Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1928 > December 1928 Decisions > G.R. No. 29158 December 29, 1928 - RAFAEL R. ALUNAN v. ELEUTERIA CH. VELOSO

052 Phil 545:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 29158. December 29, 1928.]

Estate of the deceased Rosendo Hernaez. RAFAEL R. ALUNAN, administrator-appellee, v. ELEUTERIA CH. VELOSO, opponent-appellant.

Hipolito Alo, for Appellant.

R. Nolan, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; WIDOW’S USUFRUCT. — The widow, according to the law, only has a right to a portion of the estate equal to that of the legitime of each of the children without betterment. As in the instant case none of the children received a betterment, the widow should receive a portion equal to the share of each in the two-thirds of the distributable amount making up the legitime, to be taken from the one-third forming the betterment. Then, the other free third, which the decedent failed to dispose of, must be partitioned among the heirs to the exclusion of the widow, as an addition to their legitime.

2. ID.; ID.; USUFRUCT OF FUNGIBLE THING. — There can be a usufruct of a sum of money (art. 482, Civil Code).


D E C I S I O N


AVANCEÑA, C.J. :


This case deals with an account filed in these intestate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Rosendo Hernaez by his judicial administrator, Rafael Alunan, and approved by the court below. Jose Hernaez, one of the heirs interested in this proceeding, assigned the whole of his portion to Eleuteria Ch. Veloso, and the latter objects to some of the items of the account filed, assigning four errors to the resolution of the court below.

In the first place, it is alleged that the lower court erred in imposing a preferred lien of P12,683.83 upon the Panaogao Hacienda, adjudicated to the appellant Eleuteria Ch. Veloso. Before the partition, Jose Hernaez leased said Panaogao Hacienda for two harvests the stipulated rent being 12 per cent of all the sugar to be produced, thereon, provided, however, that he should pay at least 12 per cent of 8,000, even if the production should fall below this amount. During the two years Jose Hernaez produced less than 8,000 piculs, and only 12 per cent of what he did produce was collected from him as rent, thus leaving him indebted in an amount equal to the difference between 12 per cent of the sugar he produced, and 12 per cent of 8,000 piculs which he had to pay at the least. The P12,683.83 to which the first error refers is the value of this difference and is therefore a legal debt of Jose Hernaez’s transmitted to the appellant, and affecting her participation in the intestate estate. According to an agreement previously entered into by and between the heirs, the share belonging or which may belong to each heir shall be liable and subject to a lien in favor of all the heirs for any account or debt pending which the heir may owe to the intestate estate.

This first error then is not well grounded.

As to the second error, which is made to consist in the lower court having held that the sum of P20,000 is another lien upon the said Panaogao Hacienda, in favor of the administrator Rafael Alunan, should the latter be ordered to pay that sum in civil case No. 6391 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Mr. Alunan is agreeable that this holding be eliminated from the judgment appealed from.

The third error refers to the sum of P24,991.42 as attorney’s fees and compensation of the administrators who took part in this proceeding. This amount, it is alleged, is excessive. It appears that a great part of these fees were paid to Jose Hernaez himself, the appellant’s predecessor in interest, and most of these fees, as well as of the attorney’s fees, have already been approved by the court below. At all events, since it has been found necessary to employ several lawyers and more than one administrator in this proceeding, and taking into account the unusual amount of the interests involved, we find no merit in the objection to this item of the account.

The fourth error is made to consist in the lower court having admitted the partition proposed by the administrator in his account. According to this account, the total amount to be partitioned among the heirs is P88,979.08, which the administrator distributed equally among all the heirs, including the widow, each one receiving P11,122.38.

This partition is objected to with respect to the widow. It is alleged that the distributable amount is in money, and since the widow’s right is only a usufruct, and as there can be no usufruct of money, since it is a fungible thing, the adjudication made to the widow was erroneous. It is incorrect to say that there can be no usufruct of money, because it is a fungible thing (art. 482, Civil Code).

It is likewise alleged, that, at any rate, this amount which should go to the widow should be offset by the P55,000 which she has already received as a pension. Neither do we find any ground for this error, since, according to the agreement of the heirs already referred to, the amount of the widow’s pension is not to be charged to her portion in the inheritance either wholly or in part.

Lastly, it is alleged, that the portion given to the widow is not in accordance with law. We find the objection with respect to this point to be correct. The widow, according to the law, only has a right to a portion of the estate equal to that of the legitime of each of the children without betterment. In the instant case none of the children received a betterment. Consequently, the widow should receive a portion equal to the share of each in the two-thirds of the distributable amount making up the legitime, to be taken from the one- third forming the betterment. Then, the other free third, which the decedent failed to dispose of, must be partitioned among the heirs to the exclusion of the widow, as an addition to their legitime. Working out the computations on this basis, the widow should receive only P8,474.19.

