EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21809. January 31, 1966.]

GIL P. POLICARPIO, ET AL. , plaintis-appellees, vs. JOSE V.
SALAMAT, ET AL., defendants, VICENTE ASUNCION, ET AL. ,
defendants-appellants.

Tansinsin & Tansinsin for the defendants and appellants.

Eugenio Balabat for the plaintiffs and appellees.
SYLLABUS
1.
USUFRUCT; DEATH OF ONE OF USUFRUCTUARIES BEFORE END OF
USUFRUCT; ACCRETION AMONG USUFRUCTUARIES; EXCEPTION. There is
accretion among usufructuaries who are constituted at the same time when one of
them dies before the end of the usufruct. The only exception is if the usufruct is
constituted in a last will and testament and the testator makes a contrary provision.
In the instant case, there is none. On the contrary, the testatrix constituted the
usufruct in favor of the children of her three cousins with the particular injunction
that they are the only ones to enjoy the same as long as they live, from which it can
be implied that, should any of them die, the share of the latter shall accrue to the
surviving ones. These provisions of the will are clear. They do not admit of any other
interpretation.
DECISION
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J :
p

In a duly probated last will and testament of one Damasa Crisostomo, she
gave the naked ownership of a shpond owned by her to her sister Teodorica de
la Cruz while its usufruct to the children of her cousins Antonio Perez, Patricia
Vicente and Canuto Lorenzo. The shpond is situated at a barrio of Hagonoy,
Bulacan.
The children of Antonio Perez, Patricia Vicente and Canuto Lorenzo turned out to be
fourteen, namely: Maria, Pio, Fructuosa, Graciano, Vicente, Victoria, Teodora, and
Juan, all surnamed Perez, Apolonio Lorenzo, Bonifacio Lorenzo, Vicente Asuncion,
Francisco Lorenzo, Leoncio Perez and Servillano Perez. On the other hand, Teodorica
dela Cruz, the naked owner, bequeathed in her will all her rights to the shpond to
Jose V. Salamat.
The fourteen usufructuaries leased the shpond rst to one Gil P. Policarpio who

used to give them proportionately the usufruct corresponding to them. During the
term of the lease, however, three of the usufructuaries died, namely, Francisco
Lorenzo, Leoncio M. Perez and Servillano Perez, and so, upon their death, both the
naked owner and the remaining usufructuaries claimed the shares corresponding to
the deceased usufructuaries in the amount of (P10,714.26. Because of these
conflicting claims, the lessee withheld said amount.
Subsequently, on May 31, 1962, the surviving usufructuaries leased the shpond to
one Batas Riego de Dios who, after executing the contract of lease, came to know of
the existing conicting claims, and not knowing to whom of the claimants the
shares of the deceased usufructuaries should be paid, said lessee was also
constrained to withhold the corresponding part of the usufruct of the property. So,
on November 15, 1962, the two lessees commenced the present action for
interpleader against both the naked owner and surviving usufructuaries to compel
them to interplead and litigate their conflicting claims.
Defendant Jose V. Salamat avers as special defense that he is the successor-ininterest of Teodorica dela Cruz and as such he is entitled to the shares corresponding
to the three deceased usufructuaries in as much as the usufruct in their favor was
automatically extinguished by death and became merged with the naked owner.
The surviving usufructuaries, on the other hand, adhere to the theory that since the
usufructuaries were instituted simultaneously by the late Damasa Crisostomo, the
death of the three usufructuaries did not extinguish the usufruct; hence, the
surviving usufructuaries are entitled to receive the shares corresponding to the
deceased usufructuaries, the usufruct to continue until the death of the last
usufructuary.
When the case was called for hearing, the parties agreed to submit the case for
decision upon the submission of their respective memoranda considering that the
issue involved was purely legal in nature, and on March 29, 1963, the trial court
rendered decision the dispositive part of which reads as follows:
"Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered declaring defendant Jose V.
Salamat entitled to the sum of P10,714.26 representing the shares of the
three deceased usufructuaries in the lease rental due from plainti Gil
Policarpio, ordering the latter to deliver to said defendant the aforesaid
amount; and likewise declaring said defendant Jose V. Salamat entitled to
share with the eleven usufructuaries in the proceeds of the lease contract
executed by them with plainti Batas Riego de Dios, ordering the latter to
deliver to him such amount as would be equivalent to the shares of the
three deceased usufructuaries, with the parties bearing their own costs and
expenses of litigation."

The surviving usufructuaries took the present appeal.

