INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED PEDRO DE GALA. SINFOROSO DE GALA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. GENEROSO DE GALA AND JOSEFA ALABASTRO, OPPOSITORS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal taken by the oppositors
Generoso de Gala and Josefa Alabastro from the order of the Court of
First Instance of Tayabas, the dispositive part of which reads as
follows:

“Wherefore, the administrator Generoso de
Gala and his mother Josefa Alabastro are ordered to file with the
office of the clerk of this court, within twenty days from receipt of a
copy of this order, a detailed account of their administration of the
entire estate of the deceased Pedro de Gala, which should embrace the
period from July 23, 1919, the date of the death of said deceased, to
January 14, 1929, and show separately the annual products of each of
the rice and coconut fields, which form the entire intestate estate.
The petitioner Sinforoso de Gala is granted a period of 15 days, from
the date upon which the administrator and his mother Josefa Alabastro
file said accounting, within which to file his written objections or
comments thereon. So ordered.”

In support
of his appeal, the appellant Generoso de Gala assigns the following
alleged errors as committed by the trial court in its said order, to
wit:

“1. The lower court erred in holding
that it had jurisdiction in these proceedings to compel Generoso de
Gala to render an accounting covering a period prior to his appointment
and qualification as a judicial administrator.

“2. The lower court erred in unduly interpreting the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lopez vs. Garcia Lopez (40 Phil., 184), and applying the ruling therein contained to this question on appeal.

“3. The lower court has inadvertently failed to study and ignored some
proven questions of fact relative to the disputed point, thus giving
rise to that part of its order directing the rendition of separate
accounts of the annual products of each of the parcels of land
belonging to the estate left by the deceased Pedro de Gala.”

In support of her appeal, the appellant Josefa Alabastro, in turn,
assigns the following sole alleged error as committed by the trial
court in its said order, to wit:

“The
Court of First Instance of Tayabas erred in directing Josefa Alabastro,
by means of its orders of May 6, 1932, and March 31, 1933, to ‘file
with the office of the clerk of this court a detailed account of her
administration of the entire estate of the deceased Pedro de Gala’,
from July 23, 1919, to January 14, 1929.”

The pertinent facts which are necessary for the resolution of the questions of law raised in this appeal are as follows:

On August 29, 1917, Sinforoso de Gala brought an action in the
Court of First Instance of Tayabas (civil case No. 483) against Pedro
de Gala, praying that the latter be compelled to acknowledge him as his
natural child, basing his claim on an alleged uninterrupted possession
of the status of a natural child of said Pedro de Gala. As the case was
decided adversely to Sinforoso de Gala, he brought the same on appeal
to this court. On July 23, 1919, and while the appeal was pending,
Pedro de Gala died. Inasmuch as the case is not among those that are
abated by reason of the defendant’s death, the latter’s surviving wife
Josefa Alabastro and his legitimate son Generoso de Gala were
substituted in his place, in accordance with the provisions of section
119 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Having found, in the course of the appeal, that the
petitioner-appellee Sinforoso de Gala had been in the uninterrupted
possession of the status of a natural child of Pedro de Gala, this
court, on February 15, 1922,^[1] entered judgment the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

“For all of the foregoing reasons, the judgment of
the lower court is hereby revoked, with the costs of this instance
against the appellees, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that a
judgment be entered, requiring the appellees, Josefa Alabastro and
Generoso de Gala, to recognize and acknowledge the appellant, Sinforoso
de Gala, as the natural son of the deceased Pedro de Gala. So ordered.”

Having been declared and acknowledged natural child of Pedro de
Gala, Sinforoso de Gala, on July 26, 1922, filed with the said Court of
First Instance of Tayabas the petition which gave rise to this case,
praying for the appointment of Ricardo Nadres as administrator of the
estate of the deceased Pedro de Gala.

Josefa Alabastro and Generoso de Gala, legitimate widow and son,
respectively, of the deceased Pedro de Gala, as above stated, opposed
said petition.

