CIRIACO FULE ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. ANASTASIO FULE ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Pursuant to the reservation contained in the dispositive part of our
decision in Fule vs. Fule (46 Phil., 317), the present action for
partition of real and personal property was instituted in the Court of
First Instance of Laguna on November 18, 1924, by Ciriaco Fule and the
heirs of Marcial Fule, consisting of Alonso, Felicidad and Maria
Purificacion, against Anastasio, Simeona and Felisa, of the surname of
Fule. By amendment of the complaint Iluminada Fule was made an
additional party defendant. Upon hearing the cause the trial court
absolved the defendants from the complaint, and the plaintiffs appealed.

It appears that Saturnino Fule, father of the plaintiff Ciriaco Fule
and of the defendants Anastasio, Simeona and Felisa, and grandfather of
the plaintiffs Alonso, Felicidad and Maria Purificacion, as well as of
the defendant Iluminada, died at his home in San Pablo, Laguna, on
April 3, 1923, at the age of over 70 years, leaving as his legal heirs
four children, to wit, Ciriaco, Anastasio, Simeona and Felisa, and
three grandchildren, Alonso, Felicidad and Maria Purificacion, children
of his deceased son Marcial Fule. The defendant Iluminada Fule is a
daughter of Anastasio Fule who is still living. The wife of Saturnino
Fule was Irene Calampiano, who predeceased her husband by about eight
years, having died in 1915, During the married life of Saturnino Fule
and Irene Calampiano, a considerable amount of property, real and
personal, had been accumulated by them; and Irene had also inherited
real property from her own parents, Leonardo Calampiano and Claudia
Gavino. The plaintiff Ciriaco Fule was the oldest child of Saturnino
Fule and Irene Calampiano; while Marcial Fule was a second son, he
having died about the year 1902. Ciriaco appears to have been the first
of the children to marry and establish a home for himself, as did
Marcial Fule later. Upon the occasion of the respective marriages of
these two sons, Saturnino Fule had placed them in possession of certain
real properties, the number and value of which have been the subject of
controversy in this lawsuit. These properties have been retained
respectively by Ciriaco Fule and by Marcial Fule in life; and Ciriaco
claims to be the owner in his own right of the properties thus assigned
to him, though he admits that the same are subject to collation in this
partition suit. The heirs of Marcial Fule make the same claim and
admission with respect to such properties as they concede had been
assigned to their father by Saturnino Fule. Anastasio Fule, upon his
marriage, also appears to have received from his father several parcels
of property in the same form of gift or advancement.

The properties above referred to were evidently donated by Saturnino
Fule to his three sons to assist them in getting a start in the world
and to aid them in the support of themselves and their families. The
two daughters, Simeona and Felisa, are unmarried, and as they lived
continuously with their father and were supported by him until his
death, no similar advancements were ever made to them, though they
claim that about four and a half years before his death, Saturnino Fule
made a verbal gift and transfer to them, in conjunction with their
niece Iluminada, of all the real property of which he was then
possessed.

There is credible proof tending to show that some time in the month
of October, 1918, Saturnino Fule caused a will to be executed, in which
he divided the property of which he was then possessed among his
children, at the same time making a modest donation to his
granddaughter IIuminada who lived with him. This will was drawn by
Florencio Manalo; the attorney and trusted friend of Saturnino Fule.
The document was drafted in an unduplicated original and, upon being
finished, was left in the possession of Saturnino Fule. This will has
not made its appearance since the death of Saturnino Fule, thus giving
rise to the inference either that the testator revoked and destroyed
it before his death or that it has been lost or suppressed.

