Felix Adan v. Agapito Casili
C.A. No. 299, 18 March 1946
The plaintiff Felix Adan commenced against his sister Victoria Adan and the
latter’s husband, Agapito Casili, to secure the judicial partition of the estate left by their
deceased mother, Simplicia Nepomuceno, alleged to consist of six parcels of land
which are specifically described in the complaint. Parcels 1 and 3, however, were
subsequently discarded, the first having been sold by the parties and the second being
admittedly the property of Maria Adan, a half-sister of the parties litigant. The remaining four parcels are valued by both parties at P2, 783.55.
The defendants interposed the defenses that the four lots in question were ceded
by the deceased Simplicia Nepomuceno to her daughter Victoria Adan as her share of
the inheritance; and that the plaintiff has received more than his share consisting of
money, livestock, palay, and real property.
ISSUE: Whether or not collation is proper in the present case
Under the article 1041 of the Civil Code, allowances for support, education,
attendance in illnesses, even though unusually expensive, apprenticeship, ordinary
equipment, or customary presents are not subject to collation. But article 1042 of the
same Code provides that expenses which may have been incurred by the parents in
giving their children a professional or artistic career shall not be brought to collation
unless the parent so orders or they encroach upon the legitimate. It also provides that in
cases in which it is proper to collate them, the money which the child would have spent
if it had lived in the house and company of its parents shall be deducted therefrom.
Since the career of surveyor is a professional one, and since the expenses incurred by
plaintiff’s mother in giving him that career encroached upon the legitimate, it is proper to collate one-half of the amount spent by her for him during the two years he studied
surveying, the other half being considered as the amount which the plaintiff would have
spent if he had lived in the house and company of his mother.
The claim of the plaintiff that parcel No. 4 described in the complaint produced
800 cavans of palay a year which he contends should form part of the estate, has not
been established by competent evidence. Such claim seems to us highly exaggerated,
considering that the value of said lot No. 4, as alleged by the plaintiff himself, was only
P693.55. It seems to us unbelievable that a piece of land worth less than P700 could
produce a net income of P8,000 in five years.
We find no competent evidence in the record to disprove or impeach the
testimony of the defendants to the effect that the plaintiff took and received from his
mother during the latter’s lifetime P1,110 in cash and 300 cavans of palay in the manner
and under the circumstances narrated by the defendant spouses as witnesses in their own behalf. The 300 cavans of palay was taken by the plaintiff from the granary of his mother in 1927. The cash consisting of twenty-peso and five-peso bills and amounting in all to P1,110 was taken by the plaintiff from his mother’s trunk on an occasion when she suffered a collapse and when the plaintiff took some money from the same trunk with which to pay for injections. As we have said, the plaintiff did not testify to deny the testimony of the defendants. It is admitted in the brief for the plaintiff and appellant that the latter took 300 cavans of palay from his mother’s granary, but it is claimed that said palay belonged to him. In the absence of plaintiff’s testimony to support such claim, there is no basis upon which to sustain it. It was also proved during the trial that the plaintiff took possession of twelve carabaos belonging to his mother and that the value of said animals was P30 a head.
It was also established during the trial that the plaintiff studied surveying in Manila and
that during his studies his mother and sister sent him money for his support and
expenses, amounting to approximately P500 a year. Although the defendants claim that
his studies lasted from 1918 to 1925, we sustain the contention of the plaintiff and
appellant in his brief that it took him only two years to finish the course of surveying,
because it is a matter of common knowledge that surveying is a two-year course, and it
is probable that the rest of the time was spent by him in acquiring a high-school
education.
