Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > December 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2803 December 7, 1906 - DAMASA ALCALA v. FRANCISCO SALGADO

007 Phil 151:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2803. December 7, 1906. ]

DAMASA ALCALA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCO SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant.

Leocadio Joaquin, for Appellant.

Palma, Gerona & Mercado, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


PARTITION; RENTS; LEGAL PORTION. — All of the persons interested in the estate of the deceased, except two, signed a document of partition. By this document the defendant, one of the heirs, agreed to collect the rents of a house belonging to the estate and pay one-half thereof to the plaintiff, the widow. At the time he took charge of the property under the agreement he knew that all of the heirs had not signed it. He collected the rents for a number of years but refused to pay any part thereof to the plaintiff. Held, That she could maintain an action against him for her share, and the fact that some of the heirs had not signed the agreement was no defense to such an action.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


Juan Banatin died on the 23d of April, 1897, leaving surviving him his widow the plaintiff, to whom he had been married fourteen years, and as his only heirs at law seventeen nephews and nieces. On the 13th of June, 1897, the widow and the nephew and nieces made a partition among themselves of all the property left by the deceased. This partition appears by a written instrument signed by the parties thereto. By the terms of that instrument it was agreed that the house which is in question in this suit, situated in Calamba in the Province of La Laguna, should remain undivided and that the defendant, Francisco Salgado who was one of the nephews, should administer the property, collecting the rents thereof, and should divide the same, paying one half to the widow and the other half to the nephews and nieces. In the document itself it is stated that the defendant accepted the administration of the house and hereby assumed charged thereof. He has since that time collected the rents but, instead of paying one-half of the same to the plaintiff, has paid all thereof to the nephews and nieces. This action is brought by the plaintiff to recover one-half of the rents from the date of the agreement to the present time.

The principal defense set up is that the contract of partition was void because it was not signed by all the parties interested in the estate, and evidence was introduced to show that one of the persons whose name appears to have been signed thereto, Juan Banaybanay, was a prisoner in Manila at the time it was executed. It was proved that another one of the nephews, Tranquilino Banatin, refused to sign the agreement. To the document of partition is annexed a paper stating this fact and stating that the other heirs had agreed that the part which belonged to Tranquilino should be delivered to another one of the heirs, Procopio Pabalan, for Tranquilino. Not only was the original document of partition signed by the defendant, but this second document was also signed by him.

In view of these facts we do not think that the failure of Tranquilino Banatin to sign the agreement of partition, or the fact that Juan Banaybanay did not do so, can relieve the defendant of the obligation which he voluntarily assumed thereunder. There is no doubt that he took possession of the property by virtue of this agreement of partition and he did so knowing that one, at least, of the parties had not signed the same. Having voluntarily assumed the obligation to collect the rents and pay one-half thereof to the widow, he can not say that he is not bound by that obligation. He would have no right to retain the rents in his own grounds and refuse to pay them to anyone on the ground that two parties had not signed the partition. He was under no obligation to assume this duty. When he knew that one of the heirs was not a party to the partition, he should have refused to assume charge of the property if he did not wish to bound by the agreements therein stated. But having assumed charges, he is bound to comply with the duty imposed upon him by the contract.

It is to be observed, moreover, that in the absence of any partition whatever, he would be legally bound to pay the plaintiff one-half of the rents received from this property. Article 837 of the Civil Code is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If the testator should leave neither legitimate ascendants nor descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-half of the estate also in usufruct."cralaw virtua1aw library

The case at bar falls directly within the provisions of this article.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant.

After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the court below for proper action. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., did not sit in this case.




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-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2242 December 1, 1906 - HOUSTON B. PAROT v. CARLOS GEMORA

    007 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-2530 December 3, 1906 - ORDER OF DOMINICANS v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    007 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-2718 December 4, 1906 - JOSE EMETERIO GUEVARA v. HIPOLITO DE OCAMPO

    007 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 2800 December 4, 1906 - FRANK S. BOURNS v. D.M. CARMAN ET AL.

