EMILIO
ESCUIN Y
BATAC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 4359
September
24, 1908
-versus-
FRANCISCO
ESCUIN,
ET AL.,
Defendants
JULIA
BATAC,
Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
TORRES, J:
On the 19th of January
1899, Emilio Antonio Escuin de los Santos executed a will before a
notary
public of Sevilla, Spain, stating therein that he was a native of
Cavite,
the son of Francisco Escuin and Eugenia de los Santos, the latter being
deceased; that he was married about six months previously to Maria
Teresa
Ponce de Leon, and that he had no lawful descendants; the testator,
however,
stated in clause three of his will, that in case he had a duly
registered
successor, his child would be his sole and universal heir; but that if,
as would probably be the case, there should be no such heir, then in
clause
four he named his said father Francisco Escuin, and his wife Maria
Teresa
Ponce de Leon his universal heirs, they to divide the estate in equal
shares
between them.
The testator died on
the 20th of January 1899, as certified to by the Municipal Court of
Magdalena,
Sevilla, on the 20th of March 1900.
Upon the will having
been admitted to probate, commissioners were appointed to consider
claims
against the estate, and, according to a report presented to the Court
of
First Instance on the 20th of June, 1907, one claim was allowed
amounting
to 3,696.50 pesetas.
On the 10th and 12th
of July 1907, the attorney for the widow, Ponce de Leon, and the
attorneys
who represented the guardian of the minor, Emilio Escuin y Batac
appealed
to the Court of First Instance from the findings of the aforesaid
commissioners.
Matters stood thus, and without there appearing any Decision of the
Court
as to the appeals, the attorney for the administrator, by a writing
dated
the 3rd of September, following, moved for the approval of the proposed
partition of the estate provided for by the Court; by the first
additional
request [otrosi] he asked that the remuneration for the services
of the administrator of the estate be fixed, and that he be authorized
to draw such amount from the funds of the estate; and by a second
additional
request he asked that the accounts made up on the 31st of August,
previous,
be approved.
It appears in the
proposed
partition of the 3d of September, 1906, that, according to the opinion
of the administrator by whom it was signed and the result of the
proceedings,
the property left by the testator, in accordance with the accounts
passed
upon by the court, amounted to P8,268.02
From said sum the
following
must be deducted:
The credit
above
alluded
to admittedby the commissioners
P1,321.40
10 per cent
remuneration
due tothe administrator
P826.80
All legal expenses
paid andapproved P1,105.01
________
P3,253.21
________
Deducting this amount
from the fundsof the estate,
there
remains a balanceof P5,014.81
That the said credit
of P1,321.40, equivalent to 3,696.50 pesetas, allowed by the
commissioners,
is the only claim presented within the legal term against the estate;
that
Francisco Escuin, the father of the testator, his wife or widow, Teresa
Ponce de Leon, and his natural child, the minor Emilio Escuin y Batac,
represented by his mother and guardian Julia Batac, are entitled to the
succession; that, by setting aside one-third of the estate in favor of
the natural son recognized in accordance with article 842 of the Civil
Code, there only remains the question as to how the remaining
two-thirds
of the inheritance shall be bestowed, taking into account the
directions
of the testator in his will; that the same does not disclose that he
had
left any child by his wife; that the latter, as the widow of the
testator,
besides being a designated heir entitled to one-half of the hereditary
funds, is entitled to the usufruct of the portion fixed by the law, and
that the funds to be apportioned are composed wholly of cash or ready
money.
On these grounds the
partition and adjudication was proceeded with of the sum of P5,014.81
into
three shares of P1,671.60 to each one of the parties in interest, that
is, the natural son, Emilio Escuin y Batac, in full control as general
heir; the widow, Teresa Ponce de Leon, as legatee of one-half of the
two-thirds
of the funds of free disposition; and the said widow the usufruct of
the
other half of the aforesaid two-thirds of free disposition, the bare
ownership
of the last third held in usufruct by the widow being adjudicated to
Francisco
Escuin, as legatee taking into account the provisions of article 817 of
the Civil Code upon making the division.
On the 12th of
September
1906, the representative of the minor natural child of the testator
objected
in writing to the partition proposed by the administrator, and for the
reasons he set forth asked that the same be disapproved, and that in
lieu
thereof the entire estate be adjudicated to Emilio Escuin y Batac, the
said minor.
