Tad-Y v. Tad-Y
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Vicente Tad-Y died leaving a widow, Rosario Esler, a legitimated son, Jose Tad-Y, and an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Tad-Y. The lower court adjudicated the usufruct of the third available for betterment to the widow, the third constituting the short legitime in full ownership and the naked ownership of the third available for betterment to the legitimated son, and the free third in full ownership to the natural daughter. Procedural History: The lower court's allotment was appealed by Jose Tad-Y, represented by his guardian ad litem, arguing that the distribution was against the law concerning the share of an acknowledged natural child. The Petition: The appellant contended that the natural child's share was not one-half of the legitimate child's share in quality and quantity, and that the widow's usufruct was improperly taken from the free third.
Issue(s)
Whether the allotment made by the lower court correctly determined the shares of the legitimate and acknowledged natural children in the intestate estate of the deceased. Whether the usufruct of the widow was correctly taken from the free third instead of the third available for betterment. Whether the sum of P11,500 received by Maria Tad-Y from her deceased father during his lifetime should be declared collationable.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is reversed. The Court adjudged the portions to be allotted as follows: to Jose Tad-Y, the third constituting the short legitime in full ownership, and the other third available for betterment in naked ownership; to Maria Tad-Y, one-half of the free third in full ownership and the other half of this third in naked ownership, after deducting burial and funeral expenses; to Rosario Esler, the usufruct of the third available for betterment; to Jose Tad-Y, the usufruct of the remaining one-half of the free third, which upon the death of Rosario Esler shall pass to Maria Tad-Y. No special finding as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the allotment of shares between the legitimate and acknowledged natural child: The Court held that the allotment made by the lower court was against the law. The acknowledged natural child is entitled only to one-half of the portion pertaining to each of the legitimate children not bettered, in quality and quantity. In this case, with only one legitimate child and a widow, the legitimate child is entitled to the third constituting the short legitime in full ownership and the naked ownership of the third available for betterment, the usufruct of which belongs to the widow. Consequently, the natural child must receive one-half of the free third in full ownership and the other half in naked ownership. The Court clarified that the natural child's portion must be one-half in quality and quantity, meaning it should be equivalent to half of what the legitimate child receives in terms of value and rights. On the source of the widow's usufruct: The Court found that the lower court erred in taking the widow's usufruct from the free third. Article 835 of the Civil Code provides that the usufruct of the widow shall be taken from the third available for betterment. The Court agreed with the proposed distribution that correctly sources the widow's usufruct from the appropriate third, ensuring the proper allocation of hereditary rights according to law. On the collation of the sum of P11,500: The Court ruled that it could not make a pronouncement on the assignment of error regarding the collation of the P11,500. This was because the issue was not raised in the lower court, nor was it considered or decided by the trial court. Therefore, it could not be the subject of appeal. The Court stated that this matter could be submitted for decision to the lower court upon the making of the partition in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Main Doctrine
The share of an acknowledged natural child in the inheritance is one-half of the portion of the legitimate child not bettered, in both quality and quantity. The usufruct of the widow is to be taken from the third available for betterment, not the free third.