Reyes v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Andres Reyes and Luciana Farlin were married in 1893, with several children, only Juana Reyes de Ilano surviving. Andres Reyes later married Felisa Camia, with whom he had a son, Bibiano Reyes. Andres Reyes acquired parcels of land, some originally leased from the Spanish government and later purchased as friar lands, during his first marriage. Luciana Farlin also acquired certain parcels of friar land during their marriage. Felisa Camia also purchased friar land during her marriage to Andres Reyes. Andres Reyes died on April 20, 1932, leaving a will. Felisa Camia was appointed executrix. Procedural History: Felisa Camia, as executrix, filed her first and second accounts, which were opposed by Juana Reyes de Ilano. Felisa Camia also filed a project of partition, which Juana Reyes de Ilano opposed, submitting a counterproject of partition. The trial court rejected Felisa Camia's project of partition, approved Juana Reyes de Ilano's counterproject, approved the accounts with amendments, and ordered Felisa Camia to reimburse the heirs for a balance of P367.11. The court also ordered payment for the guardian ad litem of the minor Bibiano Reyes. The Petition: Felisa Camia de Reyes appealed the resolution of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, assigning eleven alleged errors.
Issue(s)
Whether the oppositor-appellee is entitled to impugn the valuation of the properties made by the commissioners on claims and appraisal. Whether the lower court erred in rejecting certain items of expenses contained in the executrix's accounts. Whether certain parcels of land are private properties of the deceased Andres Reyes or conjugal properties of his first marriage. Whether certain parcels of land are conjugal properties of the spouses Andres Reyes and Felisa Camia. Whether the house mentioned in the inventory is conjugal property. Whether the lower court erred in accepting the counterproject of partition presented by the oppositor-appellee.
Ruling
The resolution of the Court of First Instance of Cavite is affirmed in all other respects, with the sole modification that the estate of the deceased Andres Reyes shall reimburse the executrix-appellant in the sum of P690.57, plus P81.94 as commission. The counterproject of partition presented by the oppositor-appellee is approved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the right to impugn the appraisal: The Court held that the appraisal of the estate by the commissioners on claims is not conclusive, and the court is not bound to adopt it. The ruling in Siy Chong Keng vs. Collector of Internal Revenue was cited, emphasizing that the purpose of inventory and appraisal is to aid the court in revising accounts and determining liabilities, and in making a final and equitable distribution. Therefore, exceptions to the appraisal might be taken by the executor or administrator, and the court may permit testimony to impugn the committee's appraisal. The court a quo committed no error in permitting the impugning of the committee's appraisal. On the rejection of certain expenses: The Court found that expenses for transportation and subsistence incurred by the executrix for trips made for the benefit of the estate were necessary and should be approved. The company of the executrix's mother and minor son during these trips was deemed justified due to Philippine idiosyncrasy and tradition, warranting the approval of their expenses. However, expenses for obtaining a surety bond were rejected as per the doctrine in Sulit vs. Santos. Expenses for medicine for the minor child were approved as not unwarranted. The expense for electricity consumed in the deceased's house, where the executrix and her son continued to live, was considered a reasonable expense for the preservation of the house under administration and thus approved. The expenses for the funeral and novenary were also approved as enjoined by the deceased's will. On the nature of parcels of land (Exhibits e-m): The Court ruled that parcels of land purchased by Andres Reyes during his marriage to his first wife, Luciana Farlin, are conjugal properties. This is based on Article 1407 of the Civil Code, which presumes all property of the spouses to be partnership property in the absence of proof to the contrary. The fact that Andres Reyes's name appears on the certificates of sale and titles does not change the ganancial nature of the lands, as established in Guinguing vs. Abuton and Abuton. The court a quo committed no error in declaring these parcels as conjugal property. On the nature of parcels of land (Exhibits O and N): These parcels, purchased by Felisa Camia during her marriage to Andres Reyes, were also declared conjugal property. The Court reiterated that property acquired during marriage is presumed conjugal. An affidavit by Andres Reyes attempting to sell a lot to Felisa Camia was deemed null and void under Article 1458 of the Civil Code, but this nullity did not alter the conjugal nature of the lands. On the nature of the house: The Court affirmed that the house constructed after the death of Luciana Farlin with her money, deposited with Petrona Reyes, is conjugal property of Andres Reyes and Luciana Farlin. The deposition of Petrona Reyes, establishing the source of funds for the construction, was deemed admissible as evidence, as the executrix's attorney had ample notice and opportunity to cross-examine the deponent. The court found no defects or irregularities in the taking of the deposition that would affect the rights of the parties. On the acceptance of the counterproject of partition: The Court held that the lower court did not err in accepting the counterproject of partition presented by the oppositor-appellee. There is no legal obligation for an executor or administrator to present a project of partition. The court itself is authorized to assign the residue of the estate. An executor's project of partition is not conclusive, and interested parties may oppose it and submit their own counterproject, which the court may accept and approve. The court acted within its discretionary power.
Main Doctrine
The appraisal of an estate by commissioners on claims is not conclusive, and the court is not bound to adopt it. Expenses incurred by an executrix for transportation and subsistence, accompanied by her mother and minor son, for the benefit of the estate, may be justified and approved, considering Philippine idiosyncrasy and tradition. Property acquired during marriage is presumed conjugal, regardless of whose name appears on the title, absent proof of exclusive ownership.