EN
BANC
CIRIACO
FULE, ET
AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
G.
R.
No. 29008
February
8, 1929
-versus-
ANASTASIO
FULE,
ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
D
E C I S I
O N
STREET,
J :
Pursuant to the reservation
contained in the dispositive part of our Decision in Fule vs. Fule [46
Phil., 317], the present action for partition of real and personal
property
was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Laguna on November 18,
1924, by Ciriaco Fule and the heirs of Marcial Fule, consisting of
Alonso,
Felicidad and Maria Purificacion, against Anastasio, Simeona and
Felisa,
of the surname of Fule. By amendment of the complaint Iluminada Fule
was
made an additional party defendant. Upon hearing the cause the trial
court
absolved the defendants from the Complaint, and the plaintiffs appealed.
It appears that
Saturnino
Fule, father of the plaintiff Ciriaco Fule and of the defendants
Anastasio,
Simeona and Felisa, and grandfather of the plaintiffs Alonso, Felicidad
and Maria Purificacion, as well as of the defendant Iluminada, died at
his home in San Pablo, Laguna, on April 3, 1923, at the age of over 70
years, leaving as his legal heirs four children, to wit,
Ciriaco,
Anastasio, Simeona and Felisa, and three grandchildren, Alonso,
Felicidad
and Maria Purificacion, children of his deceased son Marcial Fule. The
defendant Iluminada Fule is a daughter of Anastasio Fule who is still
living.
The wife of Saturnino Fule was Irene Calampiano, who predeceased her
husband
by about eight years, having died in 1915. During the married life of
Saturnino
Fule and Irene Calampiano, a considerable amount of property, real and
personal, had been accumulated by them; and Irene had also inherited
real
property from her own parents, Leonardo Calampiano and Claudia
Gaviño.
The plaintiff Ciriaco Fule was the oldest child of Saturnino Fule and
Irene
Calampiano; while Marcial Fule was a second son, he having died about
the
year 1902. Ciriaco appears to have been the first of the children to
marry
and establish a home for himself, as did Marcial Fule later. Upon the
occasion
of the respective marriages of these two sons, Saturnino Fule had
placed
them in possession of certain real properties, the number and value of
which have been the subject of controversy in this lawsuit. These
properties
have been retained respectively by Ciriaco Fule and by Marcial Fule in
life; and Ciriaco claims to be the owner in his own right of the
properties
thus assigned to him, though he admits that the same are subject to
collation
in this partition suit. The heirs of Marcial Fule make the same claim
and
admission with respect to such properties as they concede had been
assigned
to their father by Saturnino Fule. Anastasio Fule, upon his marriage,
also
appears to have received from his father several parcels of property in
the same form of gift or advancement.
The properties above
referred to were evidently donated by Saturnino Fule to his three sons
to assist them in getting a start in the world and to aid them in the
support
of themselves and their families. The two daughters, Simeona and
Felisa,
are unmarried, and as they lived continuously with their father and
were
supported by him until his death, no similar advancements were ever
made
to them, though they claim that about four and a half years before his
death, Saturnino Fule made a verbal gift and transfer to them, in
conjunction
with their niece Iluminada, of all the real property of which he was
then
possessed.
There is credible proof
tending to show that some time in the month of October, 1918, Saturnino
Fule caused a will to be executed, in which he divided the property of
which he was then possessed among his children, at the same time making
a modest donation to his granddaughter Iluminada who lived with him.
This
will was drawn by Florencio Manalo the attorney and trusted friend of
Saturnino
Fule. The document was drafted in an unduplicated original and, upon
being
finished, was left in the possession of Saturnino Fule. This will has
not
made its appearance since the death of Saturnino Fule, thus giving rise
to the inference either that the testator revoked and destroyed it
before
his death or that it has been lost or suppressed.