Therefore, it being understood that there be eliminated from the decision the holding that the Panaogao Hacienda, which was adjudged to the appellant, should answer for the amount of P20,000 as a lien in favor of Rafael Alunan should the latter be ordered to pay it in civil case No. 6391 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, and it being further understood that the widow’s portion is only P8,474.19, the remainder of the P88,979.08 which is distributable, pertaining to the heirs, share and share alike, excluding the widow, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, 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






December-1928 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 28734 December 4, 1928 - CRESCENCIANO INGSON v. JUAN OLAYBAR

    052 Phil 395

  • December 7, 1928 - IN RE: FELIPE DEL ROSARIO

    052 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. 29530 December 8, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAOTO

    052 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 30263 December 8, 1928 - ROMAN ACERDEN v. ANTIAGO TONOLETE

    052 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 30174 December 10, 1928 - MODESTO YUMUL v. GREGORIO PALMA

    052 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 29506 December 11, 1928 - CONCEPCION PELAEZ v. EULALIA BUTAO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 29040 December 14, 1928 - BONIFACIO JULIAN v. SILVERIO APOSTOL, ET AL.

    052 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 29755 December 14, 1928 - LEYTE ASPHALT & MINERAL OIL CO. v. BLOCK, JOHNSTON & GREENBAUM

    052 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 30173 December 14, 1928 - PEDRO SALDAÑA v. CRISPULO CONSUNJI, ET AL.

    052 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 29298 December 16, 1928 - REYNALDO LABAYEN v. TALISAY SILAY MILLING CO.

    052 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 29367 December 15, 1928 - ROBERTO SOLATORIO v. ARCADIO SOLATORIO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 30314 December 15, 1928 - PABLO C. DE LA ROSA v. HERMOGENES YONSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 29230 December 18, 1928 - MACONDRAY & CO. INC. v. GO BUN PIN

    052 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 28865 December 19, 1928 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. CAYETANO ORLANES

    052 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. 28753 December 20, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO FLORES, ET AL.

    052 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 30510 December 21, 1928 - ABENCIO TORRES v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ

    052 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 29036 December 22, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MANALO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 29345 December 22, 1928 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. B. A. GREEN

    052 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. 29395 December 22, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN SAMBILE, ET AL.

    052 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. 29460 December 22, 1928 - ALEJANDRO M. PANIS v. JACINTO YANGCO

    052 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 29556 December 22, 1928 - PETRONA GAMBOA, ET AL. v. MODESTA GAMBOA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 29789 December 22, 1928 - FRANCISCO BARRIOS v. EDUARDA ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    052 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 29955 December 22, 1928 - CITY OF MANILA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    052 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 30225 December 22, 1928 - AMOS G. BELLIS v. CARLOS A. IMPERIAL

    052 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 27235 December 29, 1928 - PRIMITIVO PAGUIO v. TOMASA MANLAPID

    052 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 28197 December 29, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN REYES

    052 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 28375 December 29, 1928 - BASILIO SANTOS CO v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    052 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 29158 December 29, 1928 - RAFAEL R. ALUNAN v. ELEUTERIA CH. VELOSO

    052 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 29161 December 29, 1928 - JAMES J. RAFFERTY v. PROVINCE OF CEBU

    052 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 29168 December 29, 1928 - ADOLFO AENLLE v. CLEMENTINA MARIA BERTRAND RHEIMS

    052 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 29204 December 29, 1928 - RUFINA ZAPANTA ET AL. v. JUAN POSADAS

    052 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 29217 December 29, 1928 - VALENTINA LANCI v. TEODORO R. YANGCO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 29236 December 29, 1928 - FELIPE ALKUINO LIM PANG v. UY PIAN NG SHUN, ET AL.

    052 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 29350 December 29, 1928 - UNIVERSAL PICTURE CORPORATION v. MIGUEL ROMUALDEZ, ET AL.

    052 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 29356 December 29, 1928 - CITY OF MANILA v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

    052 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 29449 December 29, 1928 - LEODEGARIO AZARRAGA v. MARIA GAY

    052 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 29588 December 29, 1928 - STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK v. CHO SIONG

    052 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 29757 December 29, 1928 - JOSE GEMORA, ET AL. v. F. M.YAP TICO & CO.

    052 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 29917 December 29, 1928 - JOSE M. KATIGBAK v. TAI HING CO.

    052 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 30004 December 29, 1928 - FILOMENA MARTINEZ v. PEDRO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    052 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 30241 December 29, 1928 - GREGORIO NUVAL v. NORBERTO GURAY, ET AL.

    052 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 29640 December 22, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CALABON

    053 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. 28185 December 29, 1928 - NICANOR JACINTO v. BERNARDO & CO. ET AL.

    053 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. 28904 December 29, 1928 - CIPRIANA GARCIA v. ISABELO SANTIAGO

    053 Phil 952

  • G.R. No. 29196 December 29, 1928 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. GABINO BARRETTO P. PO E. JAP ET AL.

    053 Phil 955

  • G.R. No. 29423 December 29, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO GOROSPE

    053 Phil 960

  • G.R. No. 29531 December 29, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO FRANCISCO ET AL.,

    053 Phil 965

  • G.R. No. 29593 December 29, 1928 - PAULINA GARCIA v. ROBERTO SAÑGIL

    053 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. 29605 December 29, 1928 - ANTONIO ESPIRITU v. MANILA ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.

    053 Phil 970

  • G.R. No. 29663 December 29, 1928 - MANUEL ALEJANDRINO v. ERIBERTO REYES

    053 Phil 973