LUIS MIRASOL, SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED SERAFIN UY PIAOCO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARIA LIM, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal taken by the defendant
Maria Lim from the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of
Manila, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

“In view of the foregoing, it is declared that the
is described in transfer certificates of title Nos. 17676, 17677,
19743, 20226, 20281, 22212, 23905, 24083, 33502, 34411, 34412, 36400,
36401 belong to the conjugal partnership of Serafin Uy Piaoco his wife,
the herein defendant Maria Lim, the latter is hereby ordered to deliver
the said property, within the period of ten (10) days from the date
this decision becomes final, to the administrator of the intestate
estate of the said Serafin Uy Piaoco, in case No. 38210 of this court,
with the costs against the said defendant. The defendant’s counterclaim
is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. So ordered.”

In support of her appeal the appellant assigns nine alleged errors as committed by the court a quo in its aforesaid judgment, which will be discussed in the course of this decision.

This case originated from a complaint filed by the
plaintiff-appellee Luis Mirasol, praying, under the facts alleged
therein as a cause of action, that the parcels of l described in the
said complaint, together with the improvements thereon, be declared
conjugal property of the deceased Serafin Uy Piaoco his wife, the
herein defendant Maria Lim, that the latter be ordered to deliver the
possession management of the said property to the regular administrator
appointed in the intestate proceedings of the said deceased Serafin Uy
Piaoco, to be inventoried, managed, disposed of distributed in
accordance with the law on the subject.

The defendant-appellant Maria Lim, answering the said complaint,
denies each every allegation contained therein, by way of special
defense, alleges that she is the sole exclusive owner of the property
in question that before contracting marriage with her deceased
husbandand Serafin Uy Piaoco, they executed a deed of marriage
settlements whereby they agreed to live under the regime of separation
of property, interests business, prays that she be absolved from the
complaint, with costs against the plaintiff.

The following facts have been proven at the trial, some without question others by a preponderance of evidence, to wit:

On or about August 23, 1904, the defendant-appellant Maria Lim,
sixteen years of age, who was already an orphan by her father’s death,
was given in marriage by her mother to the deceased Serafin Uy Piaoco.
Maria Lim felt no affection for her proposed fiance, but inasmuch as
her mother insisted, she, in filial obedience, agreed on condition that
they should keep all their present future business affairs property
separate apart. Upon her father’s death, Maria Lim inherited a store of
miscellaneous merchandise, which she had already been managing even
during the lifetime of her father, about P30,000 in cash. On August 18,
1904, before the celebration of the said marriage, the future spouses
signed an instrument entitled “Marriage Settlements” (Exhibit 1),
before the justice of the peace of Apalit, Pampanga.

After the celebration of the marriage, the newlyweds established
their residence in Manila where the deceased Serafin Uy Piaoco engaged
in the purchase sale of textiles which he obtained on credit from Wise
Co., establishing himself on Rosario Street of this city. Little by
little the defendant Maria Lim liquidated her store other business in
Pampanga, among which were the purchase sale of bamboo money-lending,
transferred her commercial activities to Manila, having been authorized
by her husband to sell her own property, to acquire others to engage in
business (Exhibit C-l). Pursuant to their agreement contained in
document Exhibit 1, both husband wife engaged in their respective
business, absolutely independent of each other. As years passed by, the
defendant-appellant Maria Lim acquired the real properties which are
the subject matter of the litigation, in the manner on the dates
specified as follows:

“1. September 11,1920.—On this date the spouses
Rufino Abdon Leonida Hernez, for the sum of P4,500, sold to the
defendant, with pacto de retro within six months, extendible
to another six months, six parcels of l with improvements thereon
situated on Mangahan Street, Manila, together with a truck an
automobile (Exhibit F). On July 10, 1923, the defendant presented to
the register of deeds an affidavit (Exhibit F-l) to the effect that the
parcels of l in question had not been redeemed that the period of
redemption thereof had already expired, for which she prayed that the
vendor’s certificate of title be cancelled a new one issued in her
favor, which was done, certificate of title No. 20226 (Exhibit F-2) was
issued in her name. Part of the purchase price of these parcels of l
was paid by the defendant with her check Exhibit 4 (t. s. n., pp.
111-113).