Soon after the death
of Saturnino Fule, administration proceedings were instituted at the
instance
of Ciriaco Fule, and one Cornelio Alcantara was appointed by the Court
of First Instance of Laguna to the office of special administrator of
his
estate. These proceedings were, however, combated by Anastasio Fule and
his two sisters on the grounds, first, that their deceased father had
left
no debts; secondly, that all the heirs were of age; thirdly, that
Saturnino
Fule had equitably distributed all his property during his life among
the
persons entitled thereto; and, lastly, that, at any rate,
administration
proceedings were unnecessary and inappropriate. The trial judge having
sustained this contention of the defendants and dismissed the
proceedings,
an appeal was taken by Ciriaco Fule to this court where the judgment
was
affirmed. However, the decision was expressly made "without prejudice
to
the right of the petitioner to commence a new action for a partition of
any property left by Saturnino Fule which had not already been
partitioned
among his heirs." [Fule vs. Fule, 46 Phil., 317,
324].
In the course of the present litigation, the exact meaning of the
reservation
which we have here quoted has been the subject of controversy. To
dispose
of this matter at once we merely say that the purpose of the
reservation
was to leave the way open for a partition proceeding like that now
before
Us, without prejudice from the action taken in the case
above-mentioned.
The result is that the present plaintiffs have a legal right to
maintain
this action of partition and demonstrate therein their right to relief,
if any such right they have. In other words, in this proceeding the
former
judgment is res judicata as to nothing.
Referring now to
certain
incidents that occurred in connection with the earlier litigation, it
may
be stated that when the administrator was first appointed and steps
taken
by him to make an inventory of the property belonging to the deceased,
no suggestion was at first made either by Simeona and Felisa or their
niece
Iluminada to the effect that there was in existence any writing of a
documentary
character purporting to give them any rights in the undistributed
property
of Saturnino Fule; but in September, 1923, a paper writing was produced
which has figured largely in this case. This brief document bears the
date
of September 28, 1918, and purports to be signed by Saturnino Fule. The
following is a translation of the paper both in English and Spanish:
"September 28, 1918
"I devise all my
property
to my two daughters and the grandchild that I have raised, upon my
death;
I have given the men their part; this is my request to my children; let
this my wish be obeyed.
[Sgd.] SATURNINO FULE
"Todos mis bienes
los adjudico a mis dos hijas y a la nieta que he criado para cuando yo
muera; mis hijos varones ya han recibido su parte. Este es mi encargo a
mis hijos. Obedezcanlo, porque es mi voluntad.
[Fdo.] "SATURNINO
FULE."
This
paper, identified
in the record as Exhibit 10, shows on its face that it was intended by
the purported writer as a testamentary disposition of his property.
Nevertheless
it is completely wanting in the requisites required by law for the
making
of a will. It is equally defective and worthless as evidence of a
present
donation. Florencio Manalo, who was familiar with the handwriting of
Saturnino
Fule, testified that the paper in question was not in the handwriting
of
its purported author; and, We may add, if Saturnino Fule in fact wrote
it, the act was a singular departure from his known habits. The proof
shows
that it was with great difficulty that he could wield the pen for any
purpose.
But he was quite intelligent and meticulously careful about all
business
matters. In fact he never attempted to make written record of any
transaction
having a legal aspect without the assistance of a lawyer.
The sole witness who
attempts to account for the origin of this paper is Iluminada Fule, who
was living in her grandfather's family at the time the paper purports
to
have been written. She says that upon the date said paper bears date,
her
grandfather called her into the room where he was sitting and explained
to her that he was going to give his property to his two daughters and
to her, thereby equalizing them with his sons in respect to gifts
already
made to them. Iluminada states that the old gentleman occupied nearly
an
hour in writing the document, and that all the contents of the paper,
including
the signature, were written by him on that occasion.
We dismiss the document
from consideration with the observation that it is open to grave
suspicion,
to say the least, as regards its authenticity, and that even if
authentic,
it is devoid of any determinative weight in this lawsuit. We may add
that
the claim of ownership put forth by Simeona and Felisa, in common with
Iluminada, is not based upon Exhibit 10, but upon something that is
said
to have occurred on September 30, 1918, or two days after that paper
purports
to have been written. Concerning this later occurrence, Iluminada Fule
testified that on September 30, 1918, her grandfather made a verbal
transfer
or assignment to Simeona, Felisa and herself of all of the property of
which he was then possessed. She says that Simeona and Felisa were
present
when this verbal gift was made; and by this act Saturnino Fule is
supposed
to have completed the partition of his property among his heirs. It is
noteworthy that Simeona and Felisa did not take the stand to
corroborate
the gift.
