G.R. No. 48430 ; January 30, 1943
FLORENTINA PISALBON and MARGARITA MANUEL (substituted by her children CRISTETA and ESMEDIA ANCHETA), plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PLACIDA BEJEC, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Hipolito Manuel died on April 26, 1926. He left two widows: Florentina Pisalbon (married on June 23, 1903) and Placida Bejec (married on November 9, 1914). Neither wife knew of the other’s marriage until after Hipolito’s death. He also left a homestead (Lot No. 754, Umingan cadastre, 13.85 hectares) covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1749 issued in the name of “the heirs of Hipolito Manuel” by order of the Director of Lands (August 23, 1934). In his homestead application (filed September 3, 1917, approved August 23, 1918), Hipolito named Placida Bejec as his lawful wife. Hipolito and Placida jointly cleared and worked the land from the application date until his death, after which Placida remained in possession. A daughter, Margarita Manuel, was born to the first marriage; no children were born to the second. Margarita died during the pendency of the action (August 17, 1939), leaving two children, Cristeta and Esmedia Ancheta.
The plaintiffs (Florentina Pisalbon and Margarita Manuel, later substituted by her children) filed an action on June 28, 1938, to recover ownership and possession of the homestead from Placida Bejec. The trial court, based on a stipulation of facts, dismissed the complaint, holding that Placida, having cleared and worked the land with Hipolito, was entitled to the homestead. On appeal, the plaintiffs invoked the doctrine in Lao and Lao vs. Dee Tim (45 Phil. 739) and claimed a one-half pro indiviso share.

ISSUE

Whether, under the circumstances, the homestead should be awarded exclusively to Placida Bejec or shared between the two families of Hipolito Manuel.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. Applying the doctrine in Lao and Lao vs. Dee Tim, where two women innocently and in good faith marry the same man, each family is entitled to one-half of the husband’s estate. The Court held that, regardless of the validity of the second marriage, Placida Bejec is entitled to one-half of the homestead as a co-applicant and co-owner, having jointly occupied, cleared, and worked the land with Hipolito Manuel. The other half belongs to Hipolito’s heirs (Cristeta and Esmedia Ancheta, as children of his legitimate daughter Margarita), subject to the usufruct of both widows over one-third of that half under Article 834 of the Civil Code. The Court equitably compensated Placida’s usufructuary right with the plaintiffs’ claim to one-half of the homestead’s products from June 28, 1938 (filing of the complaint).
The Court ordered: (1) partition of Lot No. 754 into two equal parts, with costs shared equally; (2) issuance of a new certificate for one-half in favor of Placida Bejec, and another for the other half in favor of Cristeta and Esmedia Ancheta, subject to Florentina Pisalbon’s usufruct over one-third of the Ancheta children’s portion; and (3) an accounting by Placida Bejec for one-half of the net produce of the lot from the date of the judgment’s finality pending partition. No costs were awarded.