Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1592)
Facts:
In the Testate Estate of E. M. Bachrach, Deceased. Mary McDonald Bachrach, Petitioner and Appellee, vs. Sophie M. Seifert, Elisa Elianoff, and the Heirs of the Deceased Ginda M. Skundina, Oppositors and Appellants, G.R. No. L-1592. September 20, 1949. The Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.- M. Bachrach died September 28, 1937, leaving a will. The material provisions were the sixth paragraph, which gave Mary McDonald Bachrach a life usufruct over the remainder of the estate after payment of legacies and gifts, and the eighth paragraph, which directed that upon Mary’s death the estate be divided one-half to charitable hospitals (or to the Chief Executive for distribution if she failed to designate) and one-half share “divided, share and share alike by and between my legal heirs, to the exclusion of my brothers.”
As administratrix and usufructuary, Mary McDonald Bachrach administered and enjoyed the estate’s fruits. On September 14, 1940, the instituted heirs — Sophie M. Seifert, Ginda M. Skundina (deceased; her heirs), Elisa Elianoff, and Annie Bachrach Levine — filed a petition, agreed to by the usufructuary and the Solicitor General, asking that the administratrix be authorized to pay them monthly allowances (P500 to Sophie; P250 each to the others) from July 1, 1940 until they received their shares upon Mary’s death, and an additional P3,000 to Sophie.
The Court of First Instance of Manila granted that petition by order dated October 2, 1940, authorizing the administratrix to begin the stated monthly payments and expressly directing that the allowances be taken from the properties to be turned over to the heirs and be deducted from their shares upon the widow’s death. The administratrix made payments from July 1, 1940 to December 31, 1941 totaling P40,250; payments were suspended during the Japanese occupation and resumed August 1945 to January 1947, after which the administratrix declined further payments.
The heirs sought writ of execution to enforce the October 2, 1940 order; the trial court denied execution; the heirs then filed a mandamus petition in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-1379). The Supreme Court granted mandamus (decision promulgated December 19, 1947) directing the lower court to execute its October 2, 1940 order and noting that the administratrix had in her possession P351,116.91 adjudicated to the heirs.
Separately, the administratrix filed petitions in Feb. 1947 asking (1) for liquidation of assets intended for charity because charities needed relief after the war, and (2) to be relieved from the obligation to pay the monthly allowances or, in the alternative, to be authorized to sell as much of the one-half share adjudicated to the instituted heirs as would be necessary to reimburse her for allowances she alleged she had paid from her personal funds. Acting on these petitions, the Court of First Instance, by order dated February 27, 1947, authorized sale of properties ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in authorizing the sale of the one-half share of the estate adjudicated to the instituted heirs over their objection?
- Was the administratrix entitled to sell the heirs’ one-half share to reimburse herself for allowances she claimed to have paid from her personal funds (or from the fruits of the estate) rather than from ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)