Lesaca v. Lesaca
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Baldomero J. Lesaca died on November 8, 1946, survived by his second wife, two minor children by the latter, two children from his first marriage, and three acknowledged natural children. His will named his daughters from the first marriage, Juana F. Lesaca and Consuelo F. Lesaca, as co-executrices. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila granted monthly allowances for support and education to the two minor children of the deceased and his second wife, over the opposition of the co-executrices. The court ordered the co-executrices to deposit these allowances, holding they should be deducted from the minors' hereditary portions only insofar as they exceed fruits or income. Separately, the court declared P2,500, received by the co-executrices as the repurchase price of land sold a retro before the marriage, as conjugal property, ordering one-half to be paid to the widow. The court also declared the decedent's share of palay rent, planted during coverture and harvested after the deceased's death, as conjugal property, entitling the widow to one-half. The Petition: Three appeals were filed, certified to the Supreme Court as involving only questions of law, concerning the deductibility of support allowances from hereditary portions, the conjugal nature of money received from a pacto de retro sale, and the classification of harvested palay rent as conjugal property.
Issue(s)
Whether money received after marriage, as purchase price of land sold a retro before such marriage to one of the consorts, constitutes conjugal property or not. Whether allowances for support granted by the court to the minor heirs should or should not be subject to collation and deducted from their respective hereditary portions. Whether a standing crop of palay planted during coverture, and harvested after the death of one of the consorts, constitutes fruits and income within the purview of Article 1401 of the Civil Code, and one-half of such crop should be delivered to the surviving spouse.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order regarding the deductibility of support allowances from hereditary portions and the classification of the palay rent as conjugal property. However, it reversed the order declaring the P2,500 repurchase price as conjugal property, holding it to be part of the deceased's estate.
Ratio Decidendi
On the deductibility of support allowances: The Court affirmed the order, holding that allowances for support granted to minor heirs pending liquidation of an estate are deductible from their hereditary portions, but only insofar as they exceed what they are entitled to as fruits or income. This is based on Article 1430 of the Civil Code of 1898 (re-enacted as Article 188 of the new Civil Code). The contention that Article 1041, which exempts certain allowances from collation, should apply was rejected because Article 1041 pertains to donations made during the lifetime of the decedent, whereas allowances pending liquidation are distinct and stand on a different footing. The Court cited Manresa's commentary, emphasizing that after the death of the decedent, all fruits of the capital form part of the estate and thus should be accounted for. On the conjugal nature of the repurchase price: The Court reversed the order, declaring the P2,500 received as the repurchase price of land sold a retro before the marriage as part of the deceased's estate, not conjugal property. The Court reasoned that if the money used for the initial purchase was the deceased's exclusive property, the mere fact that it was repaid after the marriage does not convert it into conjugal property. While Article 1401 of the Civil Code states that property obtained by the industry, wages, or work of the spouses belongs to the conjugal partnership, this refers to property obtained during the marriage. In this case, there was no showing that the P2,500 was earned by the joint efforts of the deceased and his widow, thus it must be deemed to have been the property of the deceased. On the classification of palay rent: The Court affirmed the order, holding that the decedent's share of palay rent, planted during coverture and harvested after the dissolution of the marriage, constitutes fruits and income within the purview of Article 1401 of the Civil Code and should be considered conjugal property. The Court explained that under Article 1380 of the old Civil Code, uncollected fruits or rents after the dissolution of the marriage are divided pro rata between the surviving spouse and the heirs. The conjugal partnership is considered a usufructuary of the private property of each spouse, and civil fruits, like rents, accrue from day to day. Therefore, the portion of the rent that accrued during the coverture belongs to the conjugal partnership, regardless of when it was actually received.
Main Doctrine
Allowances for support granted to minor heirs pending liquidation of an estate are deductible from their hereditary shares, insofar as they exceed what they are entitled to as fruits or income. Money received after marriage as repurchase price of land sold a retro before marriage to one of the consorts does not constitute conjugal property unless proven to be earned by joint efforts. Standing crops planted during coverture and harvested after the dissolution of the marriage are considered fruits and income belonging to the conjugal partnership.