173.

APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTIES IN CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP

Ysabel B. De Padilla vs. Concepcion Paterno
G.R. No. L-4130. September 30, 1953
Bengzon J.:

Doctrine:

If the proceedings take a long time and the values have suffered some
alteration, there is nothing to prevent a new valuation when the last stage,
is reached, i.e., the actual division or partition comes, so long as all the
properties are newly appraised in reference to the same period of time.

Facts:

Narciso Padilla died on February 12, 1934, leaving a childless widow

Concepcion Paterno, whom he had married in 1912. In his last will, Narciso
declared his mother, Ysabel Bibby vda De Padilla as universal heiress.
Paterno filed a civil case for the delivery of her paraphernal property with
reimbursements and indemnities as well as one-half of the conjugal property
as her share. Paterno also prayed that her usufructuary right as surviving
spouse be imposed on the corresponding portion of her husband’s assets.
Padilla opposed these claims.

On January 15, 1940 the court declared certain personal and real properties
as paraphernal. Other realties, although originally paraphernal, were
considered part of the conjugal assets. The court ordered the appointment of
commissioners to estimate the amount to be reimburse, divide the conjugal
property and determine which specific portion of the deceased’s estate is to
be encumbered with the widow’s usufruct. On October 4, 1943 Supreme
Court upheld the same despite Padilla’s appeals. The same year, Paterno
died and was survived by her testate heirs and legatees. On July 3, 1950,
the Manila Court approved the report submitted by the commissioners
except that he declared: (1) lot No. 50 on Juan Luna Street was conjugal
and (2) the usufruct of the widow shall be constituted on one-third of the
estate.

The executrix appealed to the supreme court contending that, in the

liquidation, the realties should not have been appraised on the basis of the
values of 1947 but of those at the time of the dissolution of the partnership
(1934) or at least the figures stated in the inventory by the Committee on
Claims and Appraisal.
Issue:

Are the real properties of a conjugal partnership should be appraised on the

basis at the time of the dissolution of partnership or at least the figures
stated in the inventory by the Committee on Claims and Appraisals?

Ruling:

No. There is no law or doctrine making the Report of the Committee on

Claims and Appraisals conclusive.

It is true that the report of the Committee on Claims and Appraisals

adopted lower valuations for the disputed properties. But it needs no
explanation that in the process of winding up a decedent's estate such
report is only the beginning.

In this case, the Court ruled that the proceedings took a long time from the
dissolution of marriage on 1934 and the values have suffered some
alteration, there is nothing to prevent a new valuation when the last stage,
is reached, i.e., the actual division or partition comes, so long as all the
properties are newly appraised in reference to the same period of time.
There exist no law or doctrine making the Report of the Committee on
Claims and Appraisals conclusive upon the parties and the courts.
Furthermore, the court realized that the adoption of such criterion would
only profit the appellant in so far as it concerns the indemnities to be paid
for the paraphernal lots on which buildings had been erected by the
conjugal partnership, because lesser indemnities would mean greater
conjugal assets to divide.

Hence, the court committed no error for appraising the values of the real
property in this particular conjugal partnership based on 1947 valuation
report submitted by the assigned commissioners.