Soon after the death of Saturnino Fule, administration proceedings
were instituted at the instance of Ciriaco Fule, and one Cornelio
Alcantara was appointed by the Court of First Instance of Laguna to the
office of special administrator of his estate. These proceedings were,
however, combated by Anastasio Fule and his two sisters on the grounds,
first, that their deceased father had left no debts; secondly, that all
the heirs were of age; thirdly, that Saturnino Fule had equitably
distributed all his property during his life among the persons entitled
thereto; and, lastly, that, at any rate, administration proceedings
were unnecessary and inappropriate. The trial judge having sustained
this contention of the defendants and dismissed the proceedings, an
appeal was taken by Ciriaco Fule to this court where the judgment was
affirmed. However, the decision was expressly made “without prejudice
to the right of the petitioner to commence a new action for a partition
of any property left by Saturnino Fule which had not already been
partitioned among his heirs.” (Fule vs. Fule, 46 Phil., 317, 324.) In
the course of the present litigation the exact meaning of the
reservation which we have here quoted has been the subject of
controversy. To dispose of this matter at once we merely say that the
purpose of the reservation was to leave the way open for a partition
proceeding like that now before us, without prejudice from the action
taken in the case above-mentioned. The result is that the present
plaintiffs have a legal right to maintain this action of partition and
demonstrate therein their right to relief, if any such right they have.
In other words, in this proceeding the former judgment is res judicata as to nothing.

Referring now to certain incidents that occurred in connection with
the earlier litigation, it may be stated that when the administrator
was first appointed and steps taken by him to make an inventory of the
property belonging to the deceased, no suggestion was at first made
either by Simeona and Felisa or their niece Iluminada to the effect
that there was in existence any writing of a documentary
character purporting to give them any rights in the undistributed
property of Saturnino Fule; but in September, 1923, a paper writing was
produced Which has figured largely in this case. This brief document
bears date of September 28, 1918, and purports to be signed by
Saturnino Fule. The following is a translation of the paper both, in
English and Spanish:

“September 28, 1918

“I devise all my property to my two daughters and the grandchild that I
have raised, upon my death; I have given the men their part; this is my
request to my children; let this my wish be obeyed.

(Sgd.) “SATURNINO FULE

“Todos mis bienes los adjudico a mis dos hijas y a la nieta que he
criado para cuando yo muera; mis hijos varones ya han recibido su
parte, Este es mi encargo a mis hijos. Obedezcanlo, porque es mi
voluntad.

(Fdo.) “SATURNINO FULE”

This paper, identified in the record as Exhibit 10, shows on its
face that it was intended by the purported writer as a testamentary
disposition of his property. Nevertheless it is completely wanting in
the requisites required by law for the making of a will. It is equally
defective and worthless as evidence of a present donation. Florencio
Manalo, who was familiar with the handwriting of Saturnino Fule,
testified that the paper in question was not in the handwriting of its
purported author; and, we may add, if Saturnino Fule in fact wrote it,
the act was a singular departure from his knowii habits. The proof
shows that it was with great difficulty that he could wield the pen for
any purpose. But he was quite intelligent and meticulously careful
about all business matters. In fact he never attempted to make written,
record of any transaction having
a legal aspect without the assistance of a lawyer.

The sole witness who attempts to account for the origin of this
paper is Iluminada Fule, who was living in her grandfather’s family at
the time the paper purports to have been written. She says that upon
the date said paper bears date, her grandfather called her into the
room where he was sitting and explained to her that he was going to
give his property to his two daughters and to her, thereby equalizing
them with his sons in respect to gifts already made to them. Iluminada
states that the old gentleman occupied nearly an hour in writing the
document, and that all the contents of the paper, including the
signature, were written by him on that occasion.

We dismiss the document from consideration with the observation that
it is open to grave suspicion, to say the least, as regards its
authenticity, and that even if authentic, it is devoid of any
determinative weight in this lawsuit. We may add that the claim of
ownership put forth by Simeona and Felisa, in common with Iluminada, is
not based upon Exhibit 10, but upon something that is said to have
occurred on September 30, 1918, or two days after that paper purports
to have been written. Concerning this later occurrence Iluminada Fule
testified that on September 30, 1918, her grandfather made a verbal
transfer or assignment to Simeona, Felisa and herself of all of the
property of which he Was then possessed. She says that Simeona and
Felisa were present when this verbal gift was made; and by this act
Saturnino Fule is supposed to have completed the partition of his
property among his heirs. It is noteworthy that Simeona and Felisa did
not take the stand to corroborate the gift.