When said petition was called for hearing on July 29, 1922, the
parties, in open court, signed the following stipulation of facts:

“Come now the undersigned attorneys for the
petitioner and for the oppositors, respectively, and submit the
following stipulation of facts:

“1. That all the facts and
allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 of the
petition are admitted to be true, with the exception of the word ‘of
the value of approximately Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00)’
contained in paragraph 3.

“2. That the widow and the son
Generoso de Gala and even the deceased, during his lifetime, have not
recognized or cared to recognize Sinforoso de Gala as a natural child
of the deceased Pedro de Gala, for which reason the action for
acknowledgment of a natural child, referred to in paragraph 4 of the
petition, was brought during the lifetime of said deceased, as a result
of which a conflicting interest now exists among them in connection
with the hereditary portion of the natural child Sinforoso de Gala.

“3. That from the death of Pedro de Gala, the petitioner has not
received anything from the oppositors as fruits produced by the
property that might be allotted to or constitute the hereditary portion
of the petitioner.

“4. That there is a divergence of opinion
between the petitioner and the oppositors regarding the value of the
estate in question, for while the petitioner estimates it at five
hundred thousand pesos, the oppositors maintain that it hardly amounts
to forty thousand pesos.

“5. That it is true that the
oppositors have to date failed to institute in court intestate
proceedings of the deceased Pedro de Gala.

“6. That it is
likewise admitted by the petitioner and the oppositors that in or about
the middle of the year 1920, Josefa Alabastro and Generoso de Gala
executed a contract of partition of the estate left by the deceased
Pedro de Gala, stipulating that one-half thereof should belong to
Josefa Alabastro and the other half to Generoso de Gala, and in order
not to subdivide the parcels of land, they have to date been jointly
managing the estate between them, apportioning the fruits pro rota between
themselves, and Generoso de Gala delivering to his mother one-third of
one-half of his products as usufruct; that such is the condition of the
estate, but Sinforoso de Gala did not intervene in or consent to said
partition because his case, No. 483 of this court, for acknowledgment
of a natural child, was pending; that his hereditary rights cannot now
be affected by said partition and that said Sinforoso de Gala does not
consider himself bound thereby.

“7. That it is an admitted
fact, having been investigated by all the parties to this case, and it
is so agreed, that the deceased left no debts and there are no
creditors of the estate or claims for debts against the deceased Pedro
de Gala.

“8. That the disputed point between the parties is
as follows: The petitioner maintains that the estate of the deceased
should be placed under administration and an administrator appointed,
who must be neither one of the oppositors; and the latter maintain the
contrary, that is, it is not necessary to place the estate under
administration or to have an administrator appointed and that the
proper proceeding is an action for partition among the parties.

“9. Both parties agree to file their written memorandums within ten
days without the necessity of serving copies upon each other, and to
refrain, after the filing of the memorandums, from further discussing
the case either orally or in writing, thus submitting to the decision
of the court the question at issue between the parties.”

On September 16, 1922, the court, upon said stipulation of facts
and memorandums submitted by the parties, entered an order the
dispositive part of which reads as follows :

“Wherefore, the intestate proceeding of the
deceased Pedro de Gala is declared open and it is ordered that his
estate be placed under administration, thus overruling the opposition
of his widow and legitimate son, Josefa Alabastro and Generoso de Gala,
respectively.

“As to who should be appointed administrator
of the estate of the deceased Pedro de Gala, the attorney for the
petitioner is opposed to Josefa Alabastro as well as to Generoso de
Gala and proposes Ricardo Nadres, resident of Candelaria, Province of
Tayabas, for said post; for which reason, and in order that Josefa
Alabastro and Generoso de Gala may have the opportunity of being
previously heard, they are given a period of five days to show cause
why Ricardo Nadres, who has been proposed by the petitioner, should not
be appointed administrator, and for this purpose let a Saturday be set
for the hearing of the case.”

After several incidents which are of no moment to the resolution of
the questions raised herein, the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, on
May 6, 1932, entered an order the dispositive part of which has been
hereinbefore quoted.

