Case Digest (G.R. No. 8926)
Facts:
Paulina Sochayseng v. Andres Trujillo, G.R. No. 8926, July 24, 1915, the Supreme Court En Banc, Arellano, C.J., writing for the Court.
On November 14, 1911, Paulina Sochayseng (plaintiff-appellee) sued Andres Trujillo (defendant-appellant), alleging that Trujillo was the widower of her daughter, Marcela Yatco y Sochayseng, who died on June 25, 1911, leaving no other legitimate heirs. Paulina alleged that Marcela, five months before her death and while ill, left her husband’s house with his knowledge and consent and went to live with Paulina to be cared for; that Paulina expended P410 for Marcela’s sustenance while living with her and P320 for burial expenses at Marcela’s death, and that a conjugal partnership property valued at P1,000 (later proved larger) remained in the defendant’s possession. Paulina prayed for P730 plus costs and for an order compelling settlement and partition of the conjugal partnership.
Trujillo’s written answer admitted many facts but denied that Marcela left his house with his consent, averring he had sent her P12 monthly while she stayed with her mother; he filed a cross-complaint asking for delivery of conjugal articles valued at P615. He later contended the P730 claim should have been presented to the commissioners in the probate/administration proceedings for Marcela’s intestate estate and prayed dismissal.
At trial both parties introduced evidence; Trujillo produced an appointment as administrator of Marcela’s estate and filed an inventory in the probate proceedings. On March 11, 1912, the lower court dismissed Paulina’s complaint, holding the matters should have been presented in the administration and distribution proceedings. Paulina excepted and moved for a new trial; on April 20, 1912, the court quashed its dismissal and ordered Trujillo to proceed with settlement of the conjugal partnership under the Civil Code (order excepted to by defendant).
On May 11, 1912, Trujillo filed the inventory he had presented in the probate proceedings. On August 2 the court ordered him to file an inventory of conjugal partnership property under Civil Code article 1419; he excepted but then filed the required inventory and proposed settlement. On December 14, 1912, the trial court rendered final judgment: it computed total conjugal partnership value at P1,615, determined the sums to be applied to paraphernal contributions and partnership obligations, and found the plaintiff entitled to a claim for subsistence furnished the deceased. Trujillo excepted and mov...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the lower court err in annulling its March 11, 1912 dismissal and in proceeding with settlement of the conjugal partnership rather than relegating the plaintiff’s claims to the probate/administration proceedings?
- Is the plaintiff entitled to recover the amounts claimed (P410 for subsistence and P320 for funeral) and to claim the deceased’s paraphernal and community shares such that defendant must pay a total of P1,944 (comprised of P875 paraphernal, P659 ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)