G.R. No. 18032 ; November 23, 1922
ELISEO SANTOS, as administrator of Estanislao Santos, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PABLO BARTOLOME, as administrator of Marcela Tizon, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Estanislao Santos and Marcela Tizon were spouses. Estanislao died in 1914, and Marcela died in 1917. They had no children. Their respective estates are represented by administrators: Eliseo Santos (for Estanislao) and Pablo Bartolome (for Marcela). In the liquidation of their community property, Eliseo Santos, as administrator, submitted a project of partition including several items (a to g) as charges against Marcela Tizon’s share. The trial court allowed items (a) and (b) but disallowed items (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) without receiving evidence, holding they were not legally chargeable against Marcela. Eliseo Santos appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the disallowed items (c, d, e, f, g) constitute valid legal charges against the share of Marcela Tizon in the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.

RULING

Yes, the items are potentially valid charges. The order is reversed, and the case is remanded for the presentation of evidence.
– Item (c) (P1,292): Amount paid from community funds to redeem Marcela’s separate property sold with pacto de retro before marriage. The community estate becomes a creditor for such redemption, chargeable against Marcela’s share.
– Item (d) (P3,000): Cost of constructing an irrigation system on Marcela’s separate land using community funds, which enhanced the property’s value. This is a useful expenditure under Article 1404 of the Civil Code, chargeable against her share.
– Item (e) (P7,140.97): Expenses for Marcela’s support and maintenance after Estanislao’s death until her own death. This is an advancement deductible from her share under Article 1430, but the source of funds must be verified; if from her own property’s income, it should not be charged.
– Items (f) and (g) (P1,034.95 and P209.85): Costs for Marcela’s gravestone and memorial crown, incurred after her death at her administrator’s request. These are proper charges against her estate.
The trial court erred in disallowing these items without a hearing. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on claims against an estate are not pertinent to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership for these items.