The principal question to be decided in this appeal is whether or not the court a quo
had jurisdiction to compel the oppositor-appellant Generoso de Gala to
render an accounting of his administration of that portion which had
been allotted to him in an extra judicial partition between him and his
mother, of the estate of said deceased Pedro de Gala, prior to his
appointment as judicial administrator of said estate, and the oppositor
Josefa Alabastro, of her administration of the estate of her deceased
husband Pedro de Gala, prior to said partition, and of one-half of the
conjugal property which had been allotted to hier in the liquidation
made by her.

In maintaining the negative, Generoso de Gala alleges that “the
courts of justice lack jurisdiction to order the rendition of accounts
in testamentary cases when no case or special proceeding for the
settlement of an estate is pending before them,” citing in support of
his contention the doctrine laid down by this court in the case of
Nepomuceno vs. Carlos (9 Phil., 194), which reads as follows:

“1. WILLS; NECESSARY CONDITION FOR THE EXERCISE OF
PROBATE JURISDICTION.—In order that a Court of First Instance may
exercise its probate jurisdiction, as conferred by section 599 of the
Code of Civil Procedure which went into effect on October 1, 1901, it
is essential that there should be pending in the court some judicial
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person.”

However, he admits that in subsequent decisions, particularly in that rendered in the case of Lopez vs. Garcia Lopez (40 Phil., 184), wherein the above cited case of Nepomuceno vs. Carlos was discussed and differentiated, the following doctrine was laid down:

“1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; EXTRAJUDICIAL
MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR; LIABILITY OF
ADMINISTRATOR TO ACCOUNT.—By agreement among the numerous children of a
deceased person, the management of the estate was confided to the
widow, their mother, who accordingly administered the property
extrajudicially for many years. Finally the will of the decedent was
proved, and the widow was appointed administratrix. Held:
That the Court of First Instance, in the exercise of its probate
authority, has jurisdiction to require such administratrix to account
for her management of the estate during the time she acted as
extrajudicial manager prior to her appointment as administratrix.

“2. ID. ; ID. ; ACCOUNTABILITY OF CUSTODIAN OR MANAGER QUALIFYING
AS ADMINISTRATOR.—All persons who come into possession of property
belonging to any decedent are liable therefor and accountable to the
lawful administrator when the estate is finally drawn into judicial
administration; and this responsibility extends to the restoration of
the fruits, increase, and accessions of such property as well as to the
surrender of its proceeds, where it has been sold, or exchanged, and to
compensation for its value where it has been appropriated, converted or
consumed. When it occurs, as here, that the person qualifying as
administrator is the same as the one who acted as custodian and manager
prior to the inception of the administration proceedings, his duty to
account is no less insistent and inevitable.”

Generoso de Gala’s contention, therefore, is unfounded and is contrary to the rulings of this court.

As to the question raised by Josefa Alabastro, it is well first to
determine the time from which the declaration of this court in its
decision rendered on February 15, 1922, in the case of De Gala vs.
De Gala (42 Phil., 771), cited above, to the effect that the petitioner
Sinforoso de Gala is an acknowledged natural child of the deceased
Pedro de Gala, which is based on the fact that said Sinforoso de Gala
had been found to be in the uninterrupted possession of the status of a
natural child of said deceased Pedro de Gala, justified by the latter’s
own conduct and that of his family (article 135, Civil Code), legally
took effect.

Article 134 of the Civil Code provides that an acknowledged natural
child is entitled, in such case, to reseive the hereditary portion
determined by said Code, and article 657 of the same Code provides that
the rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the
moment of his death.

It will be noted that the law is silent as to the time from which a
judicial declaration regarding the existence of the acknowledgment of a
natural child, inferred from the uninterrupted possession of the status
thereof, justified by the conduct of the father himself and that of his
family, should take effect. If an acknowledged natural child is
entitled to inherit from its natural parent and its right to the
succession of its said parent is transmitted from the moment of the
latter’s death, the legal effects of the judicial declaration of the
existence of a tacit acknowledgment of a natural child should retroact
not only to the date on which said decedent died, but to the date of
the child’s birth, at which time there already existed an expectant
right of said child to succeed by reason of its natural filiation,
which right becomes vested from the date of the judicial declaration,
inasmuch as the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural
child begins from the date of its birth (1 Colin y Capitan, Derecho Civil, paragraph 557; 1 M. Planiol, Traite Elementaire de Droit Civil, 494).
If the judicial declaration to the effect that a person is an
acknowledged natural child were to take effect only from the date of
its promulgation, the provisions of article 137 of the Civil Code,
which, in certain cases, authorize the commencement of an action for
the acknowledgment of a natural child even after the death of the
father or mother, would be nugatory because if said declaration did not
have a retroactive effect, the natural child, if of age, or its
guardian, if a minor, would be unable to intervene in the settlement of
the estate of its deceased natural parent at the latter’s death, in
order to protect its hereditary rights.

