Dominado v. Derayunan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the intestate estate proceedings of Francisco Derayunan, the judicial administrator submitted a scheme of partition. The widow, Elisa Dominado, objected to this partition. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance ordered a partition based on specific principles regarding conjugal and private property, legitime, usufruct, and betterment. The administrator presented a new scheme of partition based on this order, which was approved by the court. The widow appealed this order. The Petition: The widow appealed the order approving the scheme of partition, raising issues concerning the determination of her usufructuary portion and the adjudication of expenses for coconut trees planted during the marriage.
Issue(s)
Whether the widow's usufructuary portion in the inheritance should be one-third or one-sixth. Whether the widow is entitled to half of the coconut trees planted during the marriage on the deceased's exclusive property, or only to reimbursement for conjugal expenses incurred.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment, ruling that the widow's usufructuary portion is one-third of the estate. The Court also affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the coconut trees, holding that they belong to the owner of the land by accession, and the expenses incurred are conjugal charges.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Widow's Usufructuary Portion: The Court clarified that Article 834 of the Civil Code entitles a widow to a usufructuary portion equal to the legitime of each legitimate child who has not received any betterment. In the absence of express betterment, the legitime of each child is two-thirds of the inheritance, divided equally among them. Therefore, each child receives one-third of the inheritance as their legitime. Consequently, the widow's usufructuary portion, being equal to the legitime of each child, is also one-third of the inheritance. This one-third is to be taken from the free portion of the estate. The Court found that the trial court erred in holding that the widow's usufructuary portion was one-sixth of the inheritance. The Court cited the opinions of Manresa and Sanchez Roman, and the doctrine laid down in Chico vs. Viola and Reyes, to support its conclusion that in the absence of betterment, the legitime of each child is one-third, and this serves as the measure for the widow's usufruct. On the Coconut Trees: The Court held that the coconut trees planted during the marriage on the deceased's exclusive property belong to the owner of the land by right of accession, citing Article 1407 of the Civil Code. The expenses incurred in planting these trees are considered conjugal expenses for which the conjugal partnership must be reimbursed. The Court distinguished this from buildings constructed on the land of one spouse during the marriage, which are considered conjugal property under Article 1404, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code. The Court relied on the doctrine established in Tabotabo vs. Molero to deny the widow's claim to half of the coconut trees.
Main Doctrine
The widow's usufructuary share in the inheritance is equal to the legitime of each child who has not received any betterment. In the absence of express betterment, the legitime of each child is one-third of the inheritance, and thus, the widow's usufructuary share is also one-third of the inheritance. Improvements made on the exclusive property of a spouse during the marriage, such as the planting of coconut trees, belong to the owner of the land by right of accession, and the expenses incurred are conjugal expenses for which the partnership must be reimbursed.