11/16/2016

G.R.No.L18032

TodayisWednesday,November16,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L18032November23,1922
ELISEOSANTOS,asadministratorofEstanislaoSantos,plaintiffappellant,
vs.
PABLOBARTOLOME,asadministratorofMarcelaTizon,defendantappellee.
RamonDiokno,M.BuysonLampa,andPedrodeLeonforappellant.
Francisco,LualhatiandDelRosarioforappellee.

STREET,J.:
Thequestionsinvolvedinthisappealariseinconnectionwiththeliquidationofthecommunityestatepertainingto
the spouses Estanislao Santos and Marcela Tizon, both of whom are now deceased, and whose respective
estatesarenowrepresentedbeforethecourtbyEliseoSantos,asadministratorofEstanislaoSantos,andPablo
Bartolome,asadministratorofMarcelaTizon.Brieflystated,thefactsgivingrisetothequestionherepresented
arethese:EstanislaoSantosandMarcelaTizonwereunitedinmarriagemanyyearsagoandlivedtogetheras
manandwifeintheProvinceofPampangauntilintheyear1914,whenEstanislaoSantosdied.Thewidow,Da.
MarcelaTizon,surviveduntilDecember,1917,whenshealsodied.Nochildrenappeartohavebeenborntothe
pair,andthepersonsnowinterestedintheirpropertiesarethecollateralheirsofthetwospouserespectively.
After the death of Estanislao Santos the community property pertaining to the two spouses came into the
possession and under the control of his administrator, Eliseo Santos, with corresponding duty to collect assets,
payoffthedebts,andliquidatetheestateaccordingtolaw.Inconnectionwiththedischargeoftheseduties,said
administratoralsocameintothepossessionofcertainpropertypertainingtothewidowinherownright,whichhe
managedtothesameextentasthecommunitypropertyitself.
InthecourseoftheproceedingsconductedasaforesaidforthesettlementoftheestateofEstanislaoSantos,the
Court of First Instance of Pampanga, by order of June 12, 1921, ordered Eliseo Santos, as administrator, to
submitaprojectforadivisionofthepropertypertainingtotheestateandpursuanttothisorderthesaidEliseo
Santos presented such a project, accompanied by a general inventory. In Base II of this project were included
seven items, lettered respectively (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), ( f ), and (g), representing certain sums which, it was
submitted, constituted valid charges against Marcela Tizon in the liquidation of the ganancial property. A more
detailedstatementconcerningtheseitemswillbenecessarylater.Sufficeitatthispointtosaythatoppositionto
theallowanceofthesechargesagainstMarcelaTizonwasmadebyPabloBartolome,asheradministrator.Atthe
sametimesaidadministratorsubmittedacounterprojectofpartitioninwhichtheseitemswereeliminated.
When the two opposing projects of division came under the consideration of the trial judge, his Honor admitted
thepropertyofitems(a)and(b)intheprojectofpartitionsubmittedbyEliseoSantos,andheaccordinglyallowed
those items as valid charges against Marcela Tizon, though it is erroneously supposed in the appellant's
assignmentoferrorsthathehaddisallowedthoseitems.Theotheritems,includedinBaseIIofthesameproject
andletteredrespectively(c),(d),(e),(f),and(g),weredisallowed.InthusrejectingtheprojectofEliseoSantos
andadoptingthecounterprojectofPabloBartolometotheextentstated,hisHonorproceededontheideathat,
even assuming the facts regarding these items to be as claimed, they did not constitute legal charges against
MarcelaTizonandheaccordinglydisallowedthesamewithoutgivingtotheadministratorofEstanislaoSantos
anopportunitytoprovesaidclaimsinfact.
Fromtheactionthustaken,EliseoSantos,asadministratorappealed,andinthisappealtheheirsofEstanislao
Santoshavejoined.Intheforminwhichthecaseisthusbroughtbeforeusitisapparentthat,ifweshouldarrive
attheconclusionthatanyoftheitems(c),(d),(e),(f),and(g)representclaimswhichasamatteroflawcould
constitutevalidchargesagainstMarcelaTizoninthesettlementoftheganancialestate,theorderappealedfrom
shouldbereversedastosuchitemoritemsandthecauseremandedinorderthatproofmaybesubmittedwith
respectthereto.
Four legal questions are thus presented which must be considered in turn. The first relates to item (c),
representing P1,292, said to have been paid by Estanislao Santos out of the community property to redeem
certain lands belonging to his wife (Marcela Tizon), situated in Bacolor, Pampanga, which lands had been sold,
priortothemarriage,underacontractofsalewithpactoderetro.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1922/nov1922/gr_l18032_1922.html