As tending to show the improbability that such a gift was made, the
plaintiffs introduced evidence to the effect that after the date of
this alleged donation, Saturnino Fule continued to manage the property
which was the subject of the gift in all respects as if it had been his
own, and there was nothing in his acts outwardly which comported with
the idea that he had stripped himself of all his belongings. Upon the
whole we are compelled to record the belief that no such gift,
assignment, or transfer as that testified to by Iluminada Fule was ever
made by Saturnino Fule in life.

As Iluminada Fule is not one of the heirs of Saturnino Fule—her
father being still alive—she was not at first made a party to this
partition proceeding, but on account of the claim of joint ownership
put forth by her, based on the alleged verbal gift above-mentioned, she
was, in the course
of these proceedings, made a party by order of the court, over the objection of the plaintiffs.

The foregoing observations prepare us to deal with the case in the
simple aspect of a partition suit brought by one coheir and the
children of another, against three coheirs in possession of property
derived from a common ancestor, with the anomaly—not affecting the
merits of the case— that a stranger to the inherited estate (Iluminada
Fule) claims an interest in the portions of the two female heirs. We
may add here that these two heirs do not combat the claim made by
Iluminada; and Anastasio Fule, Iluminada’s father, seeks to maintain
his daughter’s claim.

To complete this preliminary survey of the case it is desirable to
add that, although, as originally framed, the complaint in this case
seeks a partition of both real and personal property, the appellants
have abandoned the fight in so far as relates to personalty; and the
controversy ventilated in this court has relation solely to real
property.

In formulating their defense, the defendants have used the word
“partition” as legally descriptive of the acts ascribed to Saturnino
Fule in assigning portions of his property, first to one and then
another of his children, until all of his property had been disposed of
and each of the children had acquired his equitable portion of the
estate. In its narrow and technical sense, “partition” is properly used
with respect to the multilateral act by which several co-owners divide a
common property among themselves, or to the act by which the court
effects such a division at the instance of one or more of the persons
concerned. There seems to be little propriety in using the word
“partition” as descriptive of the successive advancements of the
portions of property which a father assigns to his several children. We
think it will clarify the legal problem somewhat to think of these acts
as constituting a distribution of property rather than a true
partition. Yet it must be admitted that the word “partition” is not
infrequently used both in popular and technical parlance to describe
precisely this situation; and if we mistake not, this conception finds
expression in article 1056 of the Civil Code which speaks of the
partition of property by a testator by acts inter vivos. But whether
these acts be considered in the light of a mere distribution or in the
more formal character of a partition, their legal effects remain the
same.

It is admitted in the complaint that years ago Ciriaco Fule received
from his father three parcels of property with which he should be
charged in this partition. It is likewise therein admitted that Marcial
Fule, while still alive, also received four parcels of property with
which he is chargeable. In like manner from the admissions of the
defendant Anastasio Fule it appears that he also had received by way of
advancement some three parcels from the same source. The parcels which
the plaintiffs claim to be as yet unpartitioned and which are alleged
to be in the possession of Simeona and Felisa are described in the
complaint as consisting of some thirty-one items. But when this
allegation is sifted out in the proof, it appears that these defendants
(with Iluminada) are claiming in their own right about twenty parcels.

