GR L 14646; (October, 1919) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14646; October 24, 1919
FLORENTINO CHICO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MARIA CONCEPCION VIOLA and her husband, TOMAS C. REYES, defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
Bartolome Viola died on March 26, 1915, leaving a legitimate daughter, Maria Concepcion Viola, and a recognized natural son, Florentino Chico. He left no other legitimate descendants. The trial court initially declared that Florentino Chico, as a recognized natural son, was entitled to one-sixth of Bartolome Viola’s estate. Commissioners were appointed to partition the property accordingly, and their report was approved by the court. Florentino Chico appealed, contending that he was entitled to one-third, not one-sixth, of the hereditary estate.
ISSUE:
Whether a recognized natural child, when there is only one legitimate child and no other legitimate descendants, is entitled to one-third or one-sixth of the hereditary estate of the deceased parent.
RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court. It held that the plaintiff, Florentino Chico, is entitled to one-third of the hereditary estate, to be taken from the disposable portion after deducting lawful expenses.
The Court interpreted Articles 808 and 840 of the Civil Code. Article 808 provides that the legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of two-thirds of the hereditary estate, with the parent having the right to dispose of one of these two-thirds as a betterment. Article 840 states that when there are legitimate children or descendants and acknowledged natural children, each natural child is entitled to one-half of the portion pertaining to each legitimate child who has not received any betterment, provided it is taken from the disposable portion.
The trial court erroneously interpreted that the “portion pertaining to each legitimate child” excludes the third destined for betterment. The Supreme Court clarified that when there is only one legitimate child and no betterment given, the entire two-thirds legitime pertains to that legitimate child. Since no betterment was given, the legitimate child’s portion is the full two-thirds. Therefore, the natural child’s share is one-half of this portion, which equals one-third of the entire estate. The Court emphasized that a betterment requires a positive act by the parent and cannot be presumed, especially when there is only one legitimate child. The case was remanded to the lower court for a new partition based on this ruling.