ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46078   May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO<br /><br />068 Phil 213

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46078. May 25, 1939.]

    In the matter of the will of the deceases Mauro Salvacion. GREGORIA REYNOSO, administratrix-appellant, v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO, guardian ad litem of the minors Maurito and Remedios Aguila, JOAQUIN CAMPOSANO, guardian ad litem of the minor Corazon Camposano, VALERIO SALVACION, NUMERIANO SALVACION, AMADEO SALVAClON, and MARTINA ALLA, legatees-appellants.

    Feria & La O for administratrix and Appellant.

    Andres Laredo, Sumulong, Lavides & Sumulong, and Elias C. Desembrana for legatees and appellants.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PARTITION OF CONJUGAL PROPERTY; RIGHT OF EACH SPOUSE IN CONJUGAL PROPERTY. — The widow opposed the approval of the partition as to the coconut trees, alleging that it is unequal not only as to the number of trees but also as to the quality thereof. The court should have substantiated the opposition of the widow and should have given her an opportunity to adduce evidence in its support. However, the court, relying only upon the fact that the partition was made in accordance with the will of the deceased, approved it. The will, in so far as the testator alone made therein a partition of the conjugal properties by assigning to himself those which he liked and to the wife those which she did not like, is illegal. The conjugal property is one between husband and wife wherein each one, except as to the administration thereof, has equal rights. Each one has a right to one-half of these properties and each one occupies the same position as to its ownership. It . is an encroachment upon these rights of each of the spouses if one of them could designate which and how much of these properties should correspond to him. Any of the spouses is entitled to be heard in the partition of the conjugal properties in order to defend his or her equal share.

    2. ID.; ID.; USUFRUCT OF THE WIDOW UNDER ARTICLE 837 OF THE CIVIL CODE. — The usufruct which article 837 of the Civil Code gives to the widow is upon one-half of the properties of the deceased spouse and not upon the properties of the widow herself, such as the half of the conjugal properties corresponding to her.

    3. ID.; ID.; ALLOWANCE RECEIVED BY THE WIDOW. — The contention that the allowance received by the widow should be charged against her share in the conjugal properties in so far as it exceeds the fruits of the properties corresponding to her, is perfectly legal. But we are precluded from ruling upon this point, because there is neither showing nor allegation as to the amount of the fruit of the properties during the liquidation. Without this, we are not in a position to decide whether or not the widow received by way of allowance more than that corresponding to her from the fruits of the properties.


    D E C I S I O N


    AVANCEÑA, C.J. :


    Mauro Salvacion died on June 30, 1932 in the municipality of Lucena, Province of Tayabas, without leaving any descendant or ascendant. His widow, Gregoria Reynoso, who survived him, is now the administratrix appointed in this testate proceeding.

    The properties left by the deceased are conjugal in nature because they were acquired during his marriage with his widow. He left a will and a codicil upon his death, wherein he made a partition of the conjugal properties between him and his widow, and disposed by way of legacy of the half corresponding to him.

    The attorney of the administration of this testate thereafter prepared the partition of the properties left by the deceased between the widow and the legatees.

    The widow opposed the approval of this partition as to the coconut trees, alleging that it is unequal not only as to the number of trees but also as to the quality thereof. Over this opposition of the widow, the court, without affording her an opportunity to substantiate her opposition and present evidence in support thereof, approved the partition. To this resolution the widow excepted.

    The legatees, on the other hand, also opposed the approval of the partition in so far as it casts the burden of the widow’s usufruct upon one-half of what corresponds to each one. Moreover, these legatees contend that the allowance received by the widow during the liquidation of the conjugal properties should be charged against her in so far as it exceeds the products of the properties allotted to her. The court also overruled this opposition and approved the partition in this respect.

    In so far as it refers to the appeal of the widow, we are of the opinion that the resolution of the court, approving the partition, is erroneous. The court should have substantiated the opposition of the widow and should have given her an opportunity to adduce evidence in its support. However, the court, relying only upon the fact that the partition was made in accordance with the will of the deceased, approved it. The will, in so far as the testator alone made therein a partition of the conjugal properties by assigning to himself those which he liked and to the wife those which she did not like, is illegal. The conjugal property is one between husband and wife wherein each one, except as to the administration thereof, has equal rights. Each one has a right to one-half of these properties and each one occupies the same position as to its ownership. It is an encroachment upon these rights of each of the spouses if one of them could designate which and how much of these properties should correspond to him. Any of the spouses is entitled to be heard in the partition of the conjugal properties in order to defend his or her equal share.

    As to the appeal of the legatees, the theory upon which it is based is plainly erroneous. The usufruct which article 837 of the Civil Code gives to the widow is upon one-half of the properties of the deceased spouse and not upon the properties of the widow herself, such as the half of the conjugal properties corresponding to her.

    The contention that the allowance received by the widow should be charged against her share in the conjugal properties in so far as it exceeds the fruits of the properties corresponding to her, is perfectly legal. But we are precluded from ruling upon this point, because there is neither showing nor allegation as to the amount of the fruits of the properties during the liquidation. Without this, we are not in a position to decide whether or not the widow received by way of allowance more than that corresponding to her from the fruits of the properties.

    In view of the foregoing, the appealed judgment is modified in the sense that the court should permit the widow to substantiate her opposition and to present evidence in support thereof, and is affirmed in all other respects, with the costs to the defendants as appellants and legatees. So ordered.

    Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46078   May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO<br /><br />068 Phil 213


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED