[ G.R. No. 37756. November 28, 1933 ] 58 Phil. 881
[ G.R. No. 37756. November 28, 1933 ]
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SEVERINA GONZALEZ, DECEASED. SINFOROSO ONA, ADMINISTRATOR AND APPELLEE, VS. SERAPIA DE GALA, EXECUTRIX AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
VILLA-REAL, J.:
This is an appeal taken by the executrix-appellant Serapia de Gala from the order of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, which reads as follows:
“The executrix herein prays that the project of partition submitted by her on May 4, 1932, be approved. The widower files opposition thereto on the alleged ground that the project of partition in question is not in accordance with the order of this court of April 7, 1931, and in turn, prays that the same be modified so as to conform to the terms proposed in the project of partition submitted by him on September 2, 1931.
“In the said order of this court of April 7, 1931, Judge Francisco Enage, after a careful examination of the pertinent facts of this case, of the properties and rights left by the deceased, and of the nature thereof, determines which properties belong to the conjugal partnership formed by the deceased and Sinforoso Ona, and which constitute the separate properties of each of them at the time of the wife’s death. Lastly, he specifies those which should correspond to the widower, Sinforoso Ona, as his share of the conjugal property and as his inheritance, declaring that the remainder thereof should belong to the Candelaria Hospital Foundation provided for in the will of the deceased. In the said order of April 7, 1931, the court ordered the executrix to submit a ‘project of partition, liquidation and adjudication of the paraphernal properties of the deceased Severina Gonzalez and of the conjugal properties accumulated during her marriage with Sinforoso Ona, in accordance with the aforesaid conclusions arrived at in this decision.’
“Inasmuch as the project of partition submitted by the executrix is not in conformity with the aforesaid order of April 7, 1931, and, it appearing, on the other hand, that the project of partition submitted by the widower Sinforoso Ona on September 2, 1931, literally conforms to the aforesaid order, the project of partition in question submitted by the executrix is hereby disapproved and, by way of modification thereof, the one submitted by the widower Sinforoso Ona on September 2, 1931, is hereby approved.
“There being no objection on the part of Sinforoso Ona, the supplement to the bill of exceptions filed by the executrix, is hereby approved. So ordered.”
In support of her appeal, the appellant assigns four alleged errors in the aforesaid order of the trial court, which we shall discuss in the course of this decision.
The first question to decide in this appeal, which is raised in the first assignment of error, is whether or not the area of the land situated in the barrio of Cabay, municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas, in excess of the 56 hectares, 48 ares and 40 centares stated in the composition title, Exhibit A, as the area of the land belonging to Josefa de Gala, predecessor in interest of Severina Gonzalez, should be considered conjugal or paraphernal property of the deceased Severina Gonzalez.
The evidence presented by the parties on this point is extremely contradictory. After a careful consideration thereof and the circumstances surrounding the case, we have not found sufficient grounds to justify any modification of the conclusions arrived at by the trial court in its decision appealed from, taking into account the advantages offered by its knowledge of the customs of the locality in passing upon the credibility of the witnesses.
With respect to the question raised in the second assignment of error, whether the improvements made by the surviving spouse, Sinforoso Ona, upon the paraphernal property of the deceased Severina Gonzalez, during her lifetime, constitute conjugal partnership property, or only the expenses incurred therein, in accordance with article 1404 of the Civil Code, this question had already been discussed and decided in the cases of Tabotabo vs. Molero (22 Phil., 418); Santos vs. Bartolome (44 Phil., 76); Dominado vs. Derayunan (49 Phil., 452), to the effect that only the expenses for improvements, not including buildings, made by one of the spouses upon the separate property of the other, are considered conjugal property and that such improvements made thereon are paraphernal property. We do not see any reason of sufficient weight to justify the reversal of the said doctrine.
With regard to the question raised in the third assignment of error, whether or not Sinforoso Ona has already been credited with the sum of P3,000 included in the accounts submitted by him as special administrator on September 9, 1931, the records show that the only items which the court, by its decree of September 20, 1931, ordered eliminated from the aforesaid final account submitted by Sinforoso Ona on the said date of September 9, 1931, in case No. 1620 of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, G. R. No. 37313[1] of this court, are as follows: the expenses for the transportation of the products; the salary of the man employed to look after the properties; the fees of attorneys Diokno, Azada and Veluz, and the expenses of the suit. These items alone were the subject of the appeal taken in the aforesaid case. The order of the trial court relative to the aforesaid sum of P3,000 included in the final account submitted by Sinforoso Ona, as special administrator, has become final and conclusive. Therefore, the item in question should not be included in the project of partition as a debt of the conjugal partnership.
With respect to the question raised in the fourth assignment of error, whether or not Act No. 3176 authorizes the court, taking cognizance of the testamentary or intestate proceedings of a deceased spouse, to liquidate the properties belonging to the conjugal partnership formed by the said deceased and the surviving spouse, although the law in question does not designate expressly who should liquidate the properties of a conjugal partnership, in providing that the properties in question should be administered and liquidated in the same manner and under the same procedure as in ordinary testamentary cases, the executor or the testamentary or judicial administrator is the one called upon to liquidate the properties of the conjugal partnership in question under the supervision and control of the court taking cognizance of the special proceeding. Although it is anomalous to order a person who is neither the duly appointed administrator nor the executor to draw up and submit the project of partition on the ground that the court may compel such administrator or executor to do so under pain of incurring in contempt of court, however, the fact that it did so as in the present case, does not constitute a reversible error sufficient to justify the annulment of said proceeding, inasmuch as it is the court itself which has to finally approve or disapprove the project of partition submitted.
In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold (1) that the expenses incurred by the husband in the planting of coconuts and in the construction of irrigation ditches on land belonging exclusively to his wife are for the account of the conjugal partnership formed by them, but not the improvements themselves (Tabotabo vs. Molero, 22 Phil., 418; Santos vs. Bartolome, 44 Phil., 76; Dominado vs. Derayunan, 49 Phil., 452); and (2) that the court which takes cognizance of a testamentary proceeding may compel the administrator or executor thereof, under pain of contempt of court, to submit a project of partition, and to make use of another person for that purpose, although anomalous, does not constitute a reversible error sufficient to justify the annulment of said proceeding.
Wherefore, with the sole modification that the value of the improvements amounting to P36,500 on lot No. 2, which is paraphernal property of the deceased Severina Gonzalez, is hereby declared also paraphernal property; and that the sum of P3,000, charged to the conjugal partnership, is hereby eliminated from the project of partition approved by the lower court; in all other respects the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.