proven to the court, and the account presented by the administratrix as well as the objections filed by one of the heirs may be settled. The administratrix was represented at the hearing of the case by her Attorney Antonio Jayme, Esq., and the other heir called Concepcion Carballo was represented by Attorney Emilio Y. Hilado, Esq.

"It has been duly proven and established at the hearing of this case that Juan Carballo died sometime ago, but before his death he married twice; that in the first marriage he left two children by the name of German and Concepcion Carballo; that in his second marriage he had seven children, but two of them died, and so at the time of the death of said Juan Carballo he only left five children whose names are Cesar Carballo, Juan Carballo, Ernesto Carballo, Maria Monserrat Carballo and Jose Carballo; that Maria Monserrat Carballo subsequently died without leaving any heir, and so the deceased Juan Carballo is only survived at present by his two children belonging to the first marriage and four children to the second marriage whose names are German Carballo, Concepcion Carballo, Cesar Carballo, Juan Carballo, Ernesto Carballo and Jose Carballo.

"It was duly proven and established here that hacienda Buen Retiro was acquired by Juan Carballo before his second marriage to Rosa Jalandoni, administratrix in this case, because the said hacienda was purchased by said Juan Carballo in the year 1884 and he was only married to the present administratrix Rosa Jalandoni in the year 1887, as is evidenced by Exhibits AA and BB. It has also been proven in this case that the said hacienda was registered as a conjugal property of Juan Carballo, deceased, and Rosa Jalandoni, and so said Rosa Jalandoni sold the said farm to Lopez Vito for the amount of P30,000; that the majority of the price of the said farm was already paid to said Rosa Jalandoni and expended by her, that she employed part of the price of the said farm in the payment of some debts, and one thousand pesos in the purchase of some shares in the Kabankalan Sugar Central. But the remaining unpaid price of said farm is still in the hands of Lopez Vito.

"The administratrix claims, however, that one-half of the price of the said farm which is P15,000 should not be accounted for by her because the said amount belongs to her share and she claims further that the sum of one thousand pesos which she purchased for the said shares in the Kabankalan Sugar Central was her own personal property and it did not belong to this estate. The court, after taking into consideration the evidence presented in this case, is of the opinion that the farm Buen Retiro was originally owned by the deceased Juan Carballo previous to the marriage of the present administratrix in this case to the said de- ceased, and, therefore, the administratrix is bound under the law to account for the said farm. It is true that that farm was already disposed of and it appears that the purchasers of the same did purchase it in good faith. In view thereof, the purchasers in good faith cannot be affected neither the farm which has been duly transferred under a good title may be affected. Under the circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the administratrix in this case is duty bound to include in her report the whole price of the said farm. Regarding the sum of one thousand pesos which the administratrix had informed the court verbally some time ago, that she purchased it with the money received by her as payment of the farm Buen Retiro, and that she now claims to have been purchased by her with her own personal fund, the court is of the opinion that the said administratrix should comply with the order of the court dated August 9, 1924.

"In view of all the foregoing, the court hereby declares German Carballo, Concepcion Carballo, Cesar Carballo, Juan Carballo, Ernesto Carballo and Jose Carballo as the heirs of the deceased in this case with the right to inherit the property or funds pertaining to this estate, and it is hereby ordered that the administratrix herein should file an amended account in accordance with the tenor of this order within the period of ten days from her receipt of notice of this order."cralaw virtua1aw library

It does not appear that the appellant has filed a motion in the Court of First Instance for a new trial upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision. Under section 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we can therefore not review the evidence taken in the court below and our jurisdiction is limited to a determination of the questions of law involved in the case.

Upon the facts found by the court below, the order appealed from is in the main correct. There is here no. question of disturbing the decree of registration, but it seems clear that the appellant as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband is bound to account for all the property which came into her hands as such administratrix; she cannot be permitted to enrich herself at the expense of the estate under her administration and in our opinion the principle laid down in the case of Severino v. Severino (44 Phil., 343),is fully applicable to the present case. If the appellant has expended for the benefit of the remaining portion of the estate any part of the money received by her from the sale of the hacienda Buen Retiro she is entitled to credit therefor.

