F. M. YAPTICO & CO., LTD., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARINA YULO ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

On
October 14, 1910, plaintiff loaned Gregorio Yulo a certain sum of money
and took as security therefor a mortgage on properties belonging to
Gregorio Yulo and his wife, Filomena Ortiz. This mortgage was due and
payable May 31, 1911. The mortgage was not paid upon maturity. Filomena
Ortiz died about January 13, 1911. Plaintiff and Gregorio Yulo
continued their transactions and from November 14, 1912, until July 30,
1918, plaintiff advanced to Gregorio Yulo some P19,725 and delivered to
him various amounts of sugar in part payment of his account, the last
loan in 1918, and the last delivery of sugar on the 30th of May, 1915.

Some time after the death of Filomena Ortiz her husband Gregorio Yulo
started intestate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo
and there is, in the record, an undated inventory of the estate of
Filomena Ortiz showing assets of P216,815.07 and obligations amounting
to P132,524.74 in which account Francisco M. Yaptico is stated to have
an account against her estate in the sum of P23,412.76.

It
is conceded by all that the properties of Filomena Ortiz, which are now
in the possession of the defendants, as her heirs, at the time of her
death pertained to the conjugal partnership.

As early as
June 25, 1913, certain parcels of land in cadastral proceedings were
registered as one-half belonging to Gregorio Yulo and one-half
belonging to the heirs of Filomena Ortiz. (See Exhibit V, also Exhibits X, Y, Z, A A, BB, and CC.)

Gregorio Yulo died in the month of November 1923, and
plaintiff-appellee filed his entire claim with the committee appointed
in the intestate proceedings of Gregorio Yulo. The claim being
rejected, plaintiff-appellee brought suit in the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo against Jose Lopez Vito in his capacity as
administrator of the estate of Gregorio Yulo and secured a partial
judgment. Both parties appealed to this court and in August of 1926,
judgment was given for plaintiff-appellee against the estate of
Gregorio Yulo for P65,071.56 with interest thereon from March 26, 1925,
at the rate of 10 per cent per annum and for costs.^[1]

While the case against the estate of Gregorio Yulo was pending in this
court on appeal, the then administrator reported certain facts to the
probate court of Iloilo. It was reported among other things that, as
much of the property had been registered jointly with one-half in the
name of Gregorio Yulo and the other half in the names of the heirs of
his deceased wife, it was impossible to sell the property on
advantageous terms.

The court approved and ordered an exchange (permuta)
or distribution between the heirs of Filomena Ortiz and the estate of
Gregorio Yulo and such exchange was duly registered in the register of
deeds. This exchange has heretofore been considered by this court, G.
R. No. 32638,^[1] in which
Jose Jimenez de la Peña and Maria Ines Jimenez de la Pena claimed an
unpaid credit against the deceased spouses, Gregorio Yulo and Filomena
Ortiz, and asked that the orders approving the barter or exchange of
properties be set aside and that the lands in the hands of these same
defendants (who are in this case defendants as heirs of their mother),
be liable for the debt of the plaintiffs.

This court denied
such application and held that the creditor could have put in a timely
appearance to object to the orders of the court. The orders must stand
like any other judicial order legally issued. The court further said:

“Moreover,
the orders referred to, Exhibits N and O, dated August 7, 1926, and
September 1, 1926, were already final and irrevocable when the instant
action was filed, having been neither excepted to nor appealed from in
due time.

“From this it follows that, as these orders are
valid, they subsist fully, and the legal condition of the lands
concerned as mentioned therein cannot now be altered. Consequently, the
lots, which, by virtue of the barter approved in these orders, passed
to the ownership of the defendants herein cannot now be deemed subject
to a lien for the amount of P3,261.59 owed to the plaintiffs.

“Although
this property was originally conjugal property of Gregorio Yulo and
Filomena Ortiz, nevertheless, it was not included in the mortgage
executed in favor of the plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest, and even
before the orders, Exhibits N and O, were issued, that property and the
other involved in the barter had been recorded under the Land
Registration Law as property of the defendants free from any
encumbrance in favor of the plaintiffs or their predecessors in
interest.”

While the plaintiffs in that
case had no notice of the orders of the probate court, the
plaintiff-appellee herein knew of such orders, filed an application for
their annulment, and upon said motion being denied, took no further
action. The present action was instituted February 1, 1930, and the De
la Peñas were made party defendants in the wording of the complaint.