    007 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-2923 December 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO PALMADRES

    007 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-3009 December 4, 1906 - FELICIDAD BUSTAMANTE v. CRISTOBAL BUSTAMANTE

    007 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3534 December 4, 1906 - TO GUIOC-CO v. LORENZO DEL ROSARIO

    007 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2671 December 5, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO POBLETE

    007 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. L-2704 December 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FEDERICO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-1952 December 6, 1906 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    007 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906 - MATEO CARIÑO v. TINSULAR GOVERNMENT

    007 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-2921 December 6, 1906 - LUCAS GONZALEZ v. ROSENDO DEL ROSARIO

    007 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-3022 December 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SEBASTIAN LOZANO

    007 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3429 December 6, 1906 - CASTLE BROS. v. GO-JUNO

    007 Phil 144

  • G.R. Nos. L-2472 & 2473 December 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CORTES

    007 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2803 December 7, 1906 - DAMASA ALCALA v. FRANCISCO SALGADO

    007 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-2890 December 7, 1906 - VALENTINA PALMA v. JORGE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    007 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. L-2929 December 7, 1906 - FAUSTA BATARRA v. FRANCISCO MARCOS

    007 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. L-3006 December 7, 1906 - JOSE GONZALEZ v. AGUSTIN BAÑES

    007 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. L-3062 December 7, 1906 - MARIA MAGALLANES v. TEODORA CAÑETA

    007 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-3078 December 7, 1906 - FERNANDO PEREZ v. JUAN GARCIA BOSQUE

    007 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3495 December 7, 1906 - JAMES J. RAFFERTY v. JUDGE OF THE CFI FOR THE PROV. OF CEBU, ET AL.

    007 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2777 December 10, 1906 - MARIA CASAL v. EMILIO MORETA

    007 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-2532 December 11, 1906 - IN RE MACARIO ADRIOATICO

    007 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-2787 December 11, 1906 - CELSO DAYRIT v. GIL GONZALEZ

    007 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-3010 December 11, 1906 - JULIAN TUBUCON v. PETRONA DALISAY

    007 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-3050 December 11, 1906 - LUIS SANTOS v. SILVESTRE DILAG

    007 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-3117 December 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO ADRIATICO

    007 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-2766 December 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PAULO CABAMNGAN

    007 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-3094 December 12, 1906 - FRED SPARREVOHN v. EMIL M. BACHRACH

    007 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. L-2828 December 14, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SOLIS

    007 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-3204 December 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FLAVIANO SALANATIN

    007 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2855 December 19, 1906 - FLEMING, ET AL. v. LORCHA "NUESTRA SRA. DEL CARMEN

    007 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-2757 December 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN LIM ALAN

    007 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-2908 December 20, 1906 - ANTONIO TORRES Y ROXAS, ET AL. v. RAMON B. GENATO (Intervenor)

    007 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. L-3119 December 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO CAGAOAAN

    007 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-3093 December 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO MANABAT

    007 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2541 December 26, 1906 - IGNACIO ICAZA v. RICARDO FLORES

    007 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. L-1999 December 27, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MANUEL

    007 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. L-2765 December 27, 1906 - JOSE DOLIENDO v. DOMINGO BIARNESA

    007 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-3249 December 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FLOR MATA

    007 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. L-2395 December 29, 1906 - DOROTEO CORTES v. DY-JIA AND DY-CHUANDING

    007 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-2825 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PAUL A. WEEMS

    007 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-2916 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE OROSA

    007 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-2966 December 29, 1906 - NICOLAS CONCEPCION TAN TACO v. VICENTE GAY

    007 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-3120 December 29, 1906 - BRYAN v. AMERICAN BANK

    007 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-3466 December 29, 1906 - MEYER HERMAN v. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    007 Phil 259