According to repeated rulings of this court interpreting section
685 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the husband dies, the conjugal
property must be liquidated by the administrator appointed in his
testamentary or intestate proceedings, not by the surviving wife
(Enriquez vs. Victoria, 10 Phil., 10; Alfonso vs.
Natividad, 6 Phil., 240). It is true that according to section 596 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, whenever all the heirs of a decedent are
of lawful age and legal capacity and there are no debts due from the
estate, they may apportion and divide the estate among themselves, as
they may see fit, without proceedings in court. Although in this case
the widow and the legitimate son of the deceased Pedro de Gala are of
lawful age and no debts are due from the estate, however, when, as
here, there was pending an action for the acknowledgment of a natural
child brought against the deceased, during his lifetime, and continued
against his widow and son, in his stead, after his death, which action
affected the estate of said deceased, a petition should have been filed
for the appointment of an administrator to manage the estate of the
deceased Pedro de Gala until said action is decided. Inasmuch as the
liquidation by Josefa Alabastro, widow of Pedro de Gala, of the
conjugal partnership formed by the two, as well as the extrajudicial
partition of the half allotted to the deceased under such liquidation,
is illegal, each of the oppositors, upon taking possession of his
respective portion, became an officious manager of said portion
(article 1888, Civil Code), under obligation to render an accounting of
his administration thereof to the court which takes cognizance of the
intestate proceedings of the deceased.

The herein oppositor-appellant Josefa Alabastro is, therefore,
bound to render an accounting to the trial court of her administration
of the entire estate of the decedent Pedro de Gala from July 25, 1919,
the date on which the latter died, to January 14, 1929.

As to the appeal of the other oppositor-appellant Generoso de Gala,
all that has been said relative to the appeal of his mother Josefa
Alabastro, is applicable to him.

Neither the oppositor-appellant Josefa Alabastro nor her son, the
other oppositor-appellant Generoso de Gala, can invoke in their favor
acquisition by prescription through possession of the property for more
than ten years inasmuch as their character of officious managers and
their inclusion as defendants instead of their deceased husband and
father, respectively, in the action for acknowledgment of a natural
child instituted by the petitioner-appellee Sinforoso de Gala, estop
them from invoking in their favor uninterrupted possession (article
1945, Civil Code). ^In View of the foregoing considerations, this court
is of the opinion and so holds: (1) That the liquidation of the
conjugal property by the widow upon her husband’s death, not being
authorized by section 685 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is illegal
and null (Alfonso vs. Natividad, 6 Phil., 240; Enrique vs.
Victoria, 10 Phil., 10); (2) that the effects of a judicial declaration
that a person is a natural and acknowledged child, made after the death
of the defendant parent, retroact to the date of the said child’s
birth; (3) that an extrajudicial partition made among themselves by
heirs of legal age, pending an action for the acknowledgment of a
natural child brought against the predecessor of the inheritance during
his lifetime, and his heirs, by substitution, after his death, is
illegal and null (section 596, Act No. 190), inasmuch as said action
implies a claim for inheritance, and (4) that the possession by the
widow, of one-half of the illegally liquidated conjugal property as
well as that by the heir, of the hereditary portion which was allotted
to him in the illegal extrajudicial partition, is that of an officious
manager under obligation to render an accounting of his administration
to the probate or intestate court.

Wherefere, finding no error in the appealed order, the same is
affirmed in all its parts, with costs against the appellants. So
ordered.

Malcolm, Imperial, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] De Gala vs. De Gala, 42 Phil., 771.