“2. June 15, 1922.—On this date, Lorenza Teco, for
the sum of P350, sold to the defendant her rights interest in a lot of
150 square meters in the Hacienda Solocan (Exhibit C), for a
like sum the same vendor conveyed to the said defendant another lot
with the same area situated in the same hacienda (Exhibit D).
Certificate of title No. 17676 (Exhibit C-2) was issued to the
defendant for the former lot certificate of title No. 17677 (Exhibit
D-l), for the latter lot. The price of these lots was paid by the said
defendant with her check Exhibit 2 (t. s. n., pp. 111-113).

“3. May 11, 1923.—Under a deed of this date, Go Pengco resold to the
defendant, as assignee, for P10,000 of the rights interest of
Buenaventura E. Jao Oge, a certain property situated on Caballeros
Street, Manila, which said Jao Oge had sold with pacto de retro
to Go Pengco. In consideration thereof, the defendant, having been
subrogated to Jao Oge, repurchase the property in question for the sum
of P30,000 (Exhibit E). Certificate of title No. 19743 (Exhibit E-l)
was issued in favor of defendant for this property. The purchase price
thereof was paid by the defendant with her 17 checks marked Exhibit 3
(t. s. n., pp. 111-113).

“4. July 31, 1923.—Under a deed of
this date, Nicasio Leon, for the sum of P500, sold to the defendant two
lots of the Hacienda Mayhaligue with a total area of 218.50
square meters (Exhibit G). Consequently, certificate of title No. 20821
(Exhibit G-l) was issued in her favor. Part of the price of these lots
was paid by the defendant with her check Exhibit 5 (t. s. n., pp.
111-113).

“5. October 22,1923.—On this date Hilaria Tanhueco, for the sum of P400, sold to the defendant, with pacto de retro
within the period of three months, 14 lots of the Rizal Park
Subdivision (Exhibit H). The lots in question were not redeemed , the
full ownership thereof having vested in the defendant (Exhibit H-1),
certificate of title No. 22212 (Exhibit H-2) was issued in her favor.
The price thereof was paid by the defendant with her two checks marked
Exhibit 6 (t. s. n., pp. 111-113).

“6. December 9, 1924.—On
this date Rafael Crame, attorney-in-fact of Maria Rosario Perez de
Tagle, sold to the defendant, for the sum of P12,000, a certain
property situated on Magdalena Street, Manila (Exhibit J), certificate
of title No. 24083 (Exhibit J-l) was issued in her favor. Part of the
price thereof was paid by the defendant with her 4 checks marked
Exhibit 3 (t. s. n., pp. 111-113).

“7. March 26, 1925.—On
this date, the spouses Uy Cansuy Petra Chantongco sold to the
defendant, for the sum of P548.87, including a lien of P348.87.4 lots
of Rizal Park, each with an area of 105 square meters (Exhibit I). For
these lots, certificate of title No. 23405 (Exhibit 1-2) was issued in
favor of the defendant. The purchase price of this property was paid by
the defendant with her two checks marked Exhibit 7 (t. s. n., pp.
111-113).

“8. September 28,1926.—On this date Juana
Viviezca, for the sum of P1,797.50, sold to the defendant 2 lots of 123
120 sq. m., respectively (Exhibit M), situated on Oroquieta Street.
Certificate of title No. 36400 (Exhibit M-1) was issued to her for the
first lot, certificate of title No. 36401 (Exhibit M-2), for the second
lot. Part of the price thereof was paid by Maria Lim with her check
Exhibit 11 (t. s. n., pp. 111-113).

“9. December 12,1928.—On this date Matilde Panlilio sold to the defendant, for the sum of P2,000, 2 lots of the Hacienda Solocan
with an area of 150 square meters each (Exhibit L), certificate of
title No. 34412 (Exhibit L-2) was issued in her favor. Part of the
price thereof was paid by the defendant with her two checks marked
Exhibit 10 (t. s. n.( pp. 111-113).

“10. July 19,1929.—On
this date Serapio M. Rioja sold to the defendant, for the sum of
P2,000, a lot with an area of 437.20 square meters situated in the
Hacienda Solocan (Exhibit K), certificate of title No. 33502
(Exhibit K-l) was issued in her favor. The price of this lot was paid
by the defendant with her two checks marked Exhibit 9.”

After Maria Lim had established her residence in Manila, she received money from her mother which amounted to P15,000.

