G.R. No. L-3605; April 21, 1952
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE BALDOMERO J. LESACA. CONSUELO F. LESACA AND JUANA F. LESACA, executrices-appellants, vs. JUANA FELIX VDA. DE LESACA, claimant-appellee.

FACTS

Baldomero J. Lesaca died on November 8, 1946, survived by his second wife, Juana Felix Vda. de Lesaca, two minor children from that marriage, two children from his first marriage (Consuelo F. Lesaca and Juana F. Lesaca, who were named co-executrices), and three acknowledged natural children. Proceedings for the probate of his will and administration of his estate were instituted. Three orders from the Court of First Instance of Manila are the subject of separate appeals, all certified to the Supreme Court as involving only questions of law. First, the court granted monthly support allowances to the two minor children over the opposition of the co-executrices and natural children, and later ordered the co-executrices to deposit the arrears. The co-executrices contended these allowances should be charged against the minors’ inheritance. Second, the court declared that P2,500 received by the co-executrices after the decedent’s death, as the repurchase price for land originally sold under a pacto de retro to the decedent before his marriage to Juana Felix, was conjugal property, entitling the widow to one-half. The co-executrices opposed, claiming the money came from their mother’s estate. Third, the court declared that 1,040 cavans of palay, received as rent for the agricultural year 1946-1947 from palay planted during the coverture but harvested after the decedent’s death, was conjugal property, with one-half belonging to the widow.

ISSUE

1. Whether allowances for support granted by the court to the minor heirs pending liquidation of the estate are subject to collation and deductible from their hereditary portions.
2. Whether money received after marriage, as the repurchase price of land sold a retro before such marriage to one of the spouses, constitutes conjugal property.
3. Whether a standing crop of palay planted during coverture and harvested after the death of one spouse constitutes fruits and income under Article 1401 of the Civil Code, such that one-half belongs to the conjugal partnership.

RULING

1. Yes. The allowances for support granted to the minor heirs pending liquidation are subject to deduction from their hereditary shares insofar as they exceed what they are entitled to as fruits or income, pursuant to Article 1430 of the Civil Code of 1889 (re-enacted as Article 188 of the new Civil Code). This is distinct from donations inter vivos covered by Article 1041 on collation.
2. No. The P2,500 repurchase price received after marriage is not conjugal property. The land was sold a retro to the decedent before his marriage, and the repurchase money merely returned the original purchase price. Since the original payment was the decedent’s exclusive property (with no showing it was earned by the joint efforts of the spouses), its return after marriage did not convert it into conjugal property. The order adjudging one-half to the widow is reversed.
3. Yes. The palay, as rent (civil fruits) from land cultivated by a lessee, accrued day by day during the coverture, as the crop was planted after the marriage and matured near or at the time of the decedent’s death. Under Article 1380 of the old Civil Code, uncollected fruits or rents after dissolution of marriage are divided pro rata, with the conjugal partnership considered as usufructuary. The time of accrual, not the actual receipt after dissolution, controls. Therefore, the rent belongs to the conjugal partnership, and one-half should be delivered to the widow. The order is affirmed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders on the support allowances and the palay, but reversed the order on the P2,500 repurchase price. No costs were awarded.