This matter refers to the claims for retirement benefits filed by the heirs of the late ATTY. MARIO V. CHANLIONGCO, an attorney in this Court, under the provisions of R.A. No. 1616, as amended by R.A. No. 4986, which was approved by this Court in its resolution of August 19, 1976, effective on July 12, 1976, it appearing from the records that at the time of his death on July 12, 1976, Atty. Chanliongco was more than 63 years of age, with more than 38 years of service in the government. He did not have any pending criminal, administrative or disbarment case against him; neither did he have any money or property accountability. The highest salary he received was P18,700.00 per annum.

The above-named claimants filed separate applications for benefits with this Court and with the Government Service Insurance System.

Aside from his widow, Dra. Fidela B. Chanliongco and an only legitimate son, Mario II, it appears that there are other claimants to the benefits due the deceased, namely, Mrs. Angelina C. Buenaventura and Mario Chanliongco, Jr., both born out of wedlock to Angelina B. Crespo, and duly recognized by the deceased. Except Mario, Jr., who is only 17 years of age, all the other claimants are of legal age.

According to law, the benefits accruing to the deceased consist of: (1) retirement benefits; (2) money value of terminal leave; (3) life insurance proceeds; and (4) refund of retirement premiums.

From the records now before US, it appears that the GSIS had already released the life insurance proceeds and the refund of retirement premiums to the claimants.

What, therefore, remains to be settled are the retirement benefits and the money value of terminal leave, both of which are to be paid by this Court as the deceased’s last employer.

The record also shows that the late Atty. Chanliongco died ab intestato and that he failed or overlooked to state in his application for membership with the GSIS the beneficiary or beneficiaries of his retirement benefits, should he die before retirement. Hence, the retirement benefits shall accrue to his estate and will be distributed among his legal heirs in accordance with the law on intestate succession, as in the case of a life insurance if no beneficiary is named in the insurance policy (Vda. de Consuegra v. GSIS, L-28093, Jan. 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 315, 325).

Insofar, therefore, as the retirement benefits are concerned, WE adopt in toto, for being in accordance with law, the GSIS determination of the amount of retirement gratuity, the legal heirs and their respective shares as indicated in its letter to US, dated March 15, 1977, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Amount of retirement gratuity:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Total creditable service 37.57169 years

2. Highest rate of salary P1,558.33333/mo.

3. Gratuity in terms of months 50.14338 months

4. Amount of gratuity (highest

salary) x (No. of gratuity months) P78, 140.10

(b) Legal heirs:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Fidela B. Chanliongco widow

2. Mario B. Chanliongco II legitimate son

3. Ma. Angelina C. Buenaventura illegitimate child

4. Mario Chanliongco, Jr. illegitimate child

(c) Distribution

1. 8/16 share to Mario II P39,070.050

2. 4/16 share to the widow,

Fidela B. Chanliongco 19,535.025

3. 2/16 share, or P9,767.5125 each

to the two illegitimate children

Ma. Angelina C. Buenaventura

and Mario Chanliongco, Jr. 19,535.25

————

TOTAL — P78,140.100

Coming now to the money value of the terminal leave, unpaid salary and 10% adjustment pursuant to Budget Circular No. 240, dated July 22, 1974, this Court’s Finance Officer, in a memorandum dated March 23, 1977, indicated the breakdown of these items as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Unpaid salary for July 8-12, 1976 @

P1,416.66/mo. P 228.49

10% salary adj. for July 1-12, 1976 54.84

Money value of terminal leave for the period

from July 13, 1976 to September

14, 1977 @P1.558.33 21,962.54

————

Sub-Total P22,245.87

Less:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Withholding Tax P1,400.00

Supreme Court

Savings & Loan Association 7,340.42 8,740.42

————

NET PROCEEDS P13,505.45

It further appears that at the time of his death the late Atty. Chanliongco had an outstanding account with the Supreme Court Savings & Loans Association in the sum of P7,340.42. Deducting this amount, plus another sum of P1,400.00, representing withholding tax due from him, or a total of P8,740.42, from above sub-total sum of P22,245.87, WE arrive at the net sum of P13,505.45, available for distribution to the claimants, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Fidela B. Chanliongco:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a. As her conjugal share P6,752.72

b. As a legal heir P1,688.18

2. Mario Chanliongco II P3,376.36

3. Ma. Angelina C. Buenaventura 844.10

4. Mario Chanliongco, Jr. 844.09

————

TOTAL — P13,505.45

It will be seen from the foregoing distribution that the money value of the unused vacation and sick leave, unpaid salary and 10% adjustment due to the deceased has been treated as conjugal property. Accordingly, one-half (1/2) goes to the widow as her share in the conjugal partnership and the other half — P6,752.725 — is to be distributed to the deceased’s legal heirs, using the same proportion WE used in distributing the retirement benefits. This is so because "Vacation with pay is not a gratuity but is compensation for services rendered." (Ramey v. State, 296 NW. 323, 296 Mich. 449).