It is also to be observed that inasmuch as upon the death of her husband, the widow’s usufructuary interest in the land immediately attached, she may claim the same interest in the proceeds of the sale of the land unless such proceeds have been necessarily expended in payment of the debts of the estate and legitimate expenses of administration. If only a part of the proceeds has been so expended, the usufructuary interest will, of course, subsist as to the remaining portion. The matter may be adjusted in accordance with articles 834 and 838 of the Civil Code.

The order appealed from is affirmed without costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, 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






March-1926 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 24850 March 1, 1926 - MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALEZ v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    048 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. 24568 March 2, 1926 - SISENANDO RIVERA v. MANUEL V. MORAN

    048 Phil 836

  • G.R. No. 25007 March 2, 1926 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. ABOITIZ & MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    048 Phil 841

  • G.R. No. 25039 March 2, 1926 - VICENTE TUAZON v. HERMOGENES REYES, ET AL.

    048 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. 24777 March 3, 1926 - BLOSSOM & COMPANY v. MANILA GAS CORPORATION

    048 Phil 848

  • G.R. No. 24584 March 8, 1926 - CASIMIRO JAPCO, ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. 24698 March 9, 1926 - MAXIMO LUNO, ET AL. v. POLICARPO MARQUEZ

    048 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. 24367 March 11, 1926 - ROSA JALANDONI v. CONCEPCION CARBALLO

    048 Phil 857

  • G.R. No. 24984 March 13, 1926 - E.S. LYONS v. C. W. ROSENSTOCK, ET AL.

    048 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. 24177 March 16, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CARBONEL, ET AL.

    048 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. 24187 March 15, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TAN BOMPING, ET AL.

    048 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. 23781 March 16, 1926 - FELIPE GUINTO, ET AL. v. FERNANDO LIM BONFING, ET AL.

    048 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. 24400 March 16, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRUNO SOMONTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. 24555 March 16, 1926 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    048 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. 24797 March 16, 1926 - DOMICIANO TIZON v. EMILIANO J. VALDEZ, ET AL.

    048 Phil 910

  • G.R. No. 24649 March 17, 1926 - CALIXTO SANTIAGO v. RECAREDO M.A CALVO

    048 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. 24937 March 20, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIA BINGAAN

    048 Phil 925

  • G.R. Nos. 23929 & 23930 March 3, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAKPIL, ET AL.

    052 Phil 985

  • G.R. No. 24475 March 6, 1926 - ALFONSO DE CASTELVI v. LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    049 Phil 998

  • G.R. No. 24678 March 6, 1926 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. M. CHONG TIAOPOC, ET AL.

    049 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. 23923 March 23, 1926 - ANTONIO MA. BARRETTO v. AUGUSTO H. TUASON

    050 Phil 888

  • G.R. No. 25425 March 20, 1926 - TRANQUILINO GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. HON. FERNANDO SALAS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 23893 March 23, 1926 - MANUEL RIOS, ET AL. v. JACINTO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 23148 March 25, 1926 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. SEYMOUR ADDISON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 24086 March 25, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. BENITA DOMINGO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 24589 March 25, 1926 - JOSE LEDESMA v. SALVADOR V. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 24636 March 25, 1926 - MIGUEL BALTAZAR, ET AL. v. BARTOLOME LIMPIN, ET AL.

    049 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 24904 March 25, 1926 - ROBINSON, ET AL. v. CRUZ, ET AL.

    049 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 24950 March 25, 1926 - VIUDA DE TAN TOCO v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ILOILO

    049 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 24988 March 25, 1926 - F. M. YAP TICO & CO., LTD. v. JOSE LOPEZ VITO

    049 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. 25071 March 25, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. UTO ALLI

    049 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 24978 March 27, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FERNANDO DE FERNANDO

    049 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 25044 March 27, 1926 - URQUIJO, ET AL. v. TIMOTEO UNSON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 24137 March 29, 1926 - EULOGIO BETITA v. SIMEON GANZON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 24810 March 29, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUAN LIMBO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 24935 March 29, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ENRIQUE RAMISCAL

    049 Phil 103

  • G.R. Nos. 24663 & 24809 March 30, 1926 - PHIL. MFG. CO., ET AL. v. CONSORCIA CABAÑGIS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 24534 March 31, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CHAN WAT

    049 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. 24658 March 31, 1926 - OHTA DEV’T. CO. v. STEAMSHIP POMPEY, ET AL.

    049 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 24908 March 31, 1926 - PHIL. MFG. CO. v. Hon. CARLOS A. IMPERIAL, ET AL.

    049 Phil 122