LESACA V.

LESACA,
GR. NO. L-3605, April 21, 1952
Petitioner: Testate of Late Baldomero Lesaca
Respondent: Juana Felix de Lesaca
Facts: Baldomero J. Lesca died on November 8, 1946. Hes survived by his 2 nd
wife (Juana Felix) and his 2 minor children with her, 2 children by his first
marriage, Juana and Consuelo (he made them co-executrices of the will) and 3
acknowledged natural children by a 3rd woman. Three appeals in this case,
concerning Lescas will and the administration of his estate.
APPEAL ONE
o Court granted the two minor children a monthly allowance of
P100 for living expenses plus an extra sum of P300 for
matriculation and uniforms and ordered the co-executrices to
deposit in court all the allowances in arrears
o Co-executrices refused amount should be charged against minor
childrens share of the inheritance
o Court issued order (dated March 11, 1949) holding that amount
should be considered allowances for support, to be deducted from
their hereditary portion only if it exceeds what they are entitled to
as fruits or income and requiring the co-executrices to deposit in
court the entire amount (P2,995.83)
APPEAL TWO
o Deceased and Juana Felix lived together martially since 1924 but
were not married until December 18, 1945
o In 1930, Ramon Garcia conveyed to deceased 3 parcels of land
for P2,500 under a pacto de retro sale
o September 25, 1947, the co-executrices with the approval of the
court reconveyed the land to Ramon Garcia for the same sum
o Juana Felix claims that this sum is conjugal property and
petitioned the court to order co-executrices to give her thereof
o Court granted petition in the order dated March 11, 1949, holding
that the sum in dispute was conjugal property since the
reconveyance happened after the marriage
APPEAL THREE
o April 29, 1949 order declared that 1,040 cavans of palay of the
value of P20,800 received as rent on decedents land for the
agricultural year of 1946-1947 should be considered conjugal
property so that thereof should go to the widow
Deceased did not cultivate his land personally but rented it out to someone and
1,040 cavans of palay was the rent/decedents share of the harvest from Juen or July
1946 (after his marriage to Juana Felix) so it had already matured or had been near

maturity at the time when the conjugal partnership was dissolved by the death of
the deceased in November 1946.
Issue:
1. WON allowances for support granted by the court to the minor heirs should be
subject to collation and deducted from their respective hereditary portions
2. WON money received after marriage, as purchase price of land sold before
marriage to one of the consorts, constitutes conjugal property.
3. WON standing crop of palay planted during coverture, and harvested after the
death of one of the consorts, constitutes fruits and income within the purview
of Art 1401 of the Civil Code, and of such crop should be delivered to the
surviving spouse
Held:
1. YES. Article 1430 of Civil Code of 1889 (re-enacted as Article 188 of the new
Civil Code) provides that the surviving spouse and his or her children shall
be given an allowance for their support out of the general estate, pending the
liquidation of the inventoried estate, and until their share has been delivered to
them, but it shall be deducted from their portion in so far as it exceeds what
they may have been entitled to as fruits or income.
2. NO. Garcia sold the land to the Lesaca before Lesaca married Juana Felix and
repurchased it for the same amount after they married. While its true that
under Article 1401 of the Civil Code of 1889, property obtained by the
industry, wages or work of the spouses or of either of them belongs to the
conjugal partnership, this refers to property obtained during the marriage.
Counsel for the widow cites Marata vs Dionio, where the Court held that
though there is no technical marital partnership between persons living
martially without being lawfully married, nevertheless there is between them
an informal civil partnership which would entitle the parties to an equal
interest in property acquired by their joint efforts. However, there was no
showing that the sum paid to Garcia was earned by the joint efforts of the
deceased and his widow in its absence, sum must be deemed to have been
the property of the deceased.
3. YES. Since rents are civil fruits, they must be deemed to accrue from day to
day and belong to the usufructuary (in this case, the conjugal partnership) in
proportion to the time the usufruct may last. The decedents participation (as
rent) in palay accrued during coverture. So it should belong to the conjugal
partnership. Its immaterial that the rent was received after the dissolution of
the marriage, as its the date of accrual that is important.