PROPERTY – 2H 2020-2021

CASE TITLE Josefa Fabie, petitioner, vs. Jose Gutierrez David, Judge of First G.R. NO. L-123
Instance of Manila, Ngo Boo Soo and Juan Grey, respondents.

PONENTE Ozaeta, J. DATE December 12, 1945

DOCTRINE Right s of the Usufructuary

Santo Cristo; Chinese; American Liberators

The usufructuary has the right to administer and manage the property, to collect rents and to make necessary
repairs. Included in his right to administer the property is the right to select the tenant of the premises.
Furthermore, a usufructuary of the rents, as a corollary to the right to all the rents, to choose the tenant, and to
fix the amount of the rent, necessarily has the right to choose himself as the tenant, provided that the obligations
he has assumed towards the owner of the property are fulfilled.

FACTS Petitioner Josefa Fabie is the usufructuary of the income of certain houses located in Santo Cristo, Binondo and
Ongpin, Santa Cruz, Manila, under the will of the deceased Rosario Fabie y Grey. The owner of the Santa Cristo
property (subject house) is the respondent Juan Grey. In a prior civil case, it was settled that the naked title
belong to Juan Grey, but the rights to all the rents, as well as the payment of taxes and other obligations thereof
shall belong to the petitioner during her lifetime.

In 1945, Josefa commenced an action of unlawful detainer against respondent Ngo Boo Soo, the tenant of the
subject house. She alleges, among others, that Ngo Boo Soo subleased the property to another Chinese without
her consent and contrary to their agreement. She further claims that she badly needs the said house to live in, as
her house was burned by the Japanese on occasion of the entry of the American liberators in the City (war).

In his answer, Ngo Boo Soo alleges that the petitioner is merely the usufructuary of the income of the property,
and by agreement between her and Juan Grey, her only right as usufructuary of the income is to receive the
whole of such income and that she has no right or authority to eject tenants, such right belonging to Juan Grey,
the owner.

Juan Grey intervened in the unlawful detainer suit, alleging that the only right in favor of Josefa as usufructuary
of the income of the said house is to receive the rents therefrom when due; and that as usufructuary she has no
right nor authority to administer the said premises nor to lease them nor to evict tenants, which right and
authority are vested in him. MTC ruled in favor of petitioner, RTC dismissed the case.

ISSUE/S Whether or not Fabie, as a usufructuary, has the right to manage or administer the property.

RULING/S The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. The usufructuary has the right to administer and manage the
property, to collect rents and to make necessary repairs. Included in his right to administer the property is the
right to select the tenant of the premises.
 PROPERTY – 2H 2020-2021

Construing the judgment regarding the will of deceased Rosario Fabie, the Court finds that Josefa Fabie has the
right to administer the property in question. All the acts of administration – to collect rents for herself, and to
conserve the property by making all necessary repairs and paying all the taxes, special assessments, and
insurance premiums thereon – were by said judgment vested in the usufructuary. The pretention of Juan Grey
that he is the administrator of the property with the right to choose the tenants and to dictate the conditions of
the lease is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the will, stipulation of the parties, and the judgment of
the court. To permit him to arrogate to himself the privilege to choose the tenant, to dictate the conditions of
the lease, and to sue when the lessee fails to comply therewith, would be to place the usufructuary at his mercy.
It would place her in the absurd situation of having a certain indisputable right without the power to protect,
enforce, and fully enjoy it.

Furthermore, a usufructuary of the rents, as a corollary to the right to all the rents, to choose the tenant, and to
fix the amount of the rent, necessarily has the right to choose himself as the tenant, provided that the
obligations he has assumed towards the owner of the property are fulfilled.