On October 25, 1921, Serafin Uy Piaoco, the deceased husband of the
defendant-appellant Maria Lim, together with Buenaventura E. Jao Oge,
Joe Banchiong Uy Piaoco Jo Bian Juat Te Parte executed a promissory
note (Exhibit A), reading as follows:

“We promise to pay jointly severally to Mr. Luis
Mirasol the sum of nine thousand Philippine pesos (P9,000) with
interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from
September 25th of this year, as follows:

“FIRST: That we
bind ourselves to pay one thousand Philippine pesos monthly beginning
with January 10, 1922, likewise on the same date of every month
thereafter uninterruptedly without more or less reasonable excuses
until the principal debt, together with the corresponding interest
thereon, is fully paid.

“SECOND: It is hereby agreed
stipulated that the property ‘La Ciudad’ Cigarette Factory, situated on
353 Elcano, Manila, may answer for the whole or part of this
indebtedness we bind ourselves to keep the said property free from all
liens encumbrances during the time this indebtedness remains unpaid.

“THIRD: That we shall grant to the said Mr. Luis Mirasol all the
necessary rights to institute proceedings to compel any of us to pay
the attorney’s fees, costs, or damages in case of delay or
non-compliance with the terms of the entire document or part thereof,
as well as authorize him to attach our property without the necessity
of filing any bond in the courts.

“In witness whereof, we have hereunto affixed our signatures in Manila, this 25th day of October, 1921.

		(Sgd.) “BUENAVENTURA E. JAO OGE
		” ‘La Ciudad’ Cigarette Factory
		(Sgd.) “S. UY PIAOCO
		(Sgd.) “JOE BANCHIONG UY PIAOCO
		(Sgd.) “JO BIAN JUAT TE PARTE”

The records of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (Exhibit 0-1)
disclose that Serafin Uy Piaoco started in business in the City of
Manila in the month of January, 1922, continued it until his death, the
volume of his transactions being as follows:

1922	………………………………………………………………………………..	P270,002.72
1923	………………………………………………………………………………..	180,890.79
1924	………………………………………………………………………………..	241,835.21
1925	………………………………………………………………………………..	231,805.88
1926	………………………………………………………………………………..	225,321.17
1927	………………………………………………………………………………..	231,855.64
1928	………………………………………………………………………………..	207,883.31
1929	………………………………………………………………………………..	126,409.47
1930,	for first three quarters only………………………………….	49,995.06

Serafin Uy Piaoco became indebted to Wise & Company in the
amount of P1,000,000. The said company, seeing the impossibility of
collecting the debt, took over the said debtor’s store sold it to
another, applying the proceeds thereof to the aforesaid debt. Inasmuch
as there still remained an unpaid balance of from P25,000 to P30,000 in
view of the fact that Serafin Uy Piaoco was seriously ill, his creditor
remitted the said unpaid balance.

When upon the death of Serafin Uy Piaoco, intestate proceedings
were instituted his son Jose Uy Piaoco was appointed administrator of
his estate, the latter found nothing but a judgment credit for P520
which he included in his inventory (Exhibit B-3).

The first question to be decided in this appeal, which is raised in
the second assignment of error, is whether or not the document Exhibit
1, entitled “Marriage Settlements” is valid, under the provisions of
article 1318 of the Civil Code.

In order that a minor may validly execute a deed of marriage
settlements, it is indispensable that the persons designated by law to
give consent to the marriage, consent to the execution of such deed
(article 1318 of the Civil Code) that such marriage settlements be
recorded in a public instrument executed before the celebration of the
marriage (article 1321, id.). In the case at bar, the alleged
deed of marriage settlements was executed by the defendant-appellant
Maria Lim when she was only sixteen years of age. Her mother, who is
the person designated by law to give consent to her marriage by reason
of the father’s death, was present at the time the contract was
executed before the justice of the peace of Apalit, Pampanga, who was
not then authorized to act as a notary public. Although the said
justice of the peace, who authenticated the deed of marriage
settlements, may be considered a notary public de facto,
however, the said deed cannot be considered legally valid on the ground
that it was not signed by the mother of the defendant-appellant Maria
Lim, who was a minor at the time of the execution thereof (article
1318. Civil Code).

The second question to be decided is whether the 13 parcels of l
described in the certificates of title presented in the case are
paraphernal property of the aforesaid defendant-appellant Maria Lim or
property of the conjugal partnership of the said defendant her deceased
husband Serafin Uy Piaoco.