1/2

11/16/2016

G.R.No.L18032

Assumingthefactsastothisitemstobeasthussuggested,therecanbenodoubtthattheamountthuspaidout
toeffecttheredemptionofthepropertyshouldbedeductedfromthecommunityassetsinliquidation,therebyin
effect charging onehalf thereof against the portion pertaining to Marcela Tizon. It is undeniable that when the
property to which reference is here made was redeemed, it remained, as it had been before, the particular
propertyofMarcelaTizon,foriftherightofredemptionpertainedtoher,soalsomustthepropertybelongtoher
afterredemption.(Civ.Code,arts.1337213963.)Andofcoursewherecommunityassetshavebeenusedto
effect the redemption, the community estate becomes creditor to the extent of the amount thus expended. It
follows that, in the liquidation of the community property, account should be taken of this obligation (arts. 1404,
1419,Civ.Code).
As already stated, the item (c), now under consideration, is identical in character with items (a) and (b), which
were allowed without question by the trial judge and the only reason suggested for making any distinction
betweenthisandtheitems(a)and(b)isthatthelatterhadbeenrecognizedbyJudgeMoiroftheCourtofFirst
Instance of Pampanga in a prior litigation between the guardian of Marcela Tizon, then still living, and the
administratorofEstanislaoSantos.Intothedetailsofthatproceedingitisunnecessaryheretoenter.Itisenough
tosaythatthevalidityoftheclaimconstitutingitem(c)intheprojectofdivisionnowunderconsiderationwasinno
wise brought in question in that litigation and the fact that it was not recognized in Judge Moir's decision is
immaterial. It results that his Honor the trial judge, erred in the court below in holding that item (c) could not
constitute a legal charge against the interest of Marcela Tizon in the proceedings for the liquidation of the
ganancialestateofthespousesEstanislaoSantosandMarcelaTizon.
la w p h !l.n e t

The second point to be considered relates to item (d) representing the sum of P3,000, said to have been
expended out of the community assets for the construction of an irrigation system upon the lands of Marcela
Tizon,resultinginanappreciationoftheirvaluetotheextentof300percentum.Inrespecttothisitemalso,itis
evident that the trial judge fell into error in holding the claim to be inadmissible against the estate of Marcela
Tizon.Anirrigationsystembeneficialtorealpropertyisausefulexpenditurewiththecontemplationofarticle1404
of the Civil Code and, if financed from the community assets, is chargeable against the party benefit when the
timecomesfortheliquidationoftheconjugalpartnership.
The third point to be considered relates to item (e), representing the sum of P7,140.97, expended by Eliseo
Santos, as administrator of Estanislao Santos, for the support and maintenance of Marcela Tizon during the
period that elapsed between the death of Estanislao Santos and that of Marcela Tizon herself. It is undeniable
that the expense of the maintenance and support of Marcela Tizon, during widowhood, and while the conjugal
partnershiphadnotasyetbeenliquidated,wasproperlybornebytheadministratorofthedeceasedhusband,but
this expenditure was in the nature of a mere advancement and under article 1430 of the Civil Code is to be
deductedfromthesharepertainingtotheheirsofMarcelaTizoninsofarasitexceedswhattheymayhavebeen
entitled to as fruits or income. It results that there was error in the disallowance of this item. We should add,
however, that when this claims is again brought under the consideration of the trial judge, the administrator of
Estanislao Santos should be required to show the source, or sources, from which the funds used for the
maintenanceandsupportofMarcelaTizonwerederivedandifitshouldappearthatanypartthereofwasderived
from the net income of the proper property of Marcela Tizon, such amount should not be charged against her
heirs,inconformitywiththepreceptofthearticleabovecited.
Thelastpointtobeconsideredrelatestoitems(f),and(g),representingexpendituresofthesumsofP1,034.95
andP209.85,respectively.Thefirstoftheserepresentsthecostsofpurchase,transportation,anderectionofa
grave stone of Italian marble, placed to the memory of Marcela Tizon. The second represents the cost of a
memorial crown on a porcelain frame, wit gold lettering, dedicated to the memory of Marcela Tizon. As we
understandtherecord,theseexpenditureswereincurredjustafterthedeathofMarcelaTizonandattherequest
ofherownadministrator,PabloBartolome,therebeingaverbalagreementbetweenthetwoadministratortothe
effect that Eliseo Santos should advance the necessary sums for these expenditures, the same to be
subsequently reimbursed by Pablo Bartolome, as administrator of Marcela Tizon. There can be no doubt
whateverastothepropertyofallowingtheseitemsagainsttheestateofMarcelaTizonintheliquidationofthe
partnershippropertyandhisHonor,thetrialjudge,wasmistakeninrejectingthesame.
Fromanobservationcontainedintheappealeddecisionweinferthattheactionofthetrialjudgeinrejectingthe
various claims to which reference has been made was based in part on the idea that said claims should have
been submitted to the committed appointed to appraise the property and allow claims against the estate of
MarcelaTizoninadministration,inconformitywiththerequirementsofsection695,andrelatedprovisionsofthe
CodeofCivilProcedure.Thissuggestionisinouropinionuntenableasregardsallofsaiditems.Items(f)and
(g)werenotpropertobesubmittedtothecommitteebecausetheyrelatetoexpendituresmadeafterthedeathof
Marcela Tizon and as regard the other items the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure requiring the
presentation of claims to the committee are not pertinent to proceedings for the liquidation of the conjugal
partnership.
From what has been said it results that the judgment appealed from must be reversed, and the clause will be
remandedforfurtherproceedingsinconformitywiththisopinion.Itissoordered,withoutexpresspronouncement
astocosts.
Araullo,C.J.,Malcolm,Avancea,Villamor,Ostrand,Johns,andRomualdez,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1922/nov1922/gr_l18032_1922.html

2/2