Patricio v. Patricio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This action concerns the liquidation and partition of property belonging to the conjugal partnership of spouses Claro Patricio and Cecilia Rivera, who died on January 3, 1916. Cecilia Rivera had previously initiated a similar action in 1914, which was dismissed due to her death. The present action was filed in 1923 by Josefa Patricio, the sole surviving child, who later died and was substituted by her minor children. Procedural History: The defendant, Claro Patricio, submitted a liquidation in 1924, showing a balance in his favor. Plaintiffs objected, and evidence was presented regarding conjugal property. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay plaintiffs P12,868 with legal interest. Both parties appealed. The Petition: Plaintiffs claimed the total conjugal property exceeded P148,340.75, while the defendant asserted that less than P26,921.69 remained at the time of dissolution. The trial court initially ruled that properties acquired by the defendant after becoming a widower and after the dissolution of his marriage with Cecilia Rivera did not belong to the conjugal partnership, as plaintiffs failed to prove they were acquired with conjugal funds.
Issue(s)
Whether certain sums deposited by the defendant in banks and the Monte de Piedad should be included in the liquidation. Whether a sum of P3,500 transferred by the defendant to Asuncion Bautista y de Leon should be included in the liquidation. Whether the cabaret known as "La Casta Susana" and its furniture, sold by the defendant, belonged to the conjugal partnership. Whether the price of property No. 547 on Calle Sevilla should be included in the liquidation.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The defendant Claro Patricio is sentenced to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P18,557.62 with legal interest from the filing of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether certain sums deposited by the defendant in banks and the Monte de Piedad should be included in the liquidation: The Court held that amounts deposited by the defendant with the Bank of the Philippine Islands and the Monte de Piedad should not be included in the liquidation if they did not exist at the time of the dissolution of the conjugal partnership on January 3, 1916. Specifically, sums withdrawn by the defendant in 1914 from the Bank of the Philippine Islands and a balance of only P16.40 in the Monte de Piedad as of December 31, 1915, meant that the larger amounts stated in the judgment should not be included. The Court reiterated the doctrine from De la Rama vs. De la Rama that an inventory of actual property at dissolution is required, not a summation of annual profits. On whether a sum of P3,500 transferred by the defendant to Asuncion Bautista y de Leon should be included in the liquidation: The Court ruled that the P3,500 withdrawn by the defendant and placed in the name of Asuncion Bautista y de Leon, who was not his wife, four months before the dissolution of the conjugal property, constituted a transfer made in fraud of his first wife, Cecilia Rivera. This was supported by evidence that the defendant was living with Asuncion Bautista at the time, having abandoned Cecilia Rivera. Therefore, this amount must be included in the liquidation. On whether the cabaret "La Casta Susana" and its furniture belonged to the conjugal partnership: The Court found that the cabaret "La Casta Susana" was the property of the defendant since 1915, prior to the dissolution of the partnership. This was based on the defendant's own deed of sale in 1919, where he stated he possessed the building since 1915 when he had it built, and his testimony in a previous case confirming his ownership and construction in 1915. His subsequent claim that the cabaret belonged to Monico Salazar was disregarded as contradictory to his prior admission, which is considered the "queen of evidence." Consequently, the sale price of P36,000 for the cabaret and P4,000 for its furniture must be included in the liquidation. On whether the price of property No. 547 on Calle Sevilla should be included in the liquidation: The Court determined that the amount of P800, the price of property No. 547 on Calle Sevilla, mentioned in the defendant's liquidation (Exhibit 4), should also be included in the liquidation of the conjugal partnership property.
Main Doctrine
In the liquidation of a conjugal partnership, an inventory of the actual property possessed by the spouses at the time of dissolution must be made. Amounts withdrawn or transferred fraudulently prior to dissolution, or property owned by one spouse before the marriage or acquired after dissolution, should be accounted for accordingly.