23 PRADO v.
NATIVIDAD (1925)
Rule 73 | Venue and Process
Ponente J. Villareal
Summary
1. Casimiro Natividad and Maria Prado got married.
Casimiro brought to the marriage some real
properties which he had received from his mother
as his future share in her inheritance. Maria
meanwhile did not bring anything. Maria
subsequently died from pulmonary tuberculosis.
2. Jose Maria Prado, administrator of the estate of
Maria, filed a complaint alleging that Casimiro had
refused to make an liquidation of the estate of the
conjugal partnership and prayed for a liquidation
decree of said partnership, adjudicating to the
plaintiff administrator one-half of the conjugal
property with its products. Casimiro said that the
estate of the conjugal partnership constituted
between him and his deceased wife had already
been liquidated, no conjugal property having been
found to exist, but a loss of P10,000.
3. The lower court held that no residue existed which
should be divided between the husband and the
heirs, and dismissed the complaint.
4. On appeal, the SC held that while the lower court
erred in not taking into account the assessed value
of the estate of the conjugal partnership at the time
of its liquidation, that does not affect the final
decision. The judgment appearing to be in
accordance with the evidence and the law, the
same is hereby affirmed.
Facts
1. Parties – petitioner Jose Maria Prado is the
administrator of the estate of Maria Prado, and the
respondent is the husband/widow Casimiro
Natividad.
2. Antecedents – Casimiro and Natividad got
married, with only Casimiro bringing in properties.
When Maria died, the administrator of her estate
alleged that Casimiro refused to liquidate the
conjugal partnershop and prayed for a liquidation
decree by CFI-Camarines Sur. Casimiro alleged
that the estate of the conjugal partnership
constituted between him and his deceased wife
Maria Prado had already been liquidated.
3. The lower court rendered judgment, holding that no
residue existed which should be divided between
the husband and the heirs, and dismissing the
complaint.
4. Summary of Cause of Action/Issues – Plaintiff
Jose Maria Prado took an appeal on the basis of
the alleged error committed by the court by taking
into account the value of the property of the
conjugal partnership at the time of the acquisition
thereof, and not of its liquidation and the fact of its
having taken into consideration the supposed debt
of P17,428.98.
Issue
1. MAIN ISSUE: Whether the appraisal of the real
property of the conjugal partnership should be based
on the value at the time of the acquisition, and not the
liquidation.
 a. No. Appraisal should be based on value at the
time of liquidation.
2. MINOR ISSUE: Whether admission in evidence,
without objection, sufficiently determines the value of
the conjugal property.
a. No.
Held
1. In appraising the real property of the conjugal
partnership, it is NOT the purchase price, but the
market, or default thereof, the assessed value at the
time of the liquidation that must be taken into account.
(Art. 1428 in connection with Art. 1367 of the Civil
Code)
Urban, as well as rural, property has its value in the
market which rises and falls according to the
movement of the population, market, and trade, and it
is not just nor equitable that the conjugal partnership
should not share the advantages or disadvantages that
those fluctuations give to its property.
The appellant contends that the claim in connection
with the debts contracted by Casimiro Natividad for the
expenses of the administration of the property of the
conjugal partnership of the family and the last sickness
and funerals of Maria Prado, should have been filed
with the committee on claims in the intestate
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Maria
Prado. This contention is untenable, because said
debts having been contracted by Casimiro as legal
administrator of the conjugal partnership formed by
virtue of his marriage with Maria Prado, must,
according to law (Art. 1408 of the Civil Code), be
charged to said partnership at the making of the
liquidation thereof and not to the estate of Maria Prado,
inasmuch as she did not personally intervene in
obtaining said loans.
Even if the assessed value of the estate of the conjugal
partnership at the time of the liquidation be taken into
account, its total value (P10,853.40) would not be
sufficient to cover all the expenses incurred by the
administration of said partnership (P17,423.98), and
consequently after the sale of said estate and the
payment of the debts with the proceeds thereof there
would be no residue that might be considered as
conjugal property to be distributed among the heirs of
Maria.
2. The admission in evidence without objection, of the
inventory purporting to set forth the amount and value
of certain property, DOES NOT BIND the trial court to
accept as true the contents of such inventory in a case
wherein the amount and value of the property in
question is at issue, and where other evidence as to its
amount and the value has been submitted. In such
case, the document is admitted for what is worth as
evidence, and it should not be held as conclusive of the
truth of its contents if other evidence of record
disclosed its inaccuracies and its failure correctly to set
forth the value and quantity of the properties in
question.