Upon a hearing for
the approval of the said proposed partition, the representative of the
minor presented as evidence a certified copy of the complaint, the
answer,
and the final judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 3210 of the Court of
First Instance.
It appears from the
said certified proceedings that the representative of the minor, as
plaintiff
therein, asked on the 12th of January 1905, that an allowance be
granted
to him for subsistence for account of the estate of the late testator,
Emilio Escuin de los Santos, and that the same be paid him monthly in
advance;
that judgment be entered declaring that the minor, Emilio Escuin y
Batac,
is a natural child of the testator; that the said minor, as the only
natural
son of the same is his general heir; that it be held that the said
testator
had died without either lawful ascendants or descendants; that the
designation
of heirs made under his above-mentioned will be declared null and void;
and that the defendants be sentenced to pay the costs in case they did
not conform to the complaint, with any further remedy that the Court
might
consider just and equitable.
The administrator,
Ricardo Summers, in answer to the complaint denied all and every one of
the facts alleged in all and every one of its paragraphs.
On the 30th of
September
1905, the court below found that Emilio Escuin y Batac was the
recognized
natural child of the late Emilio Escuin de los Santos, had by Julia
Batac;
that the testator was also the natural son of the defendant Francisco
Escuin
and Eugenia de los Santos, and was recognized by his father; and that
the
plaintiff minor, Emilio Escuin y Batac, is one of the heirs of the late
testator.
By an Order of the
lower court dated the 30th of October 1906, in view of the accounts and
proposal of partition presented by the administrator of the estate, the
judge below expressed an opinion that a natural child is only entitled
to one-fourth of the hereditary property, the clause in the will being
annulled only in so far as the amount to be divided should be reduced,
taking into account the share due to the natural son and the right of
the
father and the widow of the testator, each to one-half of the remainder
of the property of the estate. The court approved the account
presented,
but disapproved the project of partition of the hereditary property
that
was objected to by one of the parties in interest. Counsel for the
minor
Emilio Escuin y Batac excepted to the above resolution; a copy of the
proceedings
was submitted to this Court together with the appeal that was
interposed.
On the 10th of July
1907, the representatives of the administrator, and of the minor,
Emilio
Escuin y Batac, respectively, stated in writing to the lower court
that,
in view of the fact that the Order of October 30, 1906, did not
constitute
a final judgment of partition (since the said proposal having been
rejected,
another partition should be effected by commissioners) the court was
requested
to appoint commissioners to present a new project of partition in
substitution
for the one presented by the administrator, the new proposal to be
submitted
to the court for approval.
On the 22nd of August,
the attorney for the administrator filed a written request for the
appointment
of said commissioners as stated above, and further requested that the
remuneration
of the petitioner for his services as administrator be fixed by the
court,
and that he be authorized to draw from the funds of the estate such sum
as might thus be assigned to him.
On the 24th day of
the said month of August, the court below issued an Order with respect
to the foregoing requests and held that, for the reasons stated in the
Order, the appointment of commissioners for the mere propose of
determining
what each one of the heirs should receive in accordance with the order
of the 30th of October 1906, was not necessary, inasmuch as the
property
of the estate consisted of ready money, and the administrator was
thereby
authorized to distribute the funds among the heirs in the amount stated
in the said Order. From this decision the representative of the minor
Emilio
Escuin y Batac took exception, and to this effect presented a bill of
errors
together with a copy of the proceedings for review on appeal.
While the appeal is
interposed against the report and resolution of the commissioners were
still pending in the lower court, the partition of the hereditary funds
could not be ordered, notwithstanding the fact that the same consisted
of ready money, because the amount of the estate subject to division
had
not yet been determined in order to comply with the law and the will of
the testator.
Until all the known
creditors and the legatees have been paid, it shall be understood that
the estate is under administration, says Article 1026 of the Civil
Code,
and in conformity with this legal provision, the supreme tribunal has
established
the doctrine that "only after payment of all the obligations of the
estate
can the net amount divisible among the heirs be known." [Decision of
March
2, 1896].
Section 753 of the
Code of Civil Procedure confirms the provision of the Civil Code and
the
legal doctrine mentioned above, inasmuch as it provides that, after
payment
of the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of administration, and the
allowances for the expense of maintenance of the family of the
deceased,
the court shall assign the residue of the estate to the persons
entitled
to the same, naming the persons and proportions or parts to which each
is entitled, etc.
