G.R. No. 29158 , December 29, 1928
ESTATE OF ROSENDO HERNAEZ. RAFAEL R. ALUNAN, administrator-appellee, vs. ELEUTERIA CH. VELOSO, opponent-appellant.

FACTS

This case involves the settlement of the estate of the deceased Rosendo Hernaez. The judicial administrator, Rafael Alunan, filed an account which was approved by the lower court. Appellant Eleuteria Ch. Veloso, an assignee of heir Jose Hernaez, objected to several items in the account. The objections pertained to: (1) a preferred lien on the Panaogao Hacienda (adjudicated to Veloso) for a sugar rental debt of Jose Hernaez; (2) another potential lien on the same hacienda in favor of the administrator; (3) the amount of attorney’s and administrator’s fees; and (4) the propriety of the partition, particularly the share given to the widow.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the lower court erred in imposing a preferred lien on the Panaogao Hacienda for the sugar rental debt of Jose Hernaez.
2. Whether the lower court erred in imposing another lien on the hacienda to secure a potential liability of the administrator.
3. Whether the attorney’s and administrator’s fees were excessive.
4. Whether the lower court erred in its partition of the estate, specifically:
a. In adjudicating a cash share to the widow despite the nature of usufruct;
b. In not offsetting the widow’s share with a pension she received; and
c. In computing the widow’s legal share incorrectly.

RULING

1. NO, as to the first lien. The lien for P12,683.83 represents the value of the unpaid minimum guaranteed rent on the Panaogao Hacienda leased by Jose Hernaez. This is a legitimate debt of Jose Hernaez which, by agreement among the heirs, constitutes a lien on his share in the estate, now held by his assignee, the appellant.

2. YES, as to the second lien. The lower court’s holding that the hacienda should answer for a P20,000 potential liability of the administrator (Rafael Alunan) in a separate civil case is eliminated, as the appellee administrator himself agreed to its elimination.

3. NO, as to the fees. The fees totaling P24,991.42 were not excessive considering the complexity of the proceedings, the large estate involved, the necessity of employing several lawyers and administrators, and the fact that a portion of these fees had already been paid to and received by Jose Hernaez (appellant’s predecessor) and previously approved by the court.

4. Regarding the partition:
a. NO error in adjudicating a cash share to the widow. The appellant’s claim that there can be no usufruct over money because it is fungible is incorrect. Article 482 of the Civil Code does not prohibit the usufruct of money.
b. NO error in not offsetting the widow’s share with her pension. The pension she received was governed by a separate agreement among the heirs, which allowed her to receive it without affecting her inheritance share.
c. YES, error in computing the widow’s share. The lower court incorrectly awarded the widow a share equal to that of each child (P11,122.38) from the entire distributable estate. Under the law, the widow’s usufruct is only over a portion equal to the legitime of each child, to be taken from the one-third constituting the “mejora” (betterment). Since no child received a betterment in this case, the widow’s share should be computed only from the two-thirds constituting the legitime. The free third (tercio libre) must be distributed only among the heirs, excluding the widow. The correct computation results in a widow’s share of P8,474.19.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:
1. The holding imposing a lien on the Panaogao Hacienda for the P20,000 potential liability of administrator Rafael Alunan is ELIMINATED.
2. The widow’s share is ADJUSTED to P8,474.19.
3. The remainder of the distributable estate (P88,979.08 minus the widow’s share) shall be partitioned equally among the heirs, excluding the widow.
No pronouncement as to costs.