JOSE M. PRADO, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARIA PRADO, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CASIMIRO NATIVIDAD, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Casimiro Natividad and Maria Prado contracted marriage in the month of
May, 1889. Casimiro Natividad brought to the marriage some real
properties which he had received from his mother as his future share in
her inheritance. Maria Prado did not bring anything. During the
marriage the spouses acquired on different dates real and personal
properties. On April 27, 1904, Maria Prado died from pulmonary
tuberculosis in Manila, where she had been taken for treatment.

On the 14th day of February, 1917, Jose Maria Prado, in his capacity as
administrator of the estate of the deceased Maria Prado, filed a
complaint in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur against
Casimiro Natividad, wherein he alleged that the latter had refused to
make a liquidation of the estate of the conjugal partnership brought
into existence by the marriage of Casimiro Natividad and the deceased
Maria Prado and which was dissolved by the death of the latter, and
prayed the court for judgment, decreeing the liquidation of said
partnership, adjudicating to the plaintiff administrator one-half of
the conjugal property described in the complaint with its products,
that is to say, one-half of P26,125, Philippine currency, with the
costs of the action.

In answer to the complaint, Casimiro
Natividad admitted the allegations contained in the first, second, and
third paragraphs thereof and denied generally and specifically all the
rest, and as special defense alleged: (1) That the plaintiff had no
legal capacity to sue and maintain this action; (2) that the estate of
the conjugal partnership constituted between him and his deceased wife
Maria Prado had already been liquidated, no conjugal property having
been found to exist, but a loss of P10,000; (3) that the heirs of Maria
Prado owe him the sum of P1,460; and (4) that the action brought by the
plaintiff has already prescribed.

The plaintiff, in reply to
the answer, denied each and every allegation contained in the first,
second, third, and fourth paragraphs thereof.

After trial,
the lower court rendered judgment, holding that no residue existed
which should be divided between the husband and the heirs, and
dismissing the complaint. From this judgment the plaintiff Jose Maria
Prado took an appeal by bill of exceptions, assigning to the judgment
of the trial court, as the basis of his appeal, four supposed errors
which may be reduced to the following: First, its failure to decree the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership formed by the spouses Casimiro
Natividad and Maria Prado; second, the fact of the lower court having
taken into account the value of the property of the conjugal
partnership at the time of the acquisition thereof, and not of its
liquidation; and third, the fact of its having taken into consideration
the supposed debt of P17,423.98.

The complaint filed herein
contains a detailed statement of the movable and immovable properties
that were acquired during marriage. At the trial of the case, evidence
was introduced tending to show the existence of said properties with
their prices and fruits. Also evidence was introduced in an attempt to
show the true expenses incurred during the administration of the
conjugal partnership. With that evidence in the record, it is not
necessary to order the defendant, in his capacity as administrator of
the estate of said partnership, to make a formal liquidation thereof;
because what was done during the trial of the case amounts to a
liquidation, and to make another one would be to do double work, and
would give rise to new controversies when the liquidation is submitted
for the contesting thereof by the adverse party. The trial court has
not, therefore, committed any error in not ordering a formal
liquidation.

As to the appraisal of the real property of the
conjugal partnership, it is not the purchase, but the market, or in
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 evidence shows that during the marriage the spouses began to build
a house of strong materials which remained unfinished until the
dissolution of the conjugal partnership by the death of the wife Maria
Prado, and cost P3,000. Upon the death of Maria Prado the defendant had
the building finished, spending P2,000 more out of his own money. At
the termination of the house, it was assessed at P10,654, its value
having, therefore, increased by P5,654, of which increase P3,392.40
must correspond to the P3,000 which was the cost of the house not
finished at the death of Maria Prado, making a total of P6,392.40. The
lands in Burobandan which were acquired during marriage, had an area of
15 hectares approximately. After the dissolution of the conjugal
partnership the defendant acquired 80 hectares more which added to the
15 hectares formed a single tract of 95 hectares which was assessed at
P9,500, of which P1,500 correspond to the 15 hectares pertaining to the
conjugal partnership. Of the land of 40 hectares in Cabatagan which was
assessed at P3,750, only 5 hectares pertain to the conjugal partnership
and the 35 are private property of the husband, P469 corresponding to
the 5 hectares. The lands in Sagpon are assessed at P1,072; the one in
San Antonio at P180, and the one in Joyon-Joyon at P150. All of the
other lands, those situated in Catalutoan and San Jose, are estimated
at P1,090. Taking, therefore, into account the assessed value of the
property of the conjugal partnership at the time of the liquidation,
the total value thereof amounts to P10,853.40.

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 clearly untenable,
because said debts having been contracted by Casimiro Natividad 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.

So
that 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 of P10,853.40 would not be sufficient to cover all the
expenses incurred by the administration of said partnership which
amount to the sum of 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 Prado.

In
conclusion, 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, yet that does not affect the final decision, and the
judgment appearing to be in accordance with the evidence and the law,
the same is hereby affirmed in its entirety, with the costs against the
appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, and Johns, JJ., concur.