Case Digest (G.R. No. 6969)
Facts:
Vicente Reyes v. Jose Grey et al., G.R. No. 6969, December 20, 1911, the Supreme Court (Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Moreland, and Trent, J., writing for the Court). Trent, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiff-appellant, Vicente Reyes, was the surviving husband of Remedios Grey, who died intestate in 1905 leaving no ascendants or descendants but a sister and three brothers. Under the law applicable to succession, the brothers and sister were called to inherit the estate subject to the surviving husband's usufructuary interest in one-half of the estate.
On June 15, 1907, Jose Grey (one of the defendants) was appointed administrator of Remedios Grey's estate in proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila. That probate court issued a decree on December 3, 1910, declaring that each defendant was entitled to one-fourth of the estate, subject to the plaintiff's usufructuary right.
Prior to the appointment of the administrator, the plaintiff's usufructuary interest had been sold under execution to Jose Grey as the result of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff; sheriff's deeds were issued and remained unrepealed, unannulled, and unredeemed. The plaintiff then instituted an action (filed June 1, 1910) against the sister and brothers of his deceased wife seeking payment of his usufructuary interest on two grounds: (1) that the execution sale did not divest his usufruct and the defendants remained charged with its payment, and (2) that the defendants' failure to appeal the December 3, 1910 probate decree—which recognized his usufruct—barred them from denying payment.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint on the merits. The plaintiff appealed...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May a usufructuary interest in real property be sold under execution?
- Does the probate court's December 3, 1910 order, recognizing the plaintiff's usufructuary right and not appealed from by the defendants, preclude the defendants from denying payment of that usufruct, despite an ea...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)