G.R. No. L-25594, October 18, 1926
ELISA DOMINADO, petitioner-appellant, vs. NICOMEDES DERAYUNAN, administrator-appellee, and NARCISO DERAYUNAN, appellee.

FACTS

In the intestate proceedings for the estate of Francisco Derayunan, the judicial administrator submitted a scheme of partition. The deceased was survived by his widow from his second marriage, Elisa Dominado (appellant), and two legitimate children from a previous marriage, Narciso and Margarita Derayunan (appellees). The widow objected to the partition. The trial court ordered the partition based on the following: the inheritance (comprising the deceased’s half of the conjugal property and his private property) would be divided into three equal parts. Two-thirds would constitute the legitime of the two children, and the remaining one-third would be the free portion. From this free portion, the widow’s usufructuary share would be taken, which the court fixed as equal to the legitime of each child who received no betterment. Since no betterment was given, the court held each child’s legitime was one-third of the inheritance (half of the two-thirds legitime). Therefore, the widow’s usufruct was one-sixth of the inheritance (one-third of the free portion). The widow appealed, contending her usufruct should be one-third of the entire inheritance.

ISSUE

1. What is the correct basis for determining the widow’s usufructuary share under Article 834 of the Civil Code when she inherits with legitimate children from a different marriage, and no betterment has been given?
2. Is the widow entitled to one-half of the coconut trees planted during the marriage on land that was the exclusive property of the deceased spouse?

RULING

1. On the Widow’s Usufruct: The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. The widow’s usufructuary share is one-third of the entire inheritance. Article 834 of the Civil Code entitles the widow to a usufruct equal to the legitime of each legitimate child or descendant who has not received any betterment. The Court, citing commentators Manresa and Sanchez Roman, held that when no betterment is given (as in this case), the legitime of the children is the entire two-thirds of the inheritance reserved for them by law. This two-thirds is to be divided equally among the children. Therefore, the legitime of each child is one-third of the inheritance (two-thirds divided by two). Consequently, the widow’s usufruct must be equal to this amount, which is one-third of the inheritance. The trial court erred in using only the free portion (one-third) as the basis, resulting in an incorrect share of one-sixth.

2. On the Coconut Trees: The widow is not entitled to one-half of the coconut trees. Applying the doctrine from *Tabotabo vs. Molero*, improvements (like crops and trees) made on the exclusive property of a spouse during the marriage belong to the owner of the land by right of accession. The exception in the Civil Code for conjugal property applies only to buildings, not to crops or other improvements. The expenses for planting the trees are conjugal expenses, for which the conjugal partnership must be reimbursed, but the trees themselves remain part of the landowner’s exclusive property.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment is MODIFIED. The portion pertaining to the widow, Elisa Dominado, in usufruct is declared to be one-third of the estate of the deceased Francisco Derayunan. No costs.