SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-1379. December 19, 1947. ]
SOPHIE M. SEIFERT and ELISA ELIANOFF, Petitioners, v. MARY MCDONALD BACHRACH, in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of the deceased E. M. Bachrach, and CONRADO BARRIOS, Judge of First Instance of Manila, Respondents.
Ross, Selph, Carrascoso & Janda, for Petitioners.
Delgado, Dizon & Flores for Respondents.
First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Esmeraldo Umali for the Government.
SYLLABUS
1. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; CONFORMITY TO PETITION FILED IN COURT; LIBERALITY AS CONSIDERATION. — The respondents allege that the conformity given by M. McD. B. to the petition of September 16, 1940, as well as the payments made by her of the monthly allowances under the order of October 2, 1940, "was an act of pure liberality on her part and, therefore, could not be construed as giving rise to any obligatory relations between said respondent executrix and the parties receiving said monthly allowances." The allegation is unacceptable. Conformity is consent. According to a universal law, recognized in the Civil Code, consent is the source of obligations. That respondent has given her conformity as an act "of pure liberality on her part" does not change the nature of the legal effect of the consent given. The commitment she made with her conformity cannot be dismissed upon the ground that it was given as "pure liberality" or for any other motive. Provided the consent was freely given, and regardless of the motive behind the act, it gives rise to all proper legal effects. The conformity or agreement of all the parties to the petition of September 16, 1940, gives it the nature of a contract. The contracting parties are bound to respect and to abide by the commitments in said contract. The contract cannot be lightly dismissed. Respondent’s allegation that M. McD. B. had given her conformity without any consideration, is belied by her own allegation to the effect that she gave said conformity as "an act of pure liberality on her part." Pure liberality is a consideration recognized by the Civil Code. No other consideration is entertained in donations.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPROVAL BY COURT, EFFECT OF ON CONTRACT. — The contract in this case has the added force and solemnity of having been approved by the order of judge A of October 2, 1940. The contract has been elevated to the category of a judgment. Its enforceability depends not only on the good faith of the parties but on a legal and executory order issued by a competent court. While respondent M. M. B. cannot ignore her plighted word, she has absolutely no right to consider the order of October 2, 1940, as a mere scrap of paper. Otherwise, if their orders could be simply ignored, challenged or taken with scorn, there is no use for the existence of courts.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALLOWANCES, AGREEMENT TO PAY, IN ABSENCE OF PROVISION IN WILL OR IN LAW. — Respondents alleged that "there is no provision in the will of the deceased E. M. Bachrach or in any statute requiring" the payment of the monthly allowances provided in the order of October 2, 1940. But is there any prohibition for the parties to agree in the payment of said monthly allowances? Was there any reason for the lower court to withhold its approval to the agreement? The allegation seems to imply an argument based on the denial of the basic right of the parties to enter into any kind of agreement neither forbidden by law nor against public morals.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ORDER OF COURT INSTRUCTING PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES, EFFECT OF. — The respondents alleged that the order of October 2, 1940, "was not intended to be a judicial mandate but merely an authority for the respondent Mary McDonald Bachrach to do certain acts which she could not perform under the law or under the provisions of the will of the deceased E. M. Bachrach without judicial authority." The allegation finds no support in the order wherein M. McD. B. is "authorized and instructed forthwith to pay" the monthly allowances in question. Instructed means commanded. The inclusion of the last word negatives respondent’s allegation. M. McD. B. did not appeal against the order. She cannot now deny validity to the command involved in the word "instructed." Besides, an "order," the title of the document, cannot be anything other than a mandate, compulsory by nature.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; USUFRUCT; RIGHT OF USUFRUCTUARY TO TRANSFER. — Impairment of her usufruct is also alleged by the administratrix. How can she now complain of the alleged impairment after alleging that she gave her conformity to the agreement, the basis of the order of October 2, 1940, as "an act of pure liberality on her part?" Was she not the owner of her usufruct? Could she not give away her usufruct or any part of it in favor of any person? If she disposed of a portion of said usufruct for the benefit of the sisters of her deceased husband, without being subject to compulsion, or fraud, or mistake, but freely and conscientiously, there is no reason for her to complain now.