[No. 9374. February 16, 1915.] 7.LIFE INSURANCE; PROCEEDS; HEIR AS BENEFICIARY.

—Where a life-insurance
FRANCISCO DEL VAL ET AL., plaintiffs and appellants, vs. ANDRES DEL, VAL, policy is made payable to one of the heirs of the person whose life is insured, the
defendant and appellee. proceeds of the policy on the death of the insured belong exclusively to the
beneficiary and not to the estate of the person whose life was insured; and such
proceeds are his individual property and not the property of the heirs of the
1.PLEADING; DEFECTS IN COMPLAINT; CURE.—Even though a complaint is
person whose life was insured.
defective to the extent of failing to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action, if, on the trial of the cause, evidence is offered which establishes the cause
of action which it was intended the complaint should allege, and such evidence is 8.ID.; ID.; ID.; ARTICLE 1035, CIVIL CODE.—Article 1035 of the Civil Code,
received without objection, the defect is thereby cured and cannot be made the providing that "an heir by force of law surviving with others of the same
ground of a subsequent objection. character to a succession must bring into the hereditary estate the property or
securities he may have received from the deceased during the life of the same, by
way of dowry, gift, or for any good consideration, in order to compute it in fixing
2.ID.; ID.; ID.—An objection, made after trial, that the complaint in an action in
partition was defective in that it failed to describe the lands sought to be the legal portions and in the account of the division," is not applicable to the
partitioned, is unavailing, where it appears that evidence was introduced on the proceeds of an insurance policy made payable to one of the heirs of the insured
trial, without objection, clearly describing the real estate sought to be partitioned. by name, nor can the proceeds of such a policy be considered a gift under article
819 of the Civil Code.
3.PARTITION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY; JURISDICTION OF COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE.—The Courts of First Instance of the Philippine Islands have 9.ID.; ID.; ID.; CODE OF COMMERCE.—The contract of life insurance is ?. special
contract and the destination of the proceeds thereof is determined by special laws
jurisdiction to divide personal property between the common owners thereof. If
actual partition thereof cannot be made, it may be sold under the direction of the which deal exclusively with that subject. The Civil Code has no provisions which
court and the proceeds divided among the owners after the necessary expenses relate directly and specifically to life-insurance contracts or to the destination of
life-insurance proceeds. That subject is regulated exclusively by the Code of
have been deducted.
Commerce, which provides for the terms of the contract, the relations of the
parties and the destination of the proceeds of the policy.
4.PARTITION OF REAL PROPERTY; JURISDICTION OF COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE.—The court has no authority to partition real property among the
common owners thereof without a proceeding in proper form begun by one or APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Lobingier, J.
more of such owners. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Ledesma, Lim & Irureta Goyena for appellants.
O'Brien & DeWitt for appellee.
5.PARTITION; ORDER DISCHARGING ADMINISTRATOR NO BAR TO SUBSEQUENT
ACTION.—The heirs of real and personal property have the right to ask the MORELAND, J.:
probate court to turn such property over to them without division; and where
such request is unanimous, it is the duty of the court to comply with it and there
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of
is nothing in section 753 of the Code of Civil Procedure which prohibits it. In case
Manila dismissing the complaint with costs.
the property is turned over to the heirs by the probate court in bulk and without
division, an order finally settling the estate and discharging the administrator is
The pleadings set forth that the plaintiffs and defendant are brothers and
not a bar to a subsequent action for a division of either the real or personal
sisters; that they are the only heirs at law and next of kin of Gregorio Nacianceno
property among the heirs as owners thereof.
del Val, who died in Manila on August 4, 1910, intestate; that an administrator
was appointed for the estate of the deceased, and, after a partial administration, it
6.JUDGMENT; PLEA OF "RES JUDICATA."—The defense of res judicata, to be was closed and the administrator discharged by order of the Court of First
available, must be pleaded" or the facts demonstrating its existence must be Instance dated December 9, 1911; that during the lifetime of the deceased he took
proved on the trial without objection. out insurance on his life for the sum of P40,000 and made it payable to the
