G.R. No. L-2901; April 27, 1951
ABINTESTADO DEL FINADO PEDRO P. SANTOS. GUADALUPE DOZON VDA. DE SANTOS, administradora-apelante, vs. ROSA SANTOS VDA. DE RICAFORT y MARIA SOLEDAD VDA. DE AYSON, reclamantes-apeladas.

FACTS

In the intestate proceedings of the deceased Tomasa Garcia (Special Proceeding No. 819, Court of First Instance of Pampanga), the heirs entered into an agreement (Exhibit E) on July 25, 1923. The parties were Pedro Santos (widower of Tomasa Garcia) and his daughters Rosa Santos (accompanied by her husband Arsenio Ricafort), Maria Consolacion Santos (single), and Maria Soledad Santos (single). They agreed that the three daughters were the only heirs of Tomasa Garcia. The agreement stated that the cash assets belonging to the deceased, amounting to P7,769.77 4/8, as well as her real properties, would remain in the possession of Pedro Santos, in a state of pro-indiviso, for him to administer. However, he was obligated to render an accounting of his administration and partition the properties among his daughters as soon as he was required to do so. Pedro Santos renounced all his rights in the inheritance, especially his usufruct as a widower. The court approved this agreement on October 15, 1923, and closed the proceedings. Pedro Santos thus became a fiduciary of the undivided properties. From 1928 to 1934, the claimants (Rosa and Maria Soledad) leased from their father Pedro Santos all the lands in Porac (122 hectares) at P4,800 per year. In 1935, Maria Consolacion died without descendants, and her father Pedro Santos inherited her share in the undivided properties. During his administration, Pedro Santos contracted a second marriage with Guadalupe Dizon. Upon Pedro Santos’s death, his widow initiated intestate proceedings for his estate (Special Proceeding No. 168, Court of First Instance of Tarlac) and was appointed administratrix. In these proceedings, on September 29, 1947, Rosa Santos Vda. de Ricafort and Maria Soledad Vda. de Ayson filed a claim asking that the administratrix of Pedro Santos’s estate deliver to each of them their participation in the undivided properties with the fruits from the time their deceased father assumed administration until delivery, in accordance with the 1923 agreement. The administratrix opposed this claim. After hearing, the lower court ordered the administratrix to: 1) deliver to the claimants the twenty (20) hectares of land in Porac; and 2) pay them the amount of P18,503.16 with legal interest from September 29, 1947, until fully paid. The administratrix appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the claimants are entitled to the fruits or rents of the lands corresponding to them from 1923 to 1942, under the terms of the agreement (Exhibit E), despite not having demanded an accounting from their father Pedro Santos during his lifetime.
2. Whether the claimants have lost their right to claim such fruits due to prescription, having let more than twenty years pass.

RULING

1. Yes. The claimants are entitled to the fruits of their share. The fact that they did not demand liquidation during their father’s lifetime is no obstacle to demanding it now from the administratrix of his estate, as she is the legal representative of the deceased’s properties. The obligations of the deceased are obligations of the judicial administration of his intestate estate. The claimants seek payment of the fruits of their share in the common property not from the widow personally, but against the estate of the deceased. The successors of the deceased Pedro Santos, including his widow, have no right to inherit his properties except after liquidation—that is, after paying all his debts and obligations. It is thus the obligation of the administratrix to pay the two claimants the amount of the fruits of the 40 hectares belonging to them; otherwise, the estate of the deceased would not be liquidated and would not be in a condition to be partitioned. The payment of the fruits is a simple corollary of the administratrix’s obligation to deliver the land itself.
2. No, the right has not prescribed. Pedro Santos died on December 19, 1946; his widow applied for administration of his intestate estate on January 7, 1947; the two daughters presented their claim on September 29, 1947. Although the order of March 6, 1947, appointing the administratrix does not show the period within which claims should be filed, the claimants presented theirs within six months and 23 days from her appointment. Under the Rules of Court, the court shall issue a notice requiring all persons having claims to file them within a period set (not less than six nor more than twelve months). The record on appeal does not show that such a period had already been fixed; therefore, it cannot be successfully maintained that the claimants’ petition has prescribed. Moreover, Pedro Santos possessed the undivided land as an administrator and retained the fruits in trust (fideicomiso); no law authorized him to become the owner of the fruits, nor is there any law authorizing the heirs of the deceased to inherit those fruits to the detriment of the claimants. Those fruits increased the hereditary estate. To liquidate that estate, they must be deducted. The appealed order is affirmed. The appellant shall pay the costs.