1. ESTATES; WILLS; DISINHERITANCE; HEIRS BY FORCE OF LAW. — L. died in 1883 leaving surviving him his wife, father, mother, and one sister. By will he left his property to his wife. The will was duly probated without objection on the part of the surviving relatives, and the wife remained in possession. The father died in 1884 and the mother in 1897. In 1905 an action was begun by the administrator of the mother’s estate for a partition of the estate of L. The defendant entered a special denial alleging, among other things, that she had paid the debts of L.’s estate, which amounted to more than the value of the property left to her by her husband. Held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That, under the Laws of Toro, in force in 1883, L. could not deprive the "heirs by force of law" of their legal portion without assigning some special reason. (Law 6 of Toro; Law 1, title 8, partida 6 Escuin v. Escuin, 11 Phil. Rep., 332.)

2. That, when such heirs accept the property of an estate, under the Laws of Toro, they become obligated to pay the debts of the estate, at least to the extent of the value of the property. (Law 1, title 8, partida 6.)

3. That if one of such heirs alone pays the debts of the estate, he is entitled to be reimbursed by the estate. (Law 1, title 8, partida 6.)

4. That the statute of limitation applicable to actions like the present one. is Law 63 of Toro.

The following facts seem to be admitted of record:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That Teodoro Lelis and Maria Josue were husband and wife.

Second. That during their marriage they had two children, Donato Lelis and Barbara Lelis.

Third. That Donato Lelis