Ponente: Willard, J.
FACTS:
·
In April 1905, Juana Pichay conveyed to
Eulalio Querol, Jr., et al. an undivided one-third interest in 25 parcels of
land situated in the Province of Ilocos Sur, as payment of a debt of P1,500
which she owed them.
·
The said contract contained the following
clause: "Third: The one-third part of these lands belong to me, it being
my share in the inheritance left by my deceased parents; but I have requested
my said creditors to allow me to enjoy the usufruct of the same until my death,
notwithstanding the fact that I have conveyed the said lands to them in payment
of my debt, and I bind myself not to sell, mortgage, or leave the said lands as
inheritance to any person."
·
In August 1905, the owners of the 25 parcels
of land made a partition thereof among themselves, in which Pichay took no
part. In this partition, certain specific tracts of land were assigned to
Querol, et al. as the third to which they were entitled by reason of the
previous conveyance from Pichay to them. They have been in possession of the
tracts so assigned to them in partition since the given date, and are now in
such possession, and have refused to recognize in Pichay any right of usufruct
therein.
·
Querol, et al. argue that the third clause
(see above) in their agreement did not give Pichay any right of usufruct in the
land, claiming that from the wording of this clause, it appears that Pichay
only asked for this right and it does not appear that Querol, et al. gave it to
her.
·
In
February, 1907, Pichay filed an action against the defendants, asking that it
be declared that she had the right of usufruct in a third of the 25 parcels of
land; and that she had the right to the administrations of said land; and that
Querol, et al. should pay her the rents which they had received during the time
of her dispossession.
·
LOWER COURT RULING: The lower court made five
propositions: (1) That all the lands described in the complaint be delivered to
Pichay for administration; (2) that Pichay has a right of usufruct in a third
party of the said lands until her death; (3) that the partition of the said
lands, made by the coowners of Pichay, can not affect the latter; (4) Querol is
directed to deliver to Pichay two crops from the third part of the lands in
question, or the equivalent thereof, taking as a basis the present crop; and
that (5) Pichay is sentenced to indemnify Querol in the sum of P300 on account
of the past suit, without costs.
·
Hence, the instant petition.
RULING:
Whether
or not the lower court erred in its five propositions. – PARTLY.
·
First proposition: Invalid. The first
proposition finds no support in the record, and there is nothing therein to
show that Pichay had any acquired right to the administration of the lands
described in the complaint.
·
Second proposition: Valid.
·
Third proposition: Invalid. The third
proposition runs counter to Art. 490 of the Civil Code: "The usufructuary
of part of a thing held in common shall exercise all the rights corresponding
to the owner thereof with regard to the administration and collection of fruits
or interests. Should the community cease by reason of the division of the thing
possessed in common, the usufruct of the part awarded to the owner of coowner
shall appertain to the usufructuary."
·
Fourth proposition: Partially valid. The
agreed statement of facts shows that, while Querol, et al. are in possession of
the tracts which had been assigned to them, they received the crops for only
two years. The crops for the years 1906 and 1907 are the only amounts which
Pichay is entitled to recover.
Fifth
proposition. Invalid, mainly because Pichay did not present any bill of
exceptions.