Persons and Family Relations Digested Case - Louem

Onas v Javillo 59 Phil 733(1934)

Liquidation ACP
Nature of the Case: Appeal from an order of the CFI of Capiz approving a project
of partition of property belonging to the estate of deceased Crispulo Javillo.
Facts:
Crispulo Javillo died intestate on 18th of May, 1927, in Sigma, Capiz, Philippines.
25th of July 1927 a petition was filed in the CFI, praying that an administrator of
the estate appointed: Santiago Andrada was named as the administrator. He
submitted two projects of partition. The first one was disapproved by the lower
court, and the second one, a partition dated September 9, 1931, is now that is
appealed on this case.
Crispulo Javillo married Ramona Levis and they had 5 children ( Conscolacion,
Mercedes, Caridad, Soledad, and Jose) . After Ramonas death, he married Rosario
Onas and they had 4 children (Joaquin, Ana, Bernardo, and Porillana) . Rosario Onas
is the appellant to this case.
The parties entered into the following agreement as to the properties acquired
during the first and second marriages. Rosario Onas was opposing the partition that
was made by the administrator of the estate of her husband. She alleges the
following errors:
That the court erred in holding that: All the properties acquired during the second
marriage of Javillo and Onas were acquired with the properties of the first marriage
of Javillo and Levis.
That the court erred in approving the partition dated September 9, 1931,
notwithstanding that the same did not include all properties of the deceased.
ISSUES: Is there liquidation of properties in this case?

Whether or not the community partnership shall continue to exist between

the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased husband or wife.
Whether or not the properties of the second marriage can be claimed as
products of the properties of the first marriage.
Whether or not the partition that was approved by the lower court is valid.

Court Held:
In this case it does not appear that there was a liquidation of the partnership
property of the first marriage nor does it appear that they asked for such a
liquidation. The project of partition approved by the lower court is based on the
absurd claim that the capital used acquiring the twenty parcels of land of the
second marriage was the product of the eleven parcels of the first marriage, and
such claim is not in conformity of the law.

Persons and Family Relations Digested Case - Louem

The project of partition approved by the lower court is based on the abovementioned absurd claim and furthermore is not in conformity to law. One-half of all
the conjugal property of both marriages corresponds to the deceased Crispulo Javillo
and must be divided share and share alike among all the children of both marriages.
One-half of the conjugal property pertaining to the first marriage should be divided
share and share alike among the five children of that marriage.
*The community partnership being as permanent as the state that produces it,
there can be no doubt that the same causes influence it as marriage. The first of
them is death. But the court held that there are more reasons which impede its
continuance*:

When the marriage is dissolved, the cause that brought about the community
ceases, for the principles of an ordinary partnership are not applicable to this
community, which is governed by special rules.
In the absence of the reasons that induced the legislator to establish it, the
provisions of law governing the subject should cease to have any effect for
the community of property is admissible and proper in so far as it conforms to
unity of life, to the mutual affection between husband and wife, and serves as
a recompense for the care of preserving and increasing the property; all of
which terminates by the death of one of the partners.
The partnership having been created by law, it has no object and it is unsafe
to extend it on pretext of tacit consent.

Persons and Family Relations Digested Case - Louem

Rodriguez v. De La Cruz
8 Phil 665
August 21, 1905, the plaintiff, Matea Rodriguez, through her attorneys, filed an amended
complaint in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Albay for the purpose of recovering
from the defendant certain pieces or parcels of land described in the complaint, alleging:

That she was the owner of the said lands; that she had acquired said lands during her first
marriage from her deceased father, Alejo Rodriguez;
That Hilarion de la Cruz was her second husband and that she had permission from him to
commence this action in her own name against the said defendant; that she had been in
possession of said lands and enjoyed the fruits of the same, from the month of May, 1882,
until the month of February, 1905;
20th of February 1905, That the said Hilarion de la Cruz had no interest or right in said
property; that on or about the the defendants in the cause commenced an action in the Court
of First Instance of the Province of Albay against the said Hilarion de la Cruz for the partition
of the lands described in the present cause;
That on the 29th day of March, 1905, the judge of the said court adjudged in favor of the
defendant Susana de la Cruz in this action the ownership and possession of the lands
described under letter "B" in the complaint in this cause adjudging and decreeing the
ownership and possession of lands described in letter "A" in this complaint to Escolastico de
la Cruz; that the plaintiff in this cause was not made a party in the action for partition
between the present defendants and the said Hilarion de la Cruz.

To this petition, defendants filed a special denial, repudiating certain parts of

the facts set out in the complaint and admitting certain other of the facts alleged in
the said complaint.
As a special defense the defendants set up the