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALLOWANCES AS ADVANCES OF INHERITANCE NOT COVERED BY MORATORIUM. — Allowances due and payable to heirs as advances of their inheritance, are not covered by the moratorium provided in Executive Orders Nos. 25 and 32, which refer to debts.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPROVAL BY COURT, EFFECT OF ON CONTRACT. — The contract in this case has the added force and solemnity of having been approved by the order of judge A of October 2, 1940. The contract has been elevated to the category of a judgment. Its enforceability depends not only on the good faith of the parties but on a legal and executory order issued by a competent court. While respondent M. M. B. cannot ignore her plighted word, she has absolutely no right to consider the order of October 2, 1940, as a mere scrap of paper. Otherwise, if their orders could be simply ignored, challenged or taken with scorn, there is no use for the existence of courts.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALLOWANCES, AGREEMENT TO PAY, IN ABSENCE OF PROVISION IN WILL OR IN LAW. — Respondents alleged that "there is no provision in the will of the deceased E. M. Bachrach or in any statute requiring" the payment of the monthly allowances provided in the order of October 2, 1940. But is there any prohibition for the parties to agree in the payment of said monthly allowances? Was there any reason for the lower court to withhold its approval to the agreement? The allegation seems to imply an argument based on the denial of the basic right of the parties to enter into any kind of agreement neither forbidden by law nor against public morals.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ORDER OF COURT INSTRUCTING PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES, EFFECT OF. — The respondents alleged that the order of October 2, 1940, "was not intended to be a judicial mandate but merely an authority for the respondent Mary McDonald Bachrach to do certain acts which she could not perform under the law or under the provisions of the will of the deceased E. M. Bachrach without judicial authority." The allegation finds no support in the order wherein M. McD. B. is "authorized and instructed forthwith to pay" the monthly allowances in question. Instructed means commanded. The inclusion of the last word negatives respondent’s allegation. M. McD. B. did not appeal against the order. She cannot now deny validity to the command involved in the word "instructed." Besides, an "order," the title of the document, cannot be anything other than a mandate, compulsory by nature.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; USUFRUCT; RIGHT OF USUFRUCTUARY TO TRANSFER. — Impairment of her usufruct is also alleged by the administratrix. How can she now complain of the alleged impairment after alleging that she gave her conformity to the agreement, the basis of the order of October 2, 1940, as "an act of pure liberality on her part?" Was she not the owner of her usufruct? Could she not give away her usufruct or any part of it in favor of any person? If she disposed of a portion of said usufruct for the benefit of the sisters of her deceased husband, without being subject to compulsion, or fraud, or mistake, but freely and conscientiously, there is no reason for her to complain now.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALLOWANCES AS ADVANCES OF INHERITANCE NOT COVERED BY MORATORIUM. — Allowances due and payable to heirs as advances of their inheritance, are not covered by the moratorium provided in Executive Orders Nos. 25 and 32, which refer to debts.
D E C I S I O N
PERFECTO, J.:
Petitioners, sisters and heirs of the late E. M. Bachrach, who died in Manila on September 28, 1937, pray for a command from this Court calculated to compel the lower court to execute its order of October 2, 1940, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Upon consideration of the petition of Sophie M. Seifert, Ginda M. Skundina, Elisa Elianoff and Annie Bachrach Levine, of September 16, 1940, wherein they pray that the administratrix and usufructuary of the properties left by the deceased E. M. Bachrach be authorized to pay them, beginning July 1, 1940, and until they receive their share of the estate left by the deceased E. M. Bachrach upon the death of his widow, a monthly allowance of P500; P250; P250; and P250, respectively, and the additional sum of P3,000 to the said Sophie M. Seifert, who is in poor health, the said allowances to be deducted from their shares of the estate of the deceased E. M. Bachrach upon the death of his widow, Mary McDonald Bachrach;
"All the parties interested in the estate left by the deceased E. M. Bachrach having expressed their conformity to the said petition, and there existing no reason why the same should not be granted.
