GR L 21809; (January, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21809 January 31, 1966
GIL P. POLICARPIO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. JOSE V. SALAMAT, ET AL., defendants. VICENTE ASUNCION, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Damasa Crisostomo, in her probated will, gave the naked ownership of a fishpond in Hagonoy, Bulacan, to her sister Teodorica de la Cruz, and the usufruct to the fourteen children of her cousins Antonio Perez, Patricia Vicente, and Canuto Lorenzo. Teodorica de la Cruz later bequeathed her naked ownership rights to Jose V. Salamat. The fourteen usufructuaries leased the fishpond to Gil P. Policarpio. During this lease, three usufructuaries (Francisco Lorenzo, Leoncio M. Perez, and Servillano Perez) died. Both the naked owner (Salamat) and the surviving usufructuaries claimed the deceaseds’ share of the lease rentals (P10,714.26), causing Policarpio to withhold the amount. Subsequently, the surviving usufructuaries leased the fishpond to Batas Riego de Dios, who also withheld the corresponding shares due to the conflicting claims. Policarpio and Riego de Dios filed an interpleader action to compel the parties to litigate their claims. Salamat claimed the shares, arguing the usufruct was extinguished upon each usufructuary’s death, merging their rights with the naked ownership. The surviving usufructuaries claimed the shares, arguing the usufruct, constituted simultaneously for all, continued until the death of the last survivor, with accretion among them. The trial court ruled in favor of Salamat. The surviving usufructuaries appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the eleven surviving usufructuaries or the naked owner, Jose V. Salamat, is entitled to the fruits (lease rentals) that would have corresponded to the three deceased usufructuaries.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The eleven surviving usufructuaries are entitled to the shares of the three deceased usufructuaries. The Court held that under Article 611 of the Civil Code, a usufruct constituted in favor of several persons living at the time of its constitution is not extinguished until the death of the last survivor. The death of some usufructuaries does not cause a partial extinction of the usufruct; instead, the right of accretion applies, meaning the share of a deceased usufructuary accrues to the surviving usufructuaries, unless a contrary intention is expressed by the testator. In this case, the will of Damasa Crisostomo contained no contrary provision. Therefore, the usufruct continues until the death of the last surviving usufructuary, and the shares of the deceased accrue to the survivors. Policarpio and Riego de Dios were ordered to pay the withheld amounts to the eleven surviving usufructuaries.