As tending to show
the improbability that such a gift was made, the plaintiffs introduced
evidence to the effect that after the date of this alleged donation,
Saturnino
Fule continued to manage the property which was the subject of the gift
in all respects as if it had been his own, and there was nothing in his
acts outwardly which comported with the idea that he had stripped
himself
of all his belongings. Upon the whole, We are compelled to record the
belief
that no such gift, assignment, or transfer as that testified to by
Iluminada
Fule was ever made by Saturnino Fule in life.
As Iluminada Fule is
not one of the heirs of Saturnino Fule, her father being still alive,
she
was not at first made a party to this partition proceeding, but on
account
of the claim of joint ownership put forth by her, based on the alleged
verbal gift above-mentioned, she was, in the course of these
proceedings,
made a party by order of the court, over the objection of the
plaintiffs.
The foregoing
observations
prepare Us to deal with the case in the simple aspect of a partition
suit
brought by one coheir and the children of another against three coheirs
in possession of property derived from a common ancestor, with the
anomaly,
not affecting the merits of the case, that a stranger to the inherited
estate [Iluminada Fule] claims an interest in the portions of the two
female
heirs. We may add here that these two heirs do not combat the claim
made
by Iluminada; and Anastasio Fule, Iluminada's father, seeks to maintain
his daughter's claim.
To complete this
preliminary
survey of the case it is desirable to add that, although, as originally
framed, the complaint in this case seeks a partition of both real and
personal
property, the appellants have abandoned the fight in so far as relates
to personalty; and the controversy ventilated in this Court has
relation
solely to real property.
In formulating their
defense, the defendants have used the word "partition" as legally
descriptive
of the acts ascribed to Saturnino Fule in assigning portions of his
property,
first to one and then another of his children, until all of his
property
had been disposed of and each of the children had acquired his
equitable
portion of the estate. In its narrow and technical sense, "partition"
is
properly used with respect to the multilateral act by which several
coowners
divide a common property among themselves, or to the act by which the
Court
effects such a division at the instance of one or more of the persons
concerned.
There seems to be little propriety in using the word "partition" as
descriptive
of the successive advancements of the portions of property which a
father
assigns to his several children. We think it will clarify the legal
problem
somewhat to think of these acts as constituting a distribution of
property
rather than a true partition. Yet it must be admitted that the word
"partition"
is not infrequently used both in popular and technical parlance to
describe
precisely this situation; and if we mistake not, this conception finds
expression in Article 1056 of the Civil Code which speaks of the
partition
of property by a testator by acts inter vivos. But whether these acts
be
considered in the light of a mere distribution or in the more formal
character
of a partition, their legal effects remain the same.
It is admitted in the
Complaint that years ago, Ciriaco Fule received from his father three
parcels
of property with which he should be charged in this partition. It is
likewise
therein admitted that Marcial Fule, while still alive, also received
four
parcels of property with which he is chargeable. In like manner from
the
admissions of the defendant Anastasio Fule it appears that he also had
received by way of advancement some three parcels from the same source.
The parcels which the plaintiffs claim to be as yet unpartitioned and
which
are alleged to be in the possession of Simeona and Felisa are described
in the complaint as consisting of some thirty-one items. But when this
allegation is sifted out in the proof, it appears that these defendants
[with Iluminada] are claiming in their own right about twenty parcels.
This brings Us to what
We consider the field of vital combat, namely, the question raised in
paragraph
No. 2 in the first special defense set up in the defendants' answer. It
is there stated that, in addition to the properties which Ciriaco
admitted
having received from his father, he had also received a number of other
parcels; and when these charges are examined in the light of the proof,
it will be found that this contention comes down to some fourteen
items,
to wit, parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9-A, 10,11, 11-A, 12,
described
in the answer. With respect to these Ciriaco Fule claims that he did
not
acquire them from his father Saturnino, but that they came to him
either
from his grandparents on his mother's side [the Calampianos] or from
other
independent sources, that they therefore belong to him in his own right
and are not of a collationable nature. The proof with respect to these
properties in our opinion leads to the conclusion that they were in
effect
derived from Saturnino Fule and that the plaintiff Ciriaco Fule is
chargeable
with their value. We have no doubt that all or nearly all of this
property
originally belonged to the Calampiano estate. In this properties, or
most
of them, must originally have pertained to the paraphernal estate of
Irene
Calampiano, mother of the principal litigants in this case. :But we
find
that said paraphernal property has been swallowed up in the conjugal
properties
of Saturnino Fule and his wife Irene; and the plaintiffs in this case
admit
that no evidence has been produced showing the present existence of any
property which should now be considered paraphernal property of Irene
Calampiano.
