Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

PERSONS

IN RE PADILLA

Doctrine: Article 10, NCC . IN CASE OF DOUBT IN THE


INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF LAWS; IT IS
PRESUMED THAT THE LAWMAKING BODY INTENDED RIGHT
AND JUSTICE TO PREVAIL.
74 PHIL 377

Date: October 4, 1943


Ponente: BOCOBO, J.
CONCEPCION PATERNO VDA. DE
ISABEL BIBBY VDA. DE PADILLA,
PADILLA, widow-appellee
executrix-appellant
Nature of the case: This case is about the estate of late Narciso A. Padilla , In order
that his property may be divided according to his last will and testament. It is necessary
first to liquidate the conjugal property.
FACTS
Concepcion Paterno Vda. de Padilla, commenced the instant proceedings by filing a
petition wherein she prayed, inter alia, that her paraphernal property be segregated
from the inventoried estate and delivered to her together with the corresponding
reimbursements and indemnities; that she be given one-half of the conjugal partnership
property; and that her usufructuary right over one-half of the portion pertaining to the
heir instituted in the will be recognized. The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered
judgment declaring certain pieces of real estate and jewelry as well as certain sums of
money to be paraphernal, and ordering the same to be delivered to the widow (appellee
herein).
The CFI Rendered judgement declaring pieces of Real estate and jewelry as well as
certain sums of money to the paraphernal and ordering the same to be delivered.
from the foregoing judgement the Testators Mother and instituted heir, appeals.
RELEVANT ISSUE
1.
Are legal Torrens Title are in favor of Conjugal partnership?
2.
Whether the value of paraphernal land to reimbursed to the wife is that obtaining
at the time of the construction of the building or the value at the time of conjugal
partnership.
3.
Whether the value of paraphernal buildings which were demolished to make
possible the construction of new ones at the expense of conjugal partnership be
reimbursed.
4.
Whether or not the php7000 borrowed by husband to wife shall be charged to
conjugal partnership.
5.
Whether or Not the interest should be paid by the widow on the amount of php
9229.48 withdrawn by her from conjugal savings account
HELD

1.

In Spite of the titles are named to both spouses, it is clear, strong, convincing that
the trial court found that the whole purchase price of said property was been paid by
exclusive property of spouse, so it must be excluded from conjugal property thus be
returned.
2.
A Court Quo ordered that the value of the lots occupied by these construction to
be paid to the widow, should be that prevailing at the time of liquidation of the
Conjugal Partnership.
3.
The court said that it is but just, therefore that the value of old building at the
time they they worn down should be paid.
4.
The trial court applied article 1386 of the civil code and ordered that said amount
of 7000 deducted from husband share. It is likewise true under artcle 1408 paragraph
1, All debts and obligation are chargeable against conjugal but article 1386 is an
exception to the rule and exempts the the fruits of the paraphernal property from the
payment of the personal obligations of the husband unless there is a poof that they
redounded to the benefit of family.
5.
There being no evidence in the record as the purpose for which the amount was
used although counsel for appellee suggest the possibility might have been disbursed
for funeral and similar expenses. We believe she should pay such interest if any.
1-C 2015-16 (ZABAT)

Похожие интересы