"Petition granted; and the administratrix and usufructuary Mary McDonald Bachrach is hereby authorized and instructed forthwith to pay to the said Sophie M. Seifert, Ginda M. Skundina, Elisa Elianoff and Annie Bachrach Levine a monthly allowance of five hundred (P500) pesos; two hundred fifty (P250) pesos; two hundred fifty (P250) pesos; and two hundred fifty (P250) pesos, respectively, beginning July 1, 1940, and until the said heirs receive their share of the estate left by the deceased E. M. Bachrach upon the death of his widow, and the additional sum of three thousand (P3,000) pesos to the heir Sophie M. Seifert.
"The payment of the monthly allowances herein granted to the said heirs Sophie M. Seifert, Ginda M. Skundina, Elisa Elianoff and Annie Bachrach Levine other than those corresponding to the months of July, August and September, shall be made on or before the 5th day of each month, beginning October, 1940; shall be taken from the properties to be turned over to the heirs of the deceased E. M. Bachrach and the usufruct of which will belong to his widow, Mary McDonald during her life; and shall be deducted from the share of the said heirs of the estate of the deceased E. M. Bachrach upon the death of his widow.
"Upon verbal petition of Attorney Carrascoso, and it appearing from the record that two of the clients whom his law firm represents reside outside of the Philippines, the administratrix and usufructuary, Mary McDonald Bachrach, is hereby authorized and instructed to pay directly to Attorneys Ross, Lawrence, Selph & Carrascoso the monthly allowances corresponding to the heirs Sophie M. Seifert, Ginda M. Skundina, and Elisa Elianoff.
"No opposition having been filed to the amended report, rendition of accounts, and liquidation of the community property of the conjugal partnership of E. M. Bachrach, deceased, and Mary McDonald Bachrach as surviving spouse presented by the administratrix under date of September 17, 1940, the same are hereby approved and granted. It is so ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library
"QUIRICO ABETO
"Judge"
The petition in virtue of which the above order was issued and to which all the interested parties in the estate have expressed their conformity, as stated in the order, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Comes now Sophie M. Seifert, Ginda M. Skundina, Elisa Elianoff, and Annie Bachrach, and to this Honorable Court respectfully state:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. That paragraph sixth and eighth of the will of the deceased E. M. Bachrach provide as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"‘Sixth: It is my will and do herewith bequeath and devise to my beloved wife Mary McDonald Bachrach for life all the fruits and usufruct of the remainder of all my estate after payment of the legacies, bequests and gifts provided for above; and she may enjoy such usufruct and use or spend such fruits as she may in any manner wish.’
"‘Eighth: It is my wish that upon the death of my beloved wife, Mary McDonald Bachrach, all my estate, personal, real and otherwise, and all the fruits and usufruct thereof which during her life pertained to her, shall be divided as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"‘One-half (1/2) thereof shall be given to such charitable hospitals in the Philippines as she may designate; in case she fails to designate, then said sum shall be given to the Chief Executive of these Islands who shall distribute it, share and share alike to all charitable hospitals in the Philippines excluding those belonging to the governments of the Philippines or of the United States:" ’One-half (1/2) thereof shall be divided, share and share alike by and between my legal heirs, to the exclusion of my brothers.’
"2. That on July 22, 1940, this Court entered the following order:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"‘It appearing from the report filed by the commissioner, the Acting Assistant Clerk of the Court, that the only heirs of the deceased E. M. Bachrach, according to the evidence presented, are his widow Mary McDonald Bachrach and his sisters Sophie M. Seifert, Annie Bachrach, Ginda Skundina and Elisa Elianoff, the Court hereby declares said Mary McDonald Bachrach, Sophie M. Seifert, Annie Bachrach, Ginda Skundina and Elisa Elianoff as the only legal heirs of said deceased, all of whom are of legal age.
"‘So ordered.’