As may be noted in the statement of proven facts hereinbefore
stated, when the defendant-appellant Maria Lim was only 16 years of
age, she was already helping her deceased Chinese father, Manuel
Buencamino Lim, in the management of his store of miscellaneous
merchandise in the town of Apalit, Pampanga, she had her own business
consisting, among other things, of the purchase sale of bamboo
money-lending. After her father had died his property apportioned, she
was given as her share the store, which she liquidated two years later,
the sum of P30,000. Having moved to Manila with her husband, she
continued to engage in business in her own name independently of her
husband, as agreed upon in the alleged marriage settlements, having
obtained the corresponding authority from her said husband, who, in the
same instrument of authorization dated August 27,1921 (Exhibit C-1)
acknowledged that his wife had exclusive property of her own. Serafin
Uy Piaoco also engaged in his own business of buying selling textiles
which he obtained on credit from Wise & Company. In fact he opened
a store for that purpose on Rosario Street. It appears that Maria Lim
had a current account in the Bank of the Philippine Islands. It
likewise appears that the deceased Serafin Uy Piaoco was heavily
indebted to Wise & Company, such indebtedness having amounted to
P1,000,000. In order to collect the said debt, Wise & Company took
over Serafin Uy Piaoco’s store sold it to another, applying the
proceeds thereof to the debt in question. Inasmuch as there still
remained an unpaid balance of from P25,000 to P30,000 the said
creditor, realizing that its debtor was seriously ill, remitted the
said unpaid balance.

The mere fact that the deceased Serafin Uy Piaoco had paid
merchant’s tax amounting to hundreds of thousands of pesos is not
conclusive evidence that he made much of a profit that part of said
profit was invested by his wife, the herein defendant-appellant Maria
Lim, in her own business in the purchase of the property now under
consideration. The very fact that Serafin Uy Piaoco owed large sums of
money to Wise & Company, from which he obtained the textiles which
he sold in his store, shows that he had suffered losses in his business
that his profits were insufficient to pay his debts to the aforesaid
company.

Therefore, the preponderance of evidence shows that the
defendant-appellant Maria Lim brought to the marriage her own capital
amounting to P30,000 that during her marriage she received from her
mother the sum of P15,000 which she invested in her own business, for
the transactions of which she had her own current account in the bank.
Consequently, all that she possesses valued at P45,000 is paraphernal
property (articles 1381 1396, Civil Code), the rest constitutes the
fruits of her paraphernal property.

As to the fruits of the said paraphernal property, although they
form part of the assets of the conjugal partnership are subject to the
payment of the debts expenses of the spouses (article 1385, par. 1,
Civil Code), it not having been alleged in the complaint nor proven at
the trial that claims for the payment of Serafin Uy Piaoco’s personal
obligations, which redounded to the benefit of his family, were
presented in his intestate proceedings, there is no legal justification
for ordering the delivery of the said fruits to the administrator of
his intestate estate inasmuch as the fruits of the paraphernal property
only answer for the personal obligations of the husband when such
obligations were productive of some benefit to the family (article
1386, Civil Code).

The question of whether or not the paraphernal property of the wife
the fruits thereof are subject to the payment of the husband’s personal
obligations not having been raised in this case, there is no occasion
to discuss it in this decision.

In view of the foregoing, this court is of the opinion so holds (1)
that marriage settlements executed by a minor, in order to be valid,
must be consented to signed by the persons designated by law to give
consent to the marriage of such minor; (2) that a deed of marriage
settlements containing all the requisites of the law, executed, for
lack of a notary public, before a justice of the peace whom the parties
believe to be authorized for that purpose, is valid, on the ground that
the said justice of the peace acts as a de facto notary
public; (3) that under the law, property acquired by a married woman
with money brought by her to the marriage with the consent of her
husband, paying for it with her own checks issued on a bank in which
she has a current account, is paraphernal property; (4) that inasmuch
as it has not been alleged in the complaint nor proven at the trial
that in the intestate proceedings of the husband there are claims for
the payment of his personal obligations which redounded to tne benefit
of his family, there is no legal justification for ordering the
delivery of the fruits of the wife’s paraphernal property to the
administrator of the said intestate estate (article 1386, Civil Code).

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed the
defendant-appellant is absolved from the complaint, which is dismissed,
with the costs of both instances against the plaintiff-appellee. So
ordered.

Malcolm, Hull, Imperial, Goddard, JJ., concur.