This brings us to what we consider the field of vital combat,
namely, the question raised in paragraph No. 2 in the first special
defense set up in the defendants’ answer. It is there stated that, in
addition to the properties which Ciriaco admitted having received from
his father, he had also received a number of other parcels; and when
these charges are examined in the light of the proof, it will be found
that this contention comes down to some fourteen items, to wit, parcels
1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9-A, 10,11,11-A, 12, described in the answer.
With respect to these Ciriaco Fule claims that he did not acquire them
from his father Saturnino, but that they came to him either from, his
grandparents on his mother’s side (the Calampianos) or from other
independent sources, that they therefore belong to him in his own right
and are not of a collationable nature. The proof with respect to these
properties in our opinion leads to the conclusion that they were in
effect derived from Saturnino Fule and that the plaintiff Ciriaco Fule
is chargeable with their value. We have no doubt that all or nearly all
of this property originally belonged to the Calampiano estate. In this
aspect said properties, or most of them, must originally have
pertained to the paraphernal estate of Irene Calampiano, mother of the
principal litigants in this case. But we find that said paraphernal
property has been swallowed up in the conjugal properties of Saturnino
Fule and his wife Irene; and the plaintiffs in this case admit that no
evidence has been produced showing the present existence of any
property which should now be considered paraphernal property of Irene
Calampiano. Indeed, as regards at least part of these items, it appears
that they are covered by composition titles taken in the name of
Saturnino Fule as far back as April, 1886. Our conclusion is that,
admitting the possibility of error as to a few items not affecting the
main conclusion, Ciriaco Fule is chargeable with the real properties
above mentioned.

Taking proper account of the foregoing conclusion and adding
together the values of all the properties of which account should be
taken in this lawsuit, as shown in the tax books, we discover that the
total is approximately P84,800. Of this total Ciriaco Fule appears to
have received, by way of advancement, properties of a value of P18,631;
while Marcial Fule has in the same manner received properties of the
approximate value of P18,340. On the other hand, the defendant
Anastasio Fule has received by way of advancement properties of the
value of only about P7,720; and the defendants Simeona and Felisa (with
Iluminada) appear to be in possession of properties pertaining to the
estate of Saturnino Fule, of a value of about P40,242.

Upon dividing the total value of all these properties by five, which
is the number of the heirs, it will be seen that the aliquot part of
each, upon division, should be approximately P16,960. In other words
the plaintiffs Ciriaco Fule and the children of Marcial Fule have
received, and are chargeable with, more than their aliquot portion of
the estate. On the other hand, Anastasio Fule has received less than
half of what would pertain to him upon a fair division; but this
defendant makes no complaint about having received too little and on
the contrary adheres to the side of the defendants. Taking together the
three defendants who are heirs of Saturnino Fule, it will be seen that
they have received, or are in possession of, properties of the value of
P47,832, or less than P16,000 each; and although the properties of
which Simeona and Felisa (with Iluminada) are in possession have a
value somewhat in excess of their portions, this does not operate to
the prejudice of the plaintiffs, who have already received more than
their portions.

The estimation above made is based upon the values of the property
for purposes of taxation as now assessed; and although these values may
possibly differ somewhat from the actual market values of said
properties, it is probable that, taken as a whole, the estimate thus
made is fair to all. We may add that the same conclusion as to the
relative value of the distributed properties may be derived from an
actual count of the coconut-bearing trees on most of the parcels and
the character of others; and the conclusion to which we are inevitably
driven is that the plaintiffs have already received and are holding
properties at least equal to, or slightly in excess of, their fair
portions of the estate.

It results, in our opinion, that no error was committed by the trial
court in dismissing the action; and the legal proposition which is
applicable to the case is this, namely, that, where one or more coheirs
in a partition proceeding appear to be in possession of portions of the
ancestral estate which they have received by way of advancement, and
which they are claiming in their own right, the same having a value
equal to, or in excess of, the portion that would come to them upon
proper division of the estate, the action cannot be maintained. In
other words, before one coheir, who has, received and holds
advancements of a collationable character, can maintain an action of
partition, he must show that he has suffered prejudice (lesion);
for a court cannot be required to entertain actions of this character,
to the disturbance of other heirs, when, if the action be prosecuted to
a conclusion, the plaintiff will get no more than what he already has.
By holding and claiming what he has received in excess of that which,
would be his lawful portion, he estops himself from obtaining any
relief. In the case before us the only person prejudiced by what has
happened in the past history of these lands is Anastasio Fule. But he
is not complaining.

It follows that, although we do not
exactly agree with the trial judge in all his processes of reasoning
and are unable to accept his conclusion that there has been in fact a
technical partition, or distribution, of all the property of Saturnino
Fule, in the end we reach the same result, which is that the plaintiffs
have demonstrated no right to maintain this action.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs against the appellants.

Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.