[ G.R. No. 7075. March 25, 1912 ] 22 Phil. 345
[ G.R. No. 7075. March 25, 1912 ]
RODRIGO ALBANO, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED SILVERIO AGTARAP, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CORNELIO AGTARAP ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
ARELLANO, C.J.:
Lucio Agtarap owned several parcels of agricultural land in Laoag, Province of Ilocos Norte, and at his death left four sons, one of whom, Silverio, died on the 10th of September, 1907.
Upon the death of Silverio Agtarap, his widow, Juana Domingo, began special proceedings for settlement of the intestate estate of her deceased husband by petitioning for an administrator and Rodrigo Albano was appointed.
As such administrator Rodrigo Albano instituted a civil action improperly entitled “in the matter of the claim for the widow’s legal portion” against the other three heirs of Lucio Agtarap, who are two sons of his, called Cornelio and Nicolas and a grandson named Melecio Agtarap; improperly so entitled, because in the present civil action the matter involved is a claim in favor of the intestate estate to certain property belonging to the decedent, against the three heirs of the said Lucio.Agtarap, who have taken to themselves all the estate left by the latter, including the fourth part which belongs to Silverio Agtarap, likewise a son of Lucio Agtarap. Therefore the subject matter of this action can only be this coSwnership, if it exists, in which the hereditary estate was left, and, if it does so exist, the partition of the property among the four lawful coowners, the heirs of Lucio Agtarap, and withdrawal of Silverio’s portion in order to transfer it to his intestate estate.
According to law, one-fourth of this property belongs to Silverio Agtarap.
The judgment of the court below directs:
“That one-fourth part of this property be delivered to the administrator of the intestate estate of the late Silverio Agtarap, as his legacy, so that, after proper proceedings, their respective portions may be adjudicated to the widow and other heirs of the said Silverio; without special finding as to costs.”
This judgment is entirely in accordance with law.
The plaintiff also asked for the portion of the products of the coownership corresponding to Silverio Agtarap, but the trial court ignored this request, as well as that for some cattle included in the complaint, and the plaintiff has not appealed with regard to this omission, so it need not be considered here. The judgment rightly says that after the proper proceed- ings under the law, there may be adjudicated to the widow and other heirs of Silverio Agtarap, in due -proportion, the fourth part which the defendants should deliver to the administrator of the intestate estate of the said Silverio Agtarap; but not in this action. The necessary procedure will be the special proceedings in the intestate estate of Silverio Agtarap, in which may properly be presented the claim of the administrator of the said intestate estate on behalf of Juana Domingo for her “legal portion as widow,” as well as the proceedings for proving that Eugenia Agtarap is a legitimate daughter in order to have her declared the sole heir of the whole of the said fourth part of the property which corresponds to him whom she calls her legitimate father. In the trial held for such purpose it will be determined who are the heirs of the intestate estate of Silerio Agtarap; whether she who calls herself his legitimate daughter, Eugenia Agtarap; or his brothers Cornelio and Nicolas and his nephew Melecio, all surnamed Agtarap.
The lawful usufruct pertaining to the widow will depend upon whether the alleged daughter or the brothers and nephew of the deceased are entitled to the inheritance, for if she who claims to be the daughter, Eugenia Agtarap, be declared the sole heir of the deceased Silverio Agtarap, the widow’s share would be different from what it would if the defendants in this case, as brothers and nephew of the deceased Silverio Agtarap, are declared to be the sole heirs - in accordance with the various provisions of the Civil Code in this respect.
Only in such special proceedings, wherein the necessary orders can be issued and executed, can findings be made as to who are the heirs and what portions belong to them, the nature of their titles, and in case of usufruct wjiat part pertains to each.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellants.
Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, and Trent, JJ., concur.