The important issue to be determined is whether the eleven surviving
usufructuaries of the shpond in question are the ones entitled to the fruits that
would have corresponded to the three deceased usufructuaries, or the naked owner

Jose V. Salamat.
Appellants argue that it is the surviving usufructuaries who are entitled to receive
the shares of the deceased by virtue of Article 611 of the Civil Code which provides:
"A usufruct constituted in favor of several persons living at the time of its
constitution shall not be extinguished until the death of the last survivor." On the
other hand, appellee contends that the most a usufruct can endure if constituted in
favor of a natural person is the lifetime of the usufructuary, because a usufruct is
extinguished by the death of the usufructuary unless a contrary intention clearly
appears (Article 603, Civil Code). Hence, appellee argues, when the three
usufructuaries died, their usufructuary rights were extinguished and whatever
rights they had to the fruits reverted to the naked owner.
If the theory of appellee in the sense that the death of the three usufructuaries has
the eect of consolidating their rights with that of the naked owner were correct,
Article 611 of the Civil Code would be superuous, because Article 603 already
provides that the death of the usufructuary extinguishes the usufruct unless the
contrary appears. Furthermore, said theory would cause a partial extinction of the
usufruct, contrary to the provisions of Article 611 which expressly provides that the
usufruct shall not be extinguished until the death of the last survivor. The theory of
appellee cannot, therefore, be entertained.
The well-known Spanish commentators on the counterpart of Article 611 we have
copied above which implicitly provides that the share of a usufructuary who dies in
the meantime inures to the benet of the surviving usufructuaries, also uphold the
view we here express. Thus, the following is their comment on the matter:
"Al comentar el art. 469 (now Art. 564) hablamos, entre las formas de
constitucin del usufructo, del disfrute simultaneo y sucesivo. Ninguna duda
cabe, puesto que el derecho de acrecer es aplicable a los usufructuaros ,
segn el art. 987 (now Art. 1023), sobre la no extincin del usufructo
simultneo, hasta la muerte de la ltima persona que sobreviva . . .
". . . Al referirse . . . el art. 521 (now Art. 621) al usufructo constituido en
provecho de varias personas vivas al tiempo de su constitucion, parece
referirse al usufructo simultneo. Sin embargo, es indudable que se reere
tambien al sucesivo, puesto que en esta especie de usufructo el segundo
usufructuario no entra en el disfrute, salvo expresion en contrario, hasta la
muerte del primero, y es claro que al morir el ltimo llamado, se extingue el
usufructo, que es precisamente lo que ordena el presente articulo."
(Manresa, Comentarios al Codigo Civil Espaol, 1931, Tomo IV, p. 486).
". . . reriendonos al caso de muerte natural, ha de tenerse presente que si
son muchos los llamados al usufructo simultneamente, muerto uno, su
porcian acrece dems no ser que el testador exprese lo contrario, se
inriera as del ttulo en que se constituy el usufructo, para lo cual puede
verse la doctrina de la ley 33, tit. I, lib. VII del Digesto, que habla del derecho
de acrecer en el usufructo, y el tit. IV del mismo libro, en que se proponen
algunos casos de excepcion. El usufructo constituido en provecho de
varias personas vivas al tiempo de su constitucin. no se extingur hasta la

muerte de la ltima que sobrevvere. Cd. Civ. art. 521." (Del Viso, Lecciones
Elementales de Derecho Civil, sexta edicion, Tomo I, p. 86.)
"Si a varios usufructuarios se les lega la totalidad de una herencia, o una
misma parte de ella, se da el derecho de acrecer cuando uno de ellos muere
despues del testador, sobreviviendo otro y otros? Como dice la obra
anotada, el Digesto admiti, segn un texto de Paulo, la solucin armativa,
y Pothier reprodujo dicha doctrina.
"La jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo espaol ha admitido y sancionado
tambin en le sentencia de 29 de marzo de 1905, aunque no por aplicacin
del derecho de acrecer, y s por aplicacin de la voluntad presunta del
testador, que habindose legado el usufructo vitalicio del remanente de sus
bienes, por partes iguales, a dos hermanas, debe entenderse que ellas, o
cualquiera de las dos que sobreviviere a la otra, haba de disfrutar dicho
usufructo, no constituyendo la separacin de partes sino una previsin del
testador, para el arreglo del usufructo total durante la vida de las dos
usufructuaries." (Colin and Capitant, Curso Elemental de Derecho Civil, 1957,
Tomo VIII, pp. 605-606)

It, therefore, appears that the Spanish commentators on the subject are unanimous
that there is accretion among usufructuaries who are constituted at the same time
when one of them dies before the end of the usufruct. The only exception is if the
usufruct is constituted in a last will and testament and the testator makes a
contrary provision. Here there is none. On the contrary, the testatrix constituted the
usufruct in favor of the children of her three cousins with the particular injunction
that they are the only ones to enjoy the same as long as they live, from which it can
be implied that, should any of them die, the share of the latter shall accrue to the
surviving ones. These provisions of the will are clear. They do not admit of any other
interpretation.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The eleven surviving

usufructuaries are hereby declared to be entitled to the shares of the three deceased
usufructuaries and, hence, as a corollary, appellees Gil P. Policarpio and Batas Riego
de Dios are hereby ordered to pay to them the money withheld by them
respectively representing the shares of the deceased usufructuaries. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and
Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., took no part.