G.R. No. 20189 - OCTOBER 1923 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 20189October 31, 1923 Valentina Jocson vs. Antero Soriano G.R. No. 20995October 30, 1923 People of the Philippines vs. Chong Chuy Limgobo, et al. G.R. No. 20794October 30, 1923 Gregorio Ramos vs. Dionisio Ramos, et al. G.R. No. 20569October 29, 1923 People of the Philippines vs. J. J. Kottinger G.R. No. 20652October 25, 1923 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Malgana, et al. G.R. No. 20651October 25, 1923 People of the Philippines vs. Antonia Patricio G.R. No. 21042October 25, 1923 Vicente Costas vs. Dalmacio Aldanese G.R. No. 20482October 25, 1923 Philippines Industrial Company vs. El Hogar Filipino, et al. G.R. No. 20435October 23, 1923 Luis Asiain vs. Benjamin Jalandoni G.R. No. 20874October 23, 1923 Wise and Company vs. Gregorio C. Larion G.R. No. 20731October 22, 1923 Andres Garcia Mayoralgo vs. Primitivo Jason G.R. No. 20809October 22, 1923 Go Julian vs. Government of the Philippine Islands G.R. No. 20387October 19, 1923 Manuel Roa, et al. vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. 20013October 18, 1923 Andres Puig vs. Geo. C. Sellner, et al. G.R. No. 19864 and 19865October 17, 1923 J. J. Go Chioco vs. E. Martinez, et al. Ortiga Hermanos vs. J. J. Go Chioco G.R. No. 20783October 16, 1923 Felix Laureano vs. A. Stevenson, et al. G.R. No. 20600October 16, 1923 People of the Philippines vs. Apolinario Abella, et al. G.R. No. 20956October 13, 1923 In re: Francisco Atilano Toribio Atilano vs. Julian Inclan, et al. G.R. No. 20586October 13, 1923 Santiago Navarro, et al. vs. Felix Mallari, et al. G.R. No. 20721October 12, 1923 G. E. Thompson vs. Moody, Aronson, Inc. G.R. No. 20374October 11, 1923 In re: Dolores Coronel Lorenzo Pecson vs. Agustin Coronel, et al. G.R. No. 20902October 9, 1923 In re: Vicente Tad-y Rosario Esler vda. de Tad-y vs. Mary Tad-y, et al. G.R. No. 20644October 8, 1923 Juan Phee vs. La Vanguardia, Inc. G.R. No. 20674October 4, 1923 People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Yabot G.R. No. 20579October 4, 1923 La Carlota Sugar Central vs. Wenceslao Trinidad G.R. No. 19843October 3, 1923 El Hogar Filipino vs. Geronimo Paredes G.R. No. 21236October 1, 1923 Aurelia Conde vs. Judge of First Instance of Tayabas, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Valentina Jocson vs. Antero Soriano People of the Philippines vs. Chong Chuy Limgobo, et al. Gregorio Ramos vs. Dionisio Ramos, et al. People of the Philippines vs. J. J. Kottinger People of the Philippines vs. Jose Malgana, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Antonia Patricio Vicente Costas vs. Dalmacio Aldanese Philippines Industrial Company vs. El Hogar Filipino, et al. Luis Asiain vs. Benjamin Jalandoni Wise and Company vs. Gregorio C. Larion Andres Garcia Mayoralgo vs. Primitivo Jason Go Julian vs. Government of the Philippine Islands Manuel Roa, et al. vs. Director of Lands, et al. Andres Puig vs. Geo. C. Sellner, et al. J. J. Go Chioco vs. E. Martinez, et al. Ortiga Hermanos vs. J. J. Go Chioco Felix Laureano vs. A. Stevenson, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Apolinario Abella, et al. In re: Francisco Atilano Toribio Atilano vs. Julian Inclan, et al. Santiago Navarro, et al. vs. Felix Mallari, et al. G. E. Thompson vs. Moody, Aronson, Inc. In re: Dolores Coronel Lorenzo Pecson vs. Agustin Coronel, et al. In re: Vicente Tad-y Rosario Esler vda. de Tad-y vs. Mary Tad-y, et al. Juan Phee vs. La Vanguardia, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Yabot La Carlota Sugar Central vs. Wenceslao Trinidad El Hogar Filipino vs. Geronimo Paredes Aurelia Conde vs. Judge of First Instance of Tayabas, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 20189             October 31, 1923

VALENTINA JOCSON,plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ANTERO SORIANO, administrator of the estate of Silvestre Estacion, deceased,defendant-appellee.

Salinas and Salinas for appellant.
Fidel Ibañez and Eusebio C. Encarnacion for appellee.

JOHNSON,J.:

The only question presented by this appeal is: When the purchaser from the Government of lots or parcels of land formerly belonging to the Friar State dies before complete payment is made, leaving a widow surviving him, do such lots or parcels belong to the estate of the deceased to be administered by his administrator, or may the wife have the inchoate title in such lots or parcels transferred to her and thus be eliminated or excluded from the state of her deceased husband?