“*
* * solely for the reason that they pretend to have a lien on certain
parcels of land described in this complaint, over which this plaintiff
claims to have equal rights by virtue of transactions and indebtedness
incurred under and in connection with the mortgage Annex A attached to
and made a part of this complaint.” After the decision of this court,
in the De la Pena case, a second amended complaint was presented in
which all reference to the De la Peñas was omitted. It was claimed that
while the judgment was against the estate of Gregorio Yulo only, that
it was for the indebtedness for which the estate and property of the
deceased, Filomena Ortiz, was also jointly and severally liable
inasmuch as it was claimed that the indebtedness of the
plaintiff-appellee was incurred in connection with the exploitation,
cultivation, and operation of the hacienda and other properties of the
conjugal partnership of the spouses Gregorio Yulo and Filomena Ortiz.

While there is some indication in Exhibits A and B that the original
amounts loaned in 1910 and 1911 were for the operation of the haciendas
of the conjugal partnership, there is no proof in the record that the
P19,000 subsequently advanced was not for the personal use of Gregorio
Yulo.

So far as the record discloses, no claims were filed
in the intestate proceedings of Filomena Ortiz nor was that proceeding
properly terminated. It was dismissed as a separate proceeding in
January 1926, and apparently from that time her estate was jointly
administered with the intestate proceedings of the husband.

It is evident that plaintiff believed that the estate of Gregorio Yulo
was solvent, and it was almost twenty years after the death of Filomena
Ortiz that plaintiff-appellee realized that it would be to his benefit
to hold her interest in the conjugal partnership liable for his claims
although a large portion thereof was created after her death.

At no time did plaintiff-appellee file his claim or any portion thereof
as a claim against the estate of Filomena Ortiz. At no time did he
bring suit against the administrator of the estate of Filomena Ortiz.
Not until 1930 did he assert any right against the heirs of Filomena
Ortiz. At all times he looked to Gregorio Yulo, or to the estate of
Gregorio Yulo as his sole debtor.

Appellee, in this court, asserts:

“III. Plaintiff has final judgment against the conjugal partnership.

“It
is unnecessary to go back of the decision of the Supreme Court in case
G. R. No. 24988 (Exhibit I), because the decision in that case (against
Jose Lopez Vito in his official capacity, he being administrator of the
conjugal partnership property) was a decision not only against the
estate of Gregorio Yulo, but also was necessarily a decision against
the conjugal partnership. Accordingly the defendants herein are all
bound firmly by that decision.” (Page 24—Brief.)

Although this doctrine is not self-evident, appellee cites no authority
in support thereof notwithstanding on this record such a doctrine is
essential if this suit is to be successfully maintained.

It
is obvious that plaintiff-appellee has been guilty of laches so far as
the estate of Filomena Ortiz is concerned. It would be inequitable and
unjust to permit him to revive any such rights as he might have had and
now enforce them against the heirs of Filomena Ortiz. His entire
conduct over a long period of years is not consonant with his present
pretensions.

During the period of two and a half years of
the administration of the estate of Gregorio Yulo, the two
administrators, under orders of the court, paid to the five children
allowances for maintenance amounting to P6,864.83. There was no
question raised during the administration to the right of maintenance.
There was no objection to the orders of the court or the accounts of
the administrator. Such accounts were paid, became final, can not be
attacked collaterally, nor can repayment be enforced.

“Funds
paid out of a solvent estate by order of court to the widow and minor
children for their support during its settlement need not be repaid
because the estate has become insolvent. Frey vs. Eisenhardt, 116 Mich., 160; 74 N. W., 501.” (24 Corpus Juris, p. 272 [footnote 98a].)

It is, therefore, our opinion that plaintiff-appellee can not recover
from the heirs, either the value of their inheritance which they
secured through their mother, or the amount that was paid to them by
the administrator for maintenance. The judgment, of the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo, in favor of plaintiff-appellee is therefore
reversed, and defendants absolved from liability on the complaint.
Costs against the appellee. So ordered.

Street, Villamor, Vickers, and Imperial, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] G. R. No. 25158, F. M. Yaptico & Co. vs. Lopez Vito, promulgated August 20, 1926, not reported.

^[1] 55 Phil., 274.