defendant as sole beneficiary; that after his death the defendant collected the face
1
of the policy; that of said policy he paid the sum of P18,36.5.20 to redeem certain submitted) it is more than doubtful whether any relief can be awarded under the
real estate which the decedent had sold to third persons with a right to complaint, except by agreement of all the parties."
repurchase; that the redemption of said premises was made by the attorney of
the defendant in the name of the plaintiffs and the defendant as heirs of the This alleged defect of the complaint was made one of the two bases for the
deceased vendor; that the redemption in the name of the plaintiffs was, so dismissal of the action.
defendant declares, without his knowledge or consent; that since the redemption
of said premises they have been in the possession of the plaintiffs, who have had We do not regard this as sufficient reason for dismissing the action. It is the
the use and benefit thereof; that during that time the plaintiffs paid no taxes and doctrine of this court, set. down in several decisions, Lizarraga Hermanos vs. Yap
made no repairs. Tico, 24 Phil. Rep., 504, that, even though the complaint is defective to the extent
of failing in allegations necessary to constitute a cause of action, if, on the trial of
It further appears from the pleadings that the defendant, on the death of the the cause, evidence is offered which establishes the cause of action which the
deceased, took possession of most of his personal property, which he still has in complaint intended to allege, and such evidence is received without objection, the
his possession, and that he has also the balance on said insurance policy defect is thereby cured and cannot be made the ground of a subsequent objection.
amounting to P21,634.80. If, therefore, evidence was introduced on the trial in this case definitely and
clearly describing the real estate sought to be partitioned, the defect in the
Plaintiffs contend that the amount of the insurance policy belonged to the complaint was cured in that regard and should not have been used to dismiss the
estate of the deceased and not to the defendant personally; that, therefore, they action. We do not stop to inquire whether such evidence was or was not
are entitled to a partition not only of the real and personal property, but also of introduced on the trial, inasmuch as this case must be returned for a new trial
the P40,000 life insurance. The complaint prays a partition of all the property, with opportunity to both parties to present such evidence as is necessary to
both real and personal, left by the deceased; that the defendant account for establish their respective claims.
P21,634.80, and that that sum be divided equally among the plaintiffs and
defendant along with the other property of deceased, The court in its decision further says: "It will be noticed that the provision
above quoted refers exclusively to real estate. * * * It is, in other words, an
The defendant denies the material allegations of the complaint and sets up as exclusive real property action, and the institution thereof gives the court no
special defense and counterclaim that the redemption of the real estate sold by jurisdiction over chattels. * * * But no relief could possibly be granted in this
his father was made in the name of the plaintiffs and himself instead of in his action as to any property except the last (real estate), for the law contemplated
name alone without his knowledge or consent; and that it was not his intention to that all the personal property of an estate be distributed before the
use the proceeds of the insurance policy for the benefit of any person but himself, administration is closed. Indeed, it is only in exceptional cases that the partition
he alleging that he was and is the sole owner thereof and that it is his individual of the real estate is provided for, and this too is evidently intended to be effected
property. He, therefore, asks that he be declared the owner of the real estate as a part of the administration, but here the complaint alleges that the estate was
redeemed by the payment of the P18,365.20, the owner .of the remaining finally closed on December 9, 1911, and we find upon referring to the record in
P21,634.80, the balance of the insurance policy, and that the plaintiffs account for that case that subsequent motions to reopen the same were denied; so that the
the use and occupation of the premises so redeemed since the date of the matter of the distribution of the personal property at least must be considered res
redemption. judicata (for the final judgment in the administration proceedings must be
treated as concluding not merely what was adjudicated, but what might have
The learned trial court refused to give relief to either party and dismissed the been). So far, therefore, as the personal property at least is concerned, plaintiffs'
action. only remedy was an appeal from said order."

