Tuesday, March 5, 2019

[CASE DIGEST] PICHAY v. QUEROL (G.R. No. L-4452)

October 1, 1908

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:  

The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the case remanded, with directions to enter a judgment in favor of Pichay to the effect that she is entitled to the right of usufruct in the lands assigned to the defendants by the partition of August 10, 1905, and to enter a judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant Querol for P149.48 without cost of to either party. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court. So ordered.




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.