In deed, as regards at least part of these items, it appears that they
are covered by composition titles taken in the name of Saturnino Fule
as
far back as April, 1886. Our conclusion is that, admitting the
possibility
of error as to a few items not affecting the main conclusion, Ciriaco
Fule
is chargeable with the real properties above mentioned.
Taking proper account
of the foregoing conclusion and adding together the values of all the
properties
of which account should be taken in this lawsuit, as shown in the tax
books,
we discover that the total is approximately P84,800. Of this total,
Ciriaco
Fule appears to have received, by way of advancement, properties of a
value
of P18,631; while Marcial Fule has in the same manner received
properties
of the approximate value of P18,340. On the other hand, the defendant
Anastasio
Fule has received by way of advancement properties of the value of only
about P7,720; and the defendants Simeona and Felisa [with Iluminada]
appear
to be in possession of properties pertaining to the estate of Saturnino
Fule, of a value of about P40,242.
Upon dividing the total
value of all these properties by five, which is the number of the
heirs,
it will be seen that the aliquot part of each, upon division, should be
approximately P16,960. In other words, the plaintiffs Ciriaco Fule and
the children of Marcial Fule have received, and are chargeable with,
more
than their aliquot portion of the estate. On the other hand, Anastasio
Fule has received less than half of what would pertain to him upon a
fair
division; but this defendant makes no complaint about having received
too
little and on the contrary adheres to the side of the defendants.
Taking
together the three defendants who are heirs of Saturnino Fule, it will
be seen that they have received, or are in possession of, properties of
the value of P47,832, or less than P16,000 each; and although the
properties
of which Simeona and Felisa [with Iluminada] are in possession have a
value
somewhat in excess of their portions, this does not operate to the
prejudico
of the plaintiffs, who have already received more than their portions.
The estimation above
made is based upon the values of the property for purposes of taxation
as now assessed; and although these values may possibly differ somewhat
from the actual market values of said properties, it is probable that,
taken as a whole, the estimate thus made is fair to all. We may add
that
the same conclusion as to the relative value of the distributed
properties
may be derived from an actual count of the coconut-hearing trees on
most
of the parcels and the character of others; and the conclusion to which
we are inevitably driven is that the plaintiffs have already received
and
are holding properties at least equal to, or slightly in excess of,
their
fair portions of the estate.
It results, in our
opinion, that no error was committed by the trial court in dismissing
the
action; and the legal proposition which is applicable to the case is
this,
namely, that, where one or more coheirs in a partition proceeding
appear
to be in possession of portions of the ancestral estate which they have
received by way of advancement, and which they are claiming in their
own
right, the same having a value equal to, or in excess of, the portion
that
would come to them upon proper division of the estate, the action
cannot
be maintained. In other words, before one coheirs who has received and
holds advancements of a collationable character, can maintain an action
of partition, he must show that he has suffered prejudice [lesion];
for a Court cannot be required to entertain actions of this character,
to the disturbance of other heirs, when, if the action be prosecuted to
a conclusion, the plaintiff will get no more than what he already has.
By holding and claiming what he has received in excess of that which
would
be his lawful portion, he estops himself from obtaining any relief. In
the case before Us the only person prejudiced by what has happened in
the
past history of these lands is Anastasio Fule. But he is not
complaining.
It follows that
although
We do not exactly agree with the trial judge in all his processes of
reasoning
and are unable to accept his conclusion that there has been in fact a
technical
partition or distribution of all the property of Saturnino Fule, in the
end We reach the same result, which is that the plaintiffs have
demonstrated
no right to maintain this action. The judgment appealed from is,
therefore,
affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs against the appellants.
Johnson, Malcolm,
Villamor,
Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur. |