G.R. No. L-8926; July 24, 1915
PAULINA SOCHAYSENG, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANDRES TRUJILLO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Paulina Sochayseng filed a complaint against her son-in-law, Andres Trujillo, the widower of her deceased daughter, Marcela Yatco. She alleged that she incurred expenses for the subsistence (P410) and funeral (P320) of Marcela during her final illness and after her death. She sought payment of these sums from Trujillo and asked the court to order the liquidation of the conjugal partnership property, which included real estate. Trujillo, who was also the administrator of his wife’s intestate estate, argued that the claim should have been presented in those probate proceedings. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint on that ground but later reversed itself, ordering Trujillo to liquidate the conjugal partnership. After Trujillo submitted an inventory, the trial court rendered a final judgment outlining the order of payment from the conjugal assets. Trujillo appealed, contending the court erred in proceeding with the ordinary action instead of requiring the claim to be filed in the special proceedings for the settlement of his wife’s estate.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff’s claim for subsistence and funeral expenses, and the settlement of the conjugal partnership, should be litigated in an ordinary civil action or in the special proceedings for the settlement of the deceased wife’s estate.

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that the ordinary civil action was proper. The Court held that upon the death of a spouse, the surviving husband has the right and obligation to liquidate the conjugal partnership. The debts of the partnership, which include the support of the family (like the P410 for subsistence), must be settled in this liquidation. Only the net share of the deceased spouse, after such settlement, becomes part of her estate to be administered in the special proceedings. Therefore, it was an error to settle the affairs of the conjugal partnership within the probate proceedings. The funeral expense (P320), however, is a charge against the estate of the deceased, not the conjugal partnership, and should be presented in the special proceedings as a preferred credit.

Applying the rules on conjugal partnership liquidation, the Supreme Court modified the trial court’s computation. It found that from the total conjugal property (P2,603), the wife’s paraphernal property (P1,490) and the conjugal debt for her support (P410) must first be paid. The remainder (P1,318) constituted the net conjugal assets, to be divided equally between the spouses (P659 each). Consequently, the estate of the deceased wife was entitled to her paraphernal property (P875, after deducting P615 for property she took) plus her half of the net conjugal assets (P659), totaling P1,534.

The Court affirmed the judgment with modification, ordering defendant Trujillo to pay plaintiff Sochayseng: (a) P410 as a personal debt of the conjugal partnership for support; and (b) P1,534 as the heir to her daughter’s estate (comprising paraphernal property and community share). The right of the widower to his legal usufruct was reserved for a separate action.