Case Digest (G.R. No. 4656) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Ricardo Pardell y Cruz and Vicenta Ortiz y Felin de Pardell v. Gaspar de Bartolome y Escribano and Matilde Ortiz y Felin de Bartolome (23 Phil. 450, decided November 18, 1912 under the Philippine Organic Act and Spanish Civil Code), spouses Ricardo Pardell (absent in Spain) and Vicenta Ortiz, natural daughters of Miguel Ortiz and Calixta Felin (who died in 1875 and 1882, respectively), sought partition and accounting of their mother’s undivided real properties in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, valued at ₱7,896.00. In 1905 plaintiffs alleged that defendant Matilde Ortiz (their sister), joined by her husband Gaspar de Bartolome, had assumed administration of these properties without judicial authority or agreement, collected rents and fruits, and delayed partition despite extrajudicial demands. Plaintiffs claimed one-half of the rents and the cash value of their share, plus ₱8,000 damages. Defendants answered, denied material allegations, acknowledged appointment of a judicial appraiser, a Case Digest (G.R. No. 4656) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Will
- Ricardo Pardell y Cruz (absent in Spain) and Vicenta Ortiz y Felin de Pardell (plaintiffs-appellees) are natural daughters of Miguel Ortiz and Calixta Felin, who died in 1875 and 1882 respectively.
- Prior to her death, Calixta Felin made a nuncupative will (Aug. 1876) naming her four children universal heirs. Manuel and Francisca predeceased, leaving Vicenta and Matilde Ortiz as sole heirs.
- Properties and Administration
- Testatrix’s undeclared real properties in Vigan, Santa Lucia, and Candon valued at P7,896 (house on Escolta St. P6,000; Washington St. P1,500; other lots and rice lands).
- In 1888, defendants Matilde Ortiz and her husband Gaspar de Bartolome took possession without agreement, collected rents and fruits, and used the upper story of the Escolta house as their residence and justice of the peace office.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- Plaintiffs sued for one-half the undivided property value (approx. P3,948) or recognition of Vicenta’s full undivided half, plus P8,000 damages and costs.
- Defendants counterclaimed for P1,299.08 (half the deficit between rents collected [P3,654.15] and repair expenses [P6,252.32]) and claimed administrator’s fee.
- Court allowed plaintiffs’ amendment for appraised valuation, expert appraisal and partition proceedings ensued.
- On Oct. 5, 1907, trial court held revenues and expenses compensated by residence enjoyment, absolved defendants from complaint and plaintiffs from counterclaim.
Issues:
- Whether Matilde and her husband must account one-half rents from the upper story of the Escolta house during co-ownership.
- Whether Gaspar de Bartolome must pay one-half rent for the lower-floor office quarters.
- Whether plaintiffs owe defendants P1,299.08 counterclaim, and if legal interest accrues from Dec. 7, 1904.
- Whether defendant’s husband is entitled to administrator’s remuneration.
- Whether jewelry division and appraisal-difference claims are proper.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)