WHEREFORE, THE WITHIN CLAIMS ARE HEREBY APPROVED. THE FINANCE AND/OR DISBURSING OFFICER OF THIS COURT IS ORDERED TO PAY IMMEDIATELY TO EACH AND EVERY CLAIMANT THE VARIOUS SUMS HEREUNDER INDICATED OPPOSITE THEIR NAMES, AS FOLLOWS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. FIDELA B. CHANLIONGCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A. HER 4/16 SHARE OF RETIREMENT

GRATUITY P19,535.025

B. HER SHARE FROM MONEY VALUE

OF TERMINAL LEAVE, UNPAID

SALARY AND 10% ADJUSTMENT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) AS HER CONJUGAL SHARE 6,752.72

(2) AS A LEGAL HEIR 1,688.18

————

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE HER P27,975.93

2. MARIO CHANLIONGCO II:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A. HIS 8/16 SHARE OF RETIREMENT

GRATUITY P39,070.05

B. HIS SHARE FROM MONEY VALUE

OF TERMINAL LEAVE, UNPAID

SALARY AND 10% ADJUSTMENT 3,376.36

———— TOTAL AMOUNT DUE HIM P42,446.41

========

3. MA. ANGELINA C. BUENAVENTURA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A. HER 2/16 SHARE OF RETIREMENT

GRATUITY P 9,767.51

B. HER SHARE FROM MONEY VALUE

OF TERMINAL LEAVE, UNPAID

SALARY AND 10% ADJUSTMENT 844.10

———— TOTAL AMOUNT DUE HER P 10,611.61

========

4. MARIO CHANLIONGCO, JR. (TO BE

PAID THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND

NATURAL GUARDIAN, ANGELINA

CRESPO):chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A. HIS 2/16 SHARE OF RETIREMENT

GRATUITY P 9,767.51

B. HIS SHARE FROM MONEY VALUE

OF TERMINAL LEAVE, UNPAID

SALARY AND 10% ADJUSTMENT 844.10

———— TOTAL AMOUNT DUE HIM P10,611.61

========

SO ORDERED.

Castro, C.J., Barredo, Antonio, Muñoz Palma, Concepcion Jr., Martin, Santos, Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., is on official leave.



AQUINO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur. The provisions on legitime are found under the rubric of testamentary succession. That does not mean that the legitime is taken into account only in testamentary succession. The legitime must also be taken into consideration in legal succession.

There may be instances, like the instant case, where in legal succession the estate is distributed according to the rules on legitime without applying the rules on intestate succession. The reason is that sometimes the estate is not even sufficient to satisfy the legitimes. The legitimes of the primary compulsory heirs, like a child or descendant, should first be satisfied.

In this case the decedent’s legal heirs are his legitimate child, his widow and two illegitimate children. His estate is partitioned among those heirs by giving them their respective legitimes.

The legitimate child gets one-half of the estate as his legitime which is regarded as his share as a legal heir (Art. 888, Civil Code).

The widow’s legitime is one-fourth of the estate. That represents also her share as a legal heir (Art. 892, 1st sentence, Civil Code).

The remaining one-fourth of the estate, which is the free portion, goes to the illegitimate children in equal shares, as their legitime, pursuant to the provision that "the legitime of the illegitimate children shall be taken from the portion of the estate at the free disposal of the testator, provided that in no case shall the total legitime of such illegitimate children exceed that free portion, and that the legitime of the surviving spouse must first be fully satisfied" (Last par., art. 895, Civil Code).

The rule in Santillon v. Miranda, L-19281, June 30, 1965, 14 SCRA 563, that when the surviving spouse concurs with only one legitimate child, the spouse is entitled to one-half of the estate and the child gets the other half, pursuant to article 996 of the Civil Code, does not apply to this case because here illegitimate children concur with the surviving spouse and the legitimate child.

In this case, to divide the estate between the surviving spouse and the legitimate child would deprive the illegitimate children of their legitime.

So, the decedent’s estate is distributed in the proportion of 1/2 for the legitimate child, 1/4 for the widow and 1/8 each for the two illegitimate children.

Also not of possible application to this case is the rule that the legitime of an acknowledged natural child is 1/2 of the legitime of the legitimate child and that the legitime of the spurious child is 2/5 of that of the legitime of the legitimate child or 4/5 of that of the acknowledged natural child.

That rule cannot be applied because the estate is not sufficient to cover the legitimes of all the compulsory heirs. That is one of the flaws of the law of succession.

A situation, as in the instant case, may arise where the illegitimate children get less than their legitime.

With respect to the decedent’s unpaid salary and the money value of his terminal leave, the same are conjugal properties because of the rule that property "obtained by the industry, or work, or as salary of the spouses, or either of them", is conjugal in character (Art. 153[2], Civil Code).

Teehankee, J., concurs.