Case Digest (G.R. No. 48176)
Facts:
In the Testate Estate of Don Isidro Aragon, Deceased. Josefa A. Vda. de Claudio, Ramon Diokno and Menandro Quiogue, Claimants and Appellants, vs. Crisanto Aragon, Administrator and Appellee, G.R. No. L-2920, January 23, 1951, Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.
Isidro Aragon died on November 26, 1944, leaving a will that in paragraph 7 made pecuniary legacies in favor of Josefa A. Vda. de Claudio (P10,000), Ramon Diokno (P8,000) and Menandro Quiogue (P4,000). Paragraph 8 charged the testator’s soap factory in Pasay (including land, buildings, equipment and furniture) with payment of those legacies and directed that the factory “shall be sold at a price not less than P116,500” and that proceeds be applied to the legacies, testamentary costs and then divided among heirs in eighths; until sale the factory was to be held in community under administration by Crisanto Aragon.
Rather than immediately probating the will, the heirs executed a partition among themselves distributing the estate according to the will and treated the heirs’ shares as already received; some factory equipment was sold by the heirs on June 28, 1945 (value P6,000) and the administrator collected rentals of P10,400 for twenty-six months but later occupied the building without paying rent; the factory was uninsured and deteriorating.
On August 29, 1947 the legatees, invoking Rule 74, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Manila asking that rentals be deposited and that execution issue against the factory and its land, buildings, furniture and equipment for payment of the legacies. On October 22, 1947 the court required the movants to file a petition for probate; the will was then probated and Crisanto Aragon was appointed administrator.
On January 20, 1948 the legatees moved for sale of the property at public auction to pay the legacies. The administrator asked instead for authority to sell privately; the court authorized private sale within four months, with a fallback public auction if unsold. Shortly before the period expired the administrator requested a six-month extension; the court granted three additional months on condition he deliver P6,000 then held to the legatees. He failed to comply and the legatees renewed their demand for public auction; the administrator opposed.
On August 18, 1948 the administrator moved for reduction of the legacies in proportion to the actual price the property might fetch, alleging land-value depreciation and that the testator’s fixed price of P116,500 could no longer be realized. The legatees objected. On September 10, 1948 the trial court granted the administrator’s motion and ordered the legacies reduced proportionally, using P116,500 as the basis for the reduction. The legatees moved for reconsideration on October 12, 1948 and asked that the property be s...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court have authority to reduce the legacies proportionally to the proceeds realized from the sale of the property charged with their payment, using the testator’s fixed price of P116,500 as the basis?
- Do the legacies in paragraph 7 of the will impair the legitime of the testator’s forced heirs such that they are inofficious ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)