"Your petitioners who are the legal heirs of the deceased E. M. Bachrach beside his widow, Mary McDonald Bachrach, respectfully request that she, as administratrix and usufructuary of her deceased husband’s properties, be authorized to pay your petitioners from and after July 1, 1940, and until they receive their share of the estate left by the deceased E. M. Bachrach upon the death of his widow, a monthly allowance of P500, P250, P250, and P250, respectively, and the additional sum of P3,000 to the heir Sophie M. Seifert, who is in poor health, the said allowances to be deducted from your petitioners’ share of the estate of the deceased E. M. Bachrach upon the death of the widow;
"All parties interested in the estate left by the deceased E. M. Bachrach are agreeable to this petition.
"Manila, September 16, 1940.
"ROSS, SELPH, CARRASCOSO & JANDA
By (Sgd.) "ANTONIO T. CARRASCOSO, Jr.
Attorneys for Ginda M. Skundina,
Elisa Elianoff, and Sophie Seifert
414 National City Bank Bldg., Manila
"We agree:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(Sgd.) "ANNIE BACHRACH
(Sgd.) "MARY McDONALD BACHRACH
Administratrix and Usufructuary
(Sgd.) "ROMAN OZAETA
"Solicitor General"
No appeal has been taken against the foregoing order by any party.
From July 1, 1940, to December 31, 1941, the administratrix, respondent Mary McDonald Bachrach, made the payments as ordered. According to respondents, the total amount paid amounted to P40,250. The monthly allowances or advances due from January 1, 1942, to July 31, 1945, were not paid. The total amount is P32,500 or P21,500 for Sophie M. Seifert and P10,750 for Elisa Elianoff. Payments were resumed from August, 1945, to January, 1947. Petitioners have been demanding from respondent Mary McDonald Bachrach the payment of the monthly allowances from January 1, 1942, to July 31, 1945, but respondent refused to pay. As alleged in her memorandum, the executrix "decided to stop the payment", among several reasons, in view of the "inconsiderate, unappreciated and unkind attitude" of petitioners, the increasing burden on Mrs. Bachrach’s usufruct, and improbability of reimbursement to the estate of the payments and of the return to the executrix of the usufructuary value of said allowances.
On February 18, 1947, petitioners filed with the lower court a petition for the issuance of a writ of execution ordering, on the authority of the order of October 2, 1940, the administratrix to pay the allowances for February, 1947, and those in arrears for the period comprising January 1, 1942, to July 31, 1945, and that in case the administratrix should fail to pay the above amounts within 24 hours after receipt of notice, the Hongkong and China Banking Corporation be ordered to deliver to attorneys for petitioners the total sum of P33,000, to be withdrawn from the funds that the administratrix has on deposit in said bank in the name of the estate of E. M. Bachrach.
The petition was denied on February 27, 1947. On March 4, 1947, petitioners filed a motion for the reconsideration of said order. On March 14, 1947, the motion for reconsideration was denied. Not satisfied with the orders of February 27, and March 14, 1947, of the lower court, petitioners filed with us the petition in this case.
For a proper understanding of the controversy we quote hereunder the text of the will of E. M. Bachrach:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"I, E. M. Bachrach, a naturalized American citizen from the State of New York and resident of the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, being of sound and disposing mind and memory and not acting under duress, menace, fraud or undue influence of whatever nature, do hereby make, publish and declare the following to be my Last Will and Testament, to-wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"First: I hereby declare that I have no child or children, grandchild or grandchildren.
"Second: My failure to make any provision in this Will for my brothers is intentional.
"Third: I hereby revoke and cancel any and all Wills by me heretofore made.
"Fourth: I hereby bind, obligate, and instruct my executors or administrators to make and pay the following bequests, legacies or gifts, to-wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(a) To Mary McDonald Bachrach, my beloved wife, I give one-half (
"Upon consideration of the petition of Sophie M. Seifert, Ginda M. Skundina, Elisa Elianoff and Annie Bachrach Levine, of September 16, 1940, wherein they pray that the administratrix and usufructuary of the properties left by the deceased E. M. Bachrach be authorized to pay them, beginning July 1, 1940, and until they receive their share of the estate left by the deceased E. M. Bachrach upon the death of his widow, a monthly allowance of P500; P250; P250; and P250, respectively, and the additional sum of P3,000 to the said Sophie M. Seifert, who is in poor health, the said allowances to be deducted from their shares of the estate of the deceased E. M. Bachrach upon the death of his widow, Mary McDonald Bachrach;
"All the parties interested in the estate left by the deceased E. M. Bachrach having expressed their conformity to the said petition, and there existing no reason why the same should not be granted.
