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

ISSUE/
S

Baldomero J. Lesca died on November 8, 1946.

Hes survived by his 2nd wife (Juana Felix) and his 2 minor children with
her, 2 children by his first marriage, Juana and Consuelo (he made them
co-executrices of the will) and 3 acknowledged natural children by a 3rd
woman.
Three appeals in this case, concerning Lescas will and the
administration of his estate.
APPEAL ONE
o Court granted the two minor children a monthly allowance of P100
for living expenses plus an extra sum of P300 for matriculation and
uniforms and ordered the co-executrices to deposit in court all the
allowances in arrears
o Co-executrices refused amount should be charged against minor
childrens share of the inheritance
o Court issued order (dated March 11, 1949) holding that amount
should be considered allowances for support, to be deducted from
their hereditary portion only if it exceeds what they are entitled to
as fruits or income and requiring the co-executrices to deposit in
court the entire amount (P2,995.83)
APPEAL TWO
o Deceased and Juana Felix lived together martially since 1924 but
were not married until December 18, 1945
o In 1930, Ramon Garcia conveyed to deceased 3 parcels of land for
P2,500 under a pacto de retro sale
o September 25, 1947, the co-executrices with the approval of the
court reconveyed the land to Ramon Garcia for the same sum
o Juana Felix claims that this sum is conjugal property and petitioned
the court to order co-executrices to give her thereof
o Court granted petition in the order dated March 11, 1949, holding
that the sum in dispute was conjugal property since the
reconveyance happened after the marriage
APPEAL THREE
o April 29, 1949 order declared that 1,040 cavans of palay of the
value of P20,800 received as rent on decedents land for the
agricultural year of 1946-1947 should be considered conjugal
property so that thereof should go to the widow
o Deceased did not cultivate his land personally but rented it out to
someone and 1,040 cavans of palay was the rent/decedents share
of the harvest from Juen or July 1946 (after his marriage to Juana
Felix) so it had already matured or had been near maturity at the
time when the conjugal partnership was dissolved by the death of
the deceased in November 1946
1. WON allowances for support granted by the court to the minor heirs
should be subject to collation and deducted from their respective
hereditary portions
2. WON money received after marriage, as purchase price of land sold
before marriage to one of the consorts, constitutes conjugal property.

HELD /
RATIO

3. WON standing crop of palay planted during coverture, and harvested

after the death of one of the consorts, constitutes fruits and income
within the purview of Art 1401 of the Civil Code, and of such crop
should be delivered to the surviving spouse
1. YES. Article 1430 of Civil Code of 1889 (re-enacted as Article 188 of the
new Civil Code) provides that the surviving spouse and his or her
children shall be given an allowance for their support out of the general
estate, pending the liquidation of the inventoried estate, and until their
share has been delivered to them, but it shall be deducted from their
portion in so far as it exceeds what they may have been entitled to as
fruits or income.
2. NO. Garcia sold the land to the Lesaca before Lesaca married Juana Felix
and repurchased it for the same amount after they married. While its
true that under Article 1401 of the Civil Code of 1889, property obtained
by the industry, wages or work of the spouses or of either of them
belongs to the conjugal partnership, this refers to property obtained
during the marriage.
Counsel for the widow cites Marata vs Dionio, where the Court held that
though there is no technical marital partnership between persons living
martially without being lawfully married, nevertheless there is between
them an informal civil partnership which would entitle the parties to an
equal interest in property acquired by their joint efforts.
However, there was no showing that the sum paid to Garcia was earned
by the joint efforts of the deceased and his widow in its absence, sum
must be deemed to have been the property of the deceased.
3. YES. Since rents are civil fruits, they must be deemed to accrue from day
to day and belong to the usufructuary (in this case, the conjugal
partnership) in proportion to the time the usufruct may last.
The decedents participation (as rent) in palay accrued during coverture.
So it should belong to the conjugal partnership. Its immaterial that the
rent was received after the dissolution of the marriage, as its the date of
accrual that is important.

(Lesaca v. Vda. de Lesaca, G.R. No. L-3605, [April 21, 1952], 91 PHIL 135-143)