8/28/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME016

154

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Policarpio, et al. vs. Salamat, et al.

No. L21809. January 31, 1966.

GIL P. POLICARPIO, ET AL., plaintiffs and appellees, vs.
JOSE V. SALAMAT, ET AL., defendants. VICENTE
ASUNCION, ET AL., defendants and appellants.
Usufruct Death of one of the usufructuaries before end of
usufruct results in accretion among usufructuaries Exception.
There is accretion among the usufructuaries who are
constituted at the same time when one of them dies before the end
of the usufruct. The only exception is if the usufruct is constituted
in a last will and testament and the testator makes a contrary
provision. In the instant case, there is none. On the contrary, the
testatrix constituted the usufruct in favor of the children of her
three cousins with the particular injunction that they are the only
ones to enjoy the same as long as they live, from which it can be
implied that, should any of them die, the share of the latter shall
accrue to the surviving ones. These provisions of the will are
clear. They do not admit of any other interpretation.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Bulacan.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Tansinsin & Tansinsin for the defendants and
appellants.
Eugenio Balabat for the plaintiffs and appellees.
155

VOL. 16, JANUARY 31, 1966

155

Policarpio, et al. vs. Salamat, et al.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

In a duly probated last will and testament of one Damasa
Crisostomo, she gave the naked ownership of a fishpond
owned by her to her sister Teodorica de la Cruz while its
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156d18a95550f29da25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

1/6

8/28/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME016

usufruct to the children of her cousins Antonio Perez,

Patricia Vicente and Canuto Lorenzo. The fishpond is
situated at a barrio of Hagonoy, Bulacan.
The children of Antonio Perez, Patricia Vicente and
Canuto Lorenzo turned out to be fourteen, namely: Maria,
Pio, Fructuosa, Graciano, Vicente, Victoria, Teodora, and
Juan, all surnamed Perez, Apolonio Lorenzo, Bonifacio
Lorenzo, Vicente Asuncion, Francisco Lorenzo, Leoncio
Perez and Servillano Perez. On the other hand, Teodorica
de la Cruz, the naked owner, bequeathed in her will all her
rights to the fishpond to Jose V. Salamat.
The fourteen usufructuaries leased the fishpond first to
one Gil P. Policarpio who used to give them proportionately
the usufruct corresponding to them. During the term of the
lease, however, three of the usufructuaries died, namely,
Francisco Lorenzo, Leoncio M. Perez and Servillano Perez,
and so, upon their death, both the naked owner and the
remaining usufructuaries claimed the shares corresponding
to the deceased usufructuaries in the amount of
P10,714.26. Because of these conflicting claims, the lessee
withheld said amount.
Subsequently, on May 31, 1962, the surviving
usufructuaries leased the fishpond to one Batas Riego de
Dios who, after executing the contract of lease, came to
know of the existing conflicting claims, and not knowing to
whom of the claimants the shares of the deceased
usufructuaries should be paid, said lessee was also
constrained to withhold the corresponding part of the
usufruct of the property. So on November 15, 1962, the two
lessees commenced the present action for interpleader
against both the naked owner and surviving usufructuaries
to compel them to interplead and litigate their conflicting
claims.
Defendant Jose V. Salamat avers as special defense that
he is the successorininterest of Teodorica de la Cruz and
as such he is entitled to the shares corresponding to the
three deceased usufructuaries inasmuch as the usu
156

156

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Policarpio, et al. vs. Salamat, et al.

fruct in their favor was automatically extinguished by

death and became merged with the naked owner.
The surviving usufructuaries, on the other hand, adhere
to the theory that since the usufructuaries were instituted
simultaneously by the late Damasa Crisostomo, the death
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156d18a95550f29da25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

2/6

8/28/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME016

of the three usufructuaries did not extinguish the usufruct,

hence, the surviving usufructuaries are entitled to receive
the shares corresponding to the deceased usufructuaries,
the usufruct to continue until the death of the last
usufructuary.
When the case was called for hearing, the parties agreed
to submit the case for decision upon the submission of their
respective memoranda considering that the issue involved
was purely legal in nature, and on March 29, 1963, the
trial court rendered decision the dispositive part of which
reads as follows:
Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered declaring defendant
Jose V. Salamat entitled to the sum of P10,714.25 representing
the shares of the three deceased usufructuaries in the lease rental
due from plaintiff Gil Policarpio, ordering the latter to deliver to
said defendant the aforesaid amount and likewise declaring said
defendant Jose V. Salamat entitled to share with the eleven
usufructuaries in the proceeds of the lease contract executed by
them with plaintiff Batas Riego de Dios, ordering the latter to
deliver to him such amount as would be equivalent to the shares
of the three deceased usufructuaries, with the parties bearing
their own costs and expenses of litigation.

ISSUE:

The surviving usufructuaries took the present appeal.

