**Anulina L. Vda. de Bogacki vs. Hon. Sancho Y. Inserto, Presiding Judge, Branch I, Court of First Instance of Iloilo, the Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo, and Ma. Emma Luz Bogacki**
### Facts
Anulina L. Vda. de Bogacki (petitioner) had a usufruct over one-third of the half of four parcels of land (equivalent to one-sixth) in Iloilo City, owned by her daughter Maria Emma Luz Bogacki (respondent). Due to a misunderstanding, Maria Emma left her mother’s home, and Anulina began exclusively collecting the rentals from these properties, without sharing them with Maria Emma. As a result, Maria Emma filed a partition action to define the portions Anulina could exercise her usufructuary rights.
The Court of First Instance of Iloilo ruled that Anulina should limit her usufruct to one-sixth of the properties and ordered her to turn over to Maria Emma five-sixths of all previoiusly collected rent. A writ of execution was issued but, due to lack of tangible assets, the plaintiff requested a levy on Anulina’s usufructuary rights, which was granted despite her opposition. The usufructuary rights were sold at public auction to Maria Emma for PHP6,300. Anulina filed for reconsideration of this decision, arguing that her rights were exempt from execution under the rules of court and civil code, but this was denied.
Maria Emma sought a writ of possession, which was granted, prompting Anulina to file the present petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court to annul the said order and restrain enforcement.
### Issues
1. Whether the usufructuary rights of Anulina, as a surviving spouse, are exempt from execution.
2. Whether there was an abuse of discretion in the levy and sale on execution of the usufructuary rights.
3. Whether the issuance of the writ of possession was proper.
### Court’s Decision
#### On Exemption from Execution
The Supreme Court ruled that usufructuary rights, even those of a widow, may be transferred or otherwise disposed of, and hence, are subject to execution. Anulina’s reliance on the inalienability for family reasons under Article 321 of the Civil Code was misplaced, as it applies to parental authority over unemancipated children’s property, not to a widow’s usufruct. Her usufruct did not qualify as a “homestead” under Sec. 12(a) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, as the execution was against her usufructuary rights, not her residence. Additionally, the usufruct was not analogous to legal support, which is essential to life and thus non-transferable.
#### On Levy and Sale on Execution
The Court found that there was no abuse of discretion in the levy or sale of Anulina’s usufructuary rights. It noted that the usufruct of a widow is an alienable interest in real property and can be sold upon execution to satisfy a judgment. Anulina’s failure to act promptly against the execution sale resulted in the orders becoming final and executory.
#### On Issuance of the Writ of Possession
The writ of possession merely complemented the writ of execution following the public auction sale and the expiration of the redemption period. The court upheld the writ of possession, noting no available remedy for Anulina, as the orders relating to execution had long been final.
### Doctrine
1. **Alienability of Usufructuary Rights**: Usufructuary rights, including those of a widow, may be subject to execution if necessary to satisfy a judgment (Reyes vs. Grey, 21 Phil. 73; Guantia vs. Tatoy, 88 Phil. 329).
2. **Exemption from Execution**: Article 321 of the Civil Code, dealing with inalienability for family reasons, applies to parental authority over an unemancipated child’s property, not to widow’s usufruct. Execution exemptions under Sec. 12(a) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court do not cover usufructuary rights.
### Class Notes
– **Legal Usufruct**: A usufructuary may use and derive benefit from a property but does not own it.
– **Execution and Levy**: Execution of judgments can extend to usufructuary rights similar to other interests in real property.
– **Exemptions from Execution**: Certain properties like homesteads or legal supports are typically exempt from execution, but these do not extend to alienable usufructuary rights.
– **Rules on Appeals and Finality**: Orders not timely contested become final and executory, insulating them from subsequent challenge.
**Relevant Legal Provisions**:
– Article 321 of the Civil Code: Usufructuary rights over unemancipated children’s property.
– Article 603 of the Civil Code: Modes of extinguishing usufruct.
– Sec. 12(a) & (1) of Rule 39, Rules of Court: Exemptions from execution, including family homes and support.
### Historical Background
The case reflects the complexities faced by courts in balancing property rights within familial disputes in the context of usufruct. The historical clash between civil code provisions and evolving jurisprudence underscores the significance of timely and appropriately raising legal defenses, as well as the adaptability of statutory interpretations to familial property relations. This decision reaffirms the principle that usufructuary rights, though less tangible, hold substantial legal and economic weight, susceptible to judicial remedies including execution.
Leave a Reply