As to the aforesaid
appeals from the resolution of the commissioners, section 776 of the
Code
of Civil Procedure provides that:
"Upon the lodging of
such appeal with the clerk, the disputed claim shall stand for trial in
the same manner as any other action in the Court of First Instance, the
creditor being deemed to be the plaintiff, and the estate the
defendant,
and pleadings as in other actions shall be filed."
So
that by reason of the
claims made by the creditor of the estate of Emilio Escuin de los
Santos
and by her natural son, duly recognized by his father, an ordinary
action
should have been brought before the Court of First Instance, from whose
judgment appeal may be taken to this court by means of the
corresponding
bill of exceptions under the provisions of Section 777 of the Code of
Civil
Procedure; and while the ultimate decision in the matter of the said
claims
against the resolution of the commissioners has not become final, and
until
all the obligations of the estate have been paid, there can really be
no
inheritance, nor can it be distributed among the persons interested
therein
according to the will of the testator, or under the provisions of the
law.
The foregoing refers
to the first error assigned in the certified copy of the proceedings
and
in the brief of the representative of the minor Escuin y Batac, and
also
to the questions of the form of procedure.
With respect to the
questions which form the basis of this litigation and refer to the
second
assignment of errors, it should be noted that the late testator did not
leave any legitimate descendants or ascendants, but did leave a
recognized
natural child, the appellant minor, and a widow; that the said minor,
Emilio
Escuin y Batac, is the general heir of his natural father, the said
testator,
who recognized him while living [Art. 807, Civil Code], and in the
present
case is entitled to one-third of his estate, which amount constitutes
the
legal portion of a natural child [Art. 842 of the said Code]; and for
the
reason that the minor was ignored by his natural father in his will,
the
designation of heirs made therein was, as a matter of fact annulled by
force of law, in so far as the legal portion of the said minor was
thereby
impaired. Legacies and betterments shall be valid, in so far as they
are
not illegal, for the reason that a testator can not deprive the heirs
of
their legal portions, except in the cases expressly indicated by law.
[Arts.
763, 813, 814, Civil Code].
As has been seen, the
testator wished to dispose of his property in his will, designating as
heirs his natural father, Francisco Escuin, and his wife, Maria Teresa
Ponce de Leon, altogether ignoring his recognized natural child who is
his general heir. In view thereof, and for the reason that he exceeded
his rights, the said designation of heirs became void in so far as it
impaired
the right of his general heir and deprived him of his legal portion;
the
will, however, is valid with respect to the two-thirds of the property
which the testator could freely dispose of. [Arts. 763, 764, 806, 813,
842, Civil Code].
Notwithstanding the
fact that the designation of heirs is annulled and that the law
recognizes
the title of the minor, Escuin y Batac, to one-third of the property of
his natural father, as his lawful and general heir, it is not proper to
assert that the late Emilio Escuin de los Santos died intestate in
order
to establish the conclusion that his said natural recognized child is
entitled
to succeed to the entire estate under the provisions of Article 939 of
the Civil Code, inasmuch as in accordance with the law a citizen may
die
partly testate and partly intestate [Art. 764, Civil Code]. It is clear
and unquestionable that it was the wish of the testator to favor his
natural
father and his wife with certain portions of his property which, under
the law, he had a right to dispose of by will, as he has done, provided
the legal portion of his general heir was not thereby impaired, the two
former persons being considered as legatees under the will.
The above-mentioned
will is neither null, void, nor illegal in so far as the testator
leaves
two-thirds of his property to his father and wife; testamentary
provisions
impairing the legal portion of a general heir shall be reduced in so
far
as they are illegal or excessive. [Art. 817, Civil Code]. The partition
of the property of the said testator shall be proceeded with in
accordance
with the foregoing legal bases.
The record does not
show that the decision of the commissioners became final or was
consented
to by the parties in interest, or that this point was alleged and
discussed
in the first instance; therefore, such circumstance as alleged by the
appellee
can not now be considered.
By virtue of the
foregoing
considerations it is our opinion that the orders of the Court below, of
October 30, 1906, and August 24, 1907, should be reversed, and upon
receipt
of a certified copy of this decision the Court below shall take action
in accordance with the law and the terms herein contained with respect
to the claims and appeals from the resolutions of the commissioners
pending
judicial decision. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur. |