The facts in the present case may be stated as follows:

(a) that some time prior to November 1, 1918, the said Silvestre Estacion purchased from the Government the following lots or parcels of land Nos. 1018, 723, 1007, 687, 270, 742, and 386; (b) that said lots had therefore been purchased by the Government as part of theHacienda de los Frailes en el Municipio de Santa Cruz de Malabon; (c) that Silvestre Estacion and his predecessors had been in possession, as tenants, of said parcels of land since before the American occupation of the Philippine Islands; (d) that he was the occupant, as tenant, of said parcels of land at the time the saidhaciendawas purchased; (e) that after he had purchased said lots he continued to make the partial payments under his contract, up to the time of his death;(f)that he left a widow surviving him, who in the present plaintiff; (g) that after the death of Silvestre Estacion, and on the 12th day of September, 1919, the said Valentina Jocson, as the surviving widow of Silvestre Estacion, taking advantage of the provisions of section 16 of Act No. 1120, had said lots transferred to her (see Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, and G); (h) that notwithstanding the fact that the widow, Valentina Jocson, of Silvestre Estacion had said lots transferred to her in accordance with said section 16 after the death of her husband, the administrator of the estate of Silvestre Estacion took possession of the same, included them in the inventory of the estate and continued to administer the same as a part of the estate of the deceased.

Valentina Jocson, under the foregoing facts, prayed that said seven lots be excluded from the inventory of the administrator of the estate of Silvestre Estacion, and that the same be returned to her immediately. The lower court denied her petition and decided that said lots were a part of the estate of Silvestre Estacion and that, as such, Antero Soriano, as administrator, had a right to include them in his inventory and to administer them. From that judgment the plaintiff appealed.

The appellant now contends that the inchoate title to said lots belongs to her and that she has the sole and exclusive right to occupy and administer them. Her contention is based upon the provisions of Act No. 1120, with special reference to section 16 of the same. Act No. 1120 provides, among other things, that the actual occupant of any portion of the Friar Lands at the time of the purchase by the Government should be given a preference in the right to purchase the land or lot occupied. Silvestre Estacion was the actual occupant, as tenant, of the said seven parcels of land at the time of the purchase by the Government and at the time of his purchase from the Government, and he continued to be in possession of the same until his death. Said Act further provides that the purchaser had a right to make a partial payments until the full payment purchase price was paid. The Act further provides that the title to each and every parcel land sold should remain in the Governmentuntil the full payment of all installments of purchase money and interest by the purchaser has been made, and that any incumbrance created by the purchaser against said parcels or lots shall be invalid as against the Government Section 16 provides that "in the event of the death of a holder of a certificate (of purchase of any portion of said land), the issuance of which is provided for in section 12 hereof,prior to the execution of a deed by the Government of any purchaser, his widow shall be entitled to receive a deed of the landstated in the certificate upon showing that she has complied with the requirements of law for the purchase of the same. . . ."

At the time of the death of Silvestre Estacion, he had nothing but an inchoate right in the parcels of land. The title was still in the Government. The Government being the owner, until full payment was made, had a perfect right to prescribe how such property should be disposed of in case of the death of the husband. The character of the right of Silvestre Estacion was very analogous to that of a homesteader. At No. 926, which provides for the granting of homesteads, in its section 3 contains a very similar provision to that of section 16 of Act No. 1120, for the disposition of the homestead in case the applicant dies before title in him is perfected, leaving surviving him a wife. Said section 3 provides that "in the event of the death of an applicant (for a homestead) prior to the issuance of a patent (title),his widowshall be entitled to have a patent for the land applied for issue to her" upon a proper showing, and until a final title or patent is issued for the land to the applicant the Government remains the owner.

Acts Nos. 1120 and 926 were patterned after the laws granting homestead rights and special privileges under the laws of United States and the various states of the Union. The statutes of the United States as well as of the various states of the Union contain provisions for the granting and protection of homesteads. Their object is to provide a home for each citizen of the Government, where his family may shelter and live beyond the reach of financial misfortune, and to inculcate in individuals those feelings of independence which are essential to the maintenance of three institutions. Furthermore, the state itself is concerned that the citizens shall not be divested of a means of support, and reduced to pauperism. (Cook and Burgwallvs.McChristian, 4 Cal., 24; Franklinvs.Coffee, 70 Am. Dec., 292; Richardson,vs.Woodward, 104 Fed. Rep., 873; 21 Cyc., 459.)1awph!l.net

The conservation of a family home is the purpose of homestead laws. The policy of the state is to foster families as the factors of society, and thus promote general welfare. The sentiment of patriotism and independence, the spirit of free citizenship, the feeling of interest in public affairs, are cultivated and fostered more readily when the citizen lives permanently in his own home, with a sense of its protection and durability. (Waples on Homestead and Exemptions, p. 3.)

Under the statutory and constitutional provisions of the various states of the Union it has been held that "homestead privilege does not determine on the husband's death but is transmitted to his widow and children." (21 Cyc., 562.)

In the case of the Estate of Fath (132 Cal., 609) the Supreme Court of California held that "a homestead selected by the husband in his lifetime . . . vests absolutely in his surviving wife . . . The descent of the homestead to the surviving widow was governed by the law in force at the death of her husband." (Dickeyvs.Gibson, 54 Am. St. Rep., