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, as an assignee of heir Jose Hernaez’s interest, objected to several items in the account. The objections pertained to: (1) a preferred lien of P12,683.83 on the Panaogao Hacienda (adjudicated to Veloso) for Jose Hernaez’s unpaid lease rentals; (2) a lien of P20,000 on the same hacienda in favor of the administrator; (3) the alleged excessiveness of P24,991.42 in administrator and attorney’s fees; and (4) the partition scheme, particularly the share given to the widow.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the lower court erred in imposing a P12,683.83 lien on the Panaogao Hacienda.
2. Whether the lower court erred in imposing a P20,000 lien on the hacienda in favor of the administrator.
3. Whether the lower court erred in approving P24,991.42 as administrator and attorney’s fees.
4. Whether the lower court erred in its partition of the estate, specifically regarding the widow’s share.

RULING

1. NO, as to the P12,683.83 lien. The amount represents the deficiency in lease rentals owed by Jose Hernaez to the estate, a valid debt transmitted to his assignee, Veloso. An agreement among the heirs stipulated that each heir’s share is subject to a lien for any debt owed to the estate.
2. YES, as to the P20,000 lien. The administrator (appellee) himself agreed to eliminate this holding from the judgment. The Supreme Court ordered its elimination.
3. NO, as to the administrator and attorney’s fees. The Court found the fees not excessive considering the complexity of the proceedings, the number of lawyers and administrators involved, and the substantial value of the estate. A portion of these fees had already been paid to and approved for Jose Hernaez himself.
4. PARTLY YES, as to the partition. The Court held:
* On the nature of the widow’s share: The appellant’s claim that there can be no usufruct over money (as a fungible thing) is incorrect under Article 482 of the Civil Code.
* On the offsetting of the widow’s pension: The widow’s prior receipt of a P55,000 pension does not offset her share, as the heirs’ agreement allowed her to receive her portion in whole or in part.
* On the computation of the widow’s share: The lower court erred in giving the widow a share equal to that of each child. Under the law, the widow is entitled to a portion equal only to the legitime of each child, to be taken from the free third (mejora). Since no child received a betterment, the widow’s share must be computed from the two-thirds constituting the legitime. The remaining free third (tercio libre) must be distributed only among the heirs, excluding the widow. Based on this computation, the widow is entitled only to P8,474.19, not P11,122.38.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment is AFFIRMED with modifications: (1) The holding on the P20,000 lien in favor of the administrator is eliminated; and (2) The widow’s share is reduced to P8,474.19, with the remainder of the distributable estate to be divided equally among the heirs, excluding the widow. No costs.