Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library


Home of Chan Robles Virtual Law Library




[G.R. No. L-3502. January 25, 1908. ]

RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FLORENCIA VICTORIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Basilio R. Mapa and Hartigan, Rohde & Gutierrez, for Appellants.

Kincaid and Hurd, for Appellees.


1. CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP; DISSOLUTION; LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. — When a conjugal partnership is dissolved by the death of the wife, the husband is the administrator of the affairs of the partnership until they are liquidated. In the event of a dissolution by death of the wife, his administrator is also the administrator of the partnership affairs and is the legal representative of the partnership.



Differences having arisen among the heirs of Antonio Enriquez and of his wife, Ciriaca Villanueva, who died intestate, over the settlement of the estates of both, they, for the purpose of putting an end to litigation, on the 22d of April, 1891, executed a public document by the terms of which they agreed that Jose J. de Icaza, selected by Francisco Enriquez, and Jose Moreno Lacalle, selected by Rafael Enriquez, should make a partition of the property of both estates among the heirs. Jose J. de Icaza having died, another agreement was made on the 9th day of August, 1896, by which Jose Moreno Lacalle was selected to make the partition.

In December 1897, this arrangement was abandoned and Rafael Enriquez and his associates commenced criminal proceedings against Francisco Enriquez. The transactions between 1891 and 1898 appear in cases heretofore decided by this court. (Enriquez v. Enriquez, 5 Phil. Rep., 668; Enriquez v. Enriquez, 8 Phil. Rep., 607.)

Jose Moreno Lacalle not having been paid for his services, on the 29th of December, 1898, took steps for the collection thereof by means of a summary action for the recovery of money (juicio ejecutivo). The amount of his claim was 6,290 pesos, for services rendered from 1891 to the 9th of March, 1898, and was for services rendered to the estates of Antonio Enriquez and of Ciriaca Villanueva. Francisco Enriquez, as executor of his father’s will and administrator of his estate, having admitted the existence of the debt, a formal complaint was filed on the 12th of January, 1899. The citation which was issued upon this complaint was directed to Francisco Enriquez in his capacity as executor and administrator of the testate estate of his deceased father, Antonio Enriquez. Francisco Enriquez, in response to the citation, stated that he had no money with which to pay the debt, and designated as property upon which the execution could be levied the land here in question, known as "the old theater of Binondo," and the execution was accordingly levied thereon.

Final judgment was entered in that action on the 8th of August, 1899, ordering the sale of the property levied upon to satisfy the debt. On the 10th day of September the property above described was sold at public auction by the judge of the Court of First Instance, for 33,915 pesos, to the defendant Francisco Saez Co-Tiongco. A deed thereof was made by the judge, which was duly recorded in the registry of property. Thereafter the defendant Francisco Saez Co-Tiongco sold the property to the defendant Cho Jan-Ling, who has erected thereon a building at an expense of 110,741 pesos.

On the 21st of September, 1900, Rafael Enriquez and most of the other heirs of Antonio Enriquez and Ciriaca Villanueva brought this action against Florencia Victoria, the executrix of the will of Jose Moreno Lacalle, and against Francisco Saez Co-Tiongco, Francisco Enriquez, and Cho Han-Ling, asking that all the proceedings in the action above referred to be declared void. Judgment was entered therein in the court below on the 31st day of May, 1906, in favor of the defendants. From that judgment the plaintiffs have appealed.

The plaintiffs have changed the grounds on which they claim the right to maintain this action since the presentation of the first complaint. In that complaint it seems to be claimed that nothing was due to Jose Moreno Lacalle because the payment for his services was conditional upon the final settlement of the estates, when he was to receive 2
Top of Page