"Petition granted; and the administratrix and usufructuary Mary McDonald Bachrach is hereby authorized and instructed forthwith to pay to the said Sophie M. Seifert, Ginda M. Skundina, Elisa Elianoff and Annie Bachrach Levine a monthly allowance of five hundred (P500) pesos; two hundred fifty (P250) pesos; two hundred fifty (P250) pesos; and two hundred fifty (P250) pesos, respectively, beginning July 1, 1940, and until the said heirs receive their share of the estate left by the deceased E. M. Bachrach upon the death of his widow, and the additional sum of three thousand (P3,000) pesos to the heir Sophie M. Seifert.
"The payment of the monthly allowances herein granted to the said heirs Sophie M. Seifert, Ginda M. Skundina, Elisa Elianoff and Annie Bachrach Levine other than those corresponding to the months of July, August and September, shall be made on or before the 5th day of each month, beginning October, 1940; shall be taken from the properties to be turned over to the heirs of the deceased E. M. Bachrach and the usufruct of which will belong to his widow, Mary McDonald during her life; and shall be deducted from the share of the said heirs of the estate of the deceased E. M. Bachrach upon the death of his widow.
"Upon verbal petition of Attorney Carrascoso, and it appearing from the record that two of the clients whom his law firm represents reside outside of the Philippines, the administratrix and usufructuary, Mary McDonald Bachrach, is hereby authorized and instructed to pay directly to Attorneys Ross, Lawrence, Selph & Carrascoso the monthly allowances corresponding to the heirs Sophie M. Seifert, Ginda M. Skundina, and Elisa Elianoff.
"No opposition having been filed to the amended report, rendition of accounts, and liquidation of the community property of the conjugal partnership of E. M. Bachrach, deceased, and Mary McDonald Bachrach as surviving spouse presented by the administratrix under date of September 17, 1940, the same are hereby approved and granted. It is so ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library
"QUIRICO ABETO
"Judge"
The petition in virtue of which the above order was issued and to which all the interested parties in the estate have expressed their conformity, as stated in the order, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Comes now Sophie M. Seifert, Ginda M. Skundina, Elisa Elianoff, and Annie Bachrach, and to this Honorable Court respectfully state:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. That paragraph sixth and eighth of the will of the deceased E. M. Bachrach provide as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"‘Sixth: It is my will and do herewith bequeath and devise to my beloved wife Mary McDonald Bachrach for life all the fruits and usufruct of the remainder of all my estate after payment of the legacies, bequests and gifts provided for above; and she may enjoy such usufruct and use or spend such fruits as she may in any manner wish.’
"‘Eighth: It is my wish that upon the death of my beloved wife, Mary McDonald Bachrach, all my estate, personal, real and otherwise, and all the fruits and usufruct thereof which during her life pertained to her, shall be divided as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"‘One-half (1/2) thereof shall be given to such charitable hospitals in the Philippines as she may designate; in case she fails to designate, then said sum shall be given to the Chief Executive of these Islands who shall distribute it, share and share alike to all charitable hospitals in the Philippines excluding those belonging to the governments of the Philippines or of the United States:" ’One-half (1/2) thereof shall be divided, share and share alike by and between my legal heirs, to the exclusion of my brothers.’
"2. That on July 22, 1940, this Court entered the following order:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"‘It appearing from the report filed by the commissioner, the Acting Assistant Clerk of the Court, that the only heirs of the deceased E. M. Bachrach, according to the evidence presented, are his widow Mary McDonald Bachrach and his sisters Sophie M. Seifert, Annie Bachrach, Ginda Skundina and Elisa Elianoff, the Court hereby declares said Mary McDonald Bachrach, Sophie M. Seifert, Annie Bachrach, Ginda Skundina and Elisa Elianoff as the only legal heirs of said deceased, all of whom are of legal age.
"‘So ordered.’
"Your petitioners who are the legal heirs of the deceased E. M. Bachrach beside his widow, Mary McDonald Bachrach, respectfully request that she, as administratrix and usufructuary of her deceased husband’s properties, be authorized to pay your petitioners from and after July 1, 1940, and until they receive their share of the estate left by the deceased E. M. Bachrach upon the death of his widow, a monthly allowance of P500, P250, P250, and P250, respectively, and the additional sum of P3,000 to the heir Sophie M. Seifert, who is in poor health, the said allowances to be deducted from your petitioners’ share of the estate of the deceased E. M. Bachrach upon the death of the widow;
"All parties interested in the estate left by the deceased E. M. Bachrach are agreeable to this petition.
"Manila, September 16, 1940.
"ROSS, SELPH, CARRASCOSO & JANDA
By (Sgd.) "ANTONIO T. CARRASCOSO, Jr.
Attorneys for Ginda M. Skundina,
Elisa Elianoff, and Sophie Seifert
414 National City Bank Bldg., Manila
"We agree:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(Sgd.) "ANNIE BACHRACH
(Sgd.) "MARY McDONALD BACHRACH
Administratrix and Usufructuary
(Sgd.) "ROMAN OZAETA
"Solicitor General"
No appeal has been taken against the foregoing order by any party.
From July 1, 1940, to December 31, 1941, the administratrix, respondent Mary McDonald Bachrach, made the payments as ordered. According to respondents, the total amount paid amounted to P40,250. The monthly allowances or advances due from January 1, 1942, to July 31, 1945, were not paid. The total amount is P32,500 or P21,500 for Sophie M. Seifert and P10,750 for Elisa Elianoff. Payments were resumed from August, 1945, to January, 1947. Petitioners have been demanding from respondent Mary McDonald Bachrach the payment of the monthly allowances from January 1, 1942, to July 31, 1945, but respondent refused to pay. As alleged in her memorandum, the executrix "decided to stop the payment", among several reasons, in view of the "inconsiderate, unappreciated and unkind attitude" of petitioners, the increasing burden on Mrs. Bachrach’s usufruct, and improbability of reimbursement to the estate of the payments and of the return to the executrix of the usufructuary value of said allowances.
On February 18, 1947, petitioners filed with the lower court a petition for the issuance of a writ of execution ordering, on the authority of the order of October 2, 1940, the administratrix to pay the allowances for February, 1947, and those in arrears for the period comprising January 1, 1942, to July 31, 1945, and that in case the administratrix should fail to pay the above amounts within 24 hours after receipt of notice, the Hongkong and China Banking Corporation be ordered to deliver to attorneys for petitioners the total sum of P33,000, to be withdrawn from the funds that the administratrix has on deposit in said bank in the name of the estate of E. M. Bachrach.
The petition was denied on February 27, 1947. On March 4, 1947, petitioners filed a motion for the reconsideration of said order. On March 14, 1947, the motion for reconsideration was denied. Not satisfied with the orders of February 27, and March 14, 1947, of the lower court, petitioners filed with us the petition in this case.
For a proper understanding of the controversy we quote hereunder the text of the will of E. M. Bachrach:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"I, E. M. Bachrach, a naturalized American citizen from the State of New York and resident of the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, being of sound and disposing mind and memory and not acting under duress, menace, fraud or undue influence of whatever nature, do hereby make, publish and declare the following to be my Last Will and Testament, to-wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"First: I hereby declare that I have no child or children, grandchild or grandchildren.
"Second: My failure to make any provision in this Will for my brothers is intentional.
"Third: I hereby revoke and cancel any and all Wills by me heretofore made.
"Fourth: I hereby bind, obligate, and instruct my executors or administrators to make and pay the following bequests, legacies or gifts, to-wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(a) To Mary McDonald Bachrach, my beloved wife, I give one-half (