It says in its opinion: "This purports to be an action for partition, brought We do not believe that the law is correctly laid down in this quotation. The
against an heir by his coheirs. The complaint, however, fails to comply with Code courts of the Islands have jurisdiction to divide personal property between the
Civ. Pro. sec. 183, in that it does not 'contain an adequate description of the real common owners thereof and that power is as full and complete as is the power to
property of which partition is demanded/ Because of this defect (which has not partition real property. If an actual partition of personal property cannot be made
been called to our attention and was discovered only after the cause was

2
it will be sold under the direction of the court and the proceeds divided among We believe that the same doctrine obtains in these Islands by virtue of section
the owners after the necessary expenses have been deducted. 428 of the Code of Commerce, which reads:

The administration of the estate of the decedent consisted simply, so far as the "The amounts which the underwriter must deliver to the person insured, in
record shows, in the payment of the debts. No division of the property, either real fulfillment of the contract, shall be the property of the latter, even against the
or personal, seems to have been made. On the contrary, the property appears, claims of the legitimate heirs or creditors of any kind whatsoever of the person
from the record, to have been turned over to the heirs in bulk. The failure to who effected the insurance in favor of the former."
partition the real property may have been due either to the lack of request to the
court by one or more of the heirs to do so, as the court has no authority to make a It is claimed by the attorney for the plaintiffs that the section just quoted is
partition of the real estate without such request; or it may have been due to the subordinated to the provisions of the Civil Code as found in article 1035. This
fact that all the real property of decedent had been sold under pacto de retro and article reads:
that, therefore, he was not the owner of any real estate at the time of his death. As
to the personal property, it does not appear that it was disposed of in the manner "An heir by force of law surviving with others of the same character to a
provided by law. (Sec. 753, Code of Civil Procedure.) So far as this action is succession must bring into the hereditary estate the property or securities he
concerned, however, it is sufficient for us to know that none of the property was may have received from the deceased during the life of the same, by way of
actually divided among the heirs in the administration proceedings and that they dowry, gift, or for any good consideration, in order to compute it in fixing the
remain coöwners and tenants-incommon thereof at the present time. To maintain legal portions and in the account of the division."
an action to partition real or personal property it is necessary to show only that it
is owned in common. Counsel also claims that the proceeds of the insurance policy were a donation or
gift made by the father during his lifetime to the defendant and that, as such, its
The order finally closing the administration and discharging the ultimate destination is determined by those provisions of the Civil Code which
administrator, referred to in the opinion of the trial court, has nothing to do with relate to donations, especially article 819. This article provides that "gifts made to
the division of either the real or the personal property. The heirs have the right to children which are not betterments shall be considered as part of their legal
ask the probate court to turn over to them both the real and personal property portion."
without division; and where that request is unanimous it is the duty of the court
to comply with it, and there is nothing in section 753 of the Code of Civil We cannot agree with these contentions. The contract of life insurance is a
Procedure which prohibits it. In such case an order finally settling the estate and special contract and the destination of the proceeds thereof is determined by
discharging the administrator would not bar a subsequent action to require a special laws which deal exclusively with that subject. The Civil Code has no
division of either the real or personal property. If, on the other hand, an order had provisions which relate directly and specifically to life-insurance contracts or to
been made in the administration proceedings dividing the personal or the real the destination of life insurance proceeds. That subject is regulated exclusively by
property, or both, among the heirs, then it is quite possible that, to a subsequent the Code of Commerce which provides for the terms of the contract, the relations
action brought by one of the heirs for a partition of the real or personal property, of the parties and the destination of the proceeds of the policy.
or both, there could have been interposed a plea of res judicata based on such
order. As the matter now stands, however, there is no ground on which to base The proceeds of the life-insurance policy being the exclusive property of the
such a plea. Moreover, no such plea has been made and no evidence offered to defendant and he having used a portion thereof in the repurchase of the real
support it. estate sold by the decedent prior to his death with right to repurchase, and such
repurchase having been made and the conveyance taken in the names of all of the
With the finding of the trial court that the proceeds of the life-insurance policy heirs instead of the defendant alone, plaintiffs claim that the property belongs to
belong exclusively to the defendant as his individual and separate property, we the heirs in common and not to the defendant alone.
agree. That the proceeds of an insurance policy belong exclusively to the
beneficiary and not to the estate of the person whose life was insured, and that We are not inclined to agree with this contention unless the fact appear or be
such proceeds are the separate and individual property of the beneficiary, and shown that the defendant acted as he did with the intention that the other heirs
not of the heirs of the person whose life was insured, is the doctrine in America. should enjoy with him the ownership of the estate—in other words, that he
proposed, in effect, to make a gift of the real estate to the other heirs. If it is
3
established by the evidence that that was his intention and that the real estate
was delivered to the plaintiffs with that understanding, then it is probable that
their contention is correct and that they are entitled to share equally with the
defendant therein. If, however, it appears from the evidence in the case that the
conveyances were taken in the name of the plaintiffs without his knowledge or
consent, or that it was not his intention to make a gift to them of the real estate,
then it belongs to him. If the f acts are as stated, he has two remedies. The one is
to compel the plaintiffs to reconvey to him and the other is to let the title stand
with them and to recover from them the sum he paid on their behalf.

For the complete and proper determination of the questions at issue in this
case, we are of the opinion that the cause should be returned to the trial court
with instructions to permit the parties to frame such issues as will permit the
settlement of all the questions involved and to introduce such evidence as may be
necessary for the full determination of the issues framed. Upon such issues and
evidence taken thereunder the court will decide the questions involved according
to the evidence, sobordinating his conclusions of law to the rules laid down in this
opinion.

We do not wish to be understood as having decided in this opinion any

The judgment appealed from is set aside and the cause returned to the Court
of First Instance whence it came for the purposes hereinabove stated. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., and Carson, J., concur.

Judgment set aside; case returned for further proceedings.