The important issue to be determined is whether the
eleven surviving usufructuaries of the fishpond in question
are the ones entitled to the fruits that would have
corresponded to the three deceased usufructuaries or the
naked owner Jose V. Salamat.
Appellants argue that it is the surviving usufructuaries
who are entitled to receive the shares of the deceased by
virtue of Article 611 of the Civil Code which provides A
usufruct constituted in favor of several persons living at
the time of its constitution shall not be extinguished until
the death of the last survivor. On the other hand, appellee
contends that the most a usufruct can endure if constituted
in favor of a natural person is the lifetime
157

VOL. 16, JANUARY 31, 1966

157

Policarpio, et al. vs. Salamat, et al.

of the usufructuary, because a usufruct is extinguished by

the death of the usufructuary unless a contrary intention
clearly appears (Article 603, Civil Code). Hence, appellee
argues, when the three usufructuaries died, their
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156d18a95550f29da25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

3/6

8/28/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME016

usufructuary rights were extinguished and whatever rights

they had to the fruits reverted to the naked owner.
If the theory of appellee in the sense that the death of
the three usufructuaries has the effect of consolidating
their rights with that of the naked owner were correct,
Article 611 of the Civil Code would be superfluous, because
Article 603 already provides that the death of the
usufructuary extinguishes the usufruct unless the contrary
appears. Furthermore, said theory would cause a partial
extinction of the usufruct, contrary to the provisions of
Article 611 which expressly provides that the usufruct
shall not be extinguished until the death of the last
survivor. The theory of appellee cannot, therefore, be
entertained.
The wellknown Spanish commentators on the
counterpart of Article 611 we have copied above which
implicitly provides that the share of a usufructuary who
dies in the meantime inures to the benefit of the surviving
usufructuaries, also uphold the view we here express.
Thus, the following is their comment on the matter:
Al comentar el articulo 469 (now Art. 564) hablamos, entre
formas de constitucin del usufructo, del disfrute simultneo y
sucesivo. Ninguna duda cabe, puesto que el derecho de acrecer es
aplicable a los usufructuarios, segun el Art. 987 (now Art. 1023),
sobre la no extincin del usufructo simultneo, hasta la muerte de
la ltima persona que sobreviva. x x x
x x x Al referirse x x x el articulo 521 (now Art. 611) al
usufructo constituido en provecho de varias personas vivas al
tiempo de su constitucin, parece referirse al usufructo
simultneo. Sin embargo, es indudable que se refiere tambien al
sucesivo, puesto que en esta especie de usufructo el segundo
usufructuario no entra en el disfrute, salvo expresin en contrario,
hasta la muerte del primero, y es claro que al morir el ltimo
llamado, se extingue el usufructo, que es precisamente lo que
ordena el presente articulo. (Manresa, Comentarios al Codigo
Civil Espanol, 1931, Tomo IV, par. 486).
x x x refiriendonos al caso de muerte natural, ha de tenerse
presente que si son muchos los llamados el usufructo
simultneamente, muerto uno, su porcian acrece a los demas, a no
ser
158

158

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Policarpio, et al. vs. Salamat, et al.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156d18a95550f29da25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

4/6

8/28/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME016

que el testador exprese lo contrario, se infiriera asi del titulo en

que se constituye el usufructo, para lo cual puede verse la
doctrina de la ley 33, tit. I, lib. VII del Digesto, que habla del
derecho de acrecer en el usufructo, y el tit. IV del mismo libro, en
que se proponen algunos casos de excepcion.El usufructo
constituido en provecho de varias personas vivas al tiempo de su
constitucin, no extinguir hasta la muerte de la ltima que
sobreviviere. Cod. Civ. art. 521. (Del Viso, Lecciones Elementales
de Derecho Civil, sexta edicion, Tomo I, p. 86.)
Si a varios usufructuarios se les lega la totalidad de una
herencia o una misma parte de ella, se da el derecho de acrecer
cuando una de ellos muere despues del testador, sobreviviendo otro
y otros?Como dice la obra anotado, el Digesto admiti, segn un
texto de Paulo, la solucin afirmativa, y Pothier reprodujo dicha
doctrina.
La jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo espaol ha admitido
y sancionado tambien en la sentencia de 29 de marzo de 1905,
aunque no por aplicacin del derecho de acrecer, y si por
aplicacion de la voluntad presunta del testador, que habiendose
legado el usufructo vitalicio del remanente du sus bienes, por
partes iguales, a dos hermanas, debe entenderse que ellas, o
cualquiera de las dos que sobreviviere a la otra, habia de disfrutar
dicho usufructo, no constituyendo la separacin de partes sino una
prevision del testador, para el arreglo del usufructo total durante
la vida de las dos usufructuarios. (Colin and Capitant, Curso
Elemental del Derecho Civil, 1957, Tomo VIII, pp. 605606)

It, therefore, appears that the Spanish commentators on

the subject are unanimous that there is accretion among
usufructuaries who are constituted at the same time when
one of them dies before the end of the usufruct. The only
exception is if the usufruct is constituted in a last will and
testament and the testator makes a contrary provision.
Here there is none. On the contrary, the testatrix
constituted the usufruct in favor of the children of her
three cousins with the particular injunction that they are
the only ones to enjoy the same as long as they live, from
which it can be implied that, should any of them die, the
share of the latter shall accrue to the surviving ones. These
provisions of the will are clear. They do not admit of any
other interpretation.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The
eleven surviving usufructuaries are hereby declared to be
entitled to the shares of the three deceased usufructuaries
and, hence, as a corollary, appellees Gil P. Policarpio
159

VOL. 16, JANUARY 31, 1966

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156d18a95550f29da25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

159
5/6

8/28/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME016

Malabon Restaurant, et al. vs. Department of Labor, et al.

and Batas Riego de Dios are hereby ordered to pay to them

the money withheld by them respectively representing the
shares of the deceased usufructuaries. No costs.
Chief Justice Bengzon and Justices Concepcion,
J.B.L. Reyes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon and
Zaldivar concur. Mr. Justice Barrera took no part.
Decision reversed.
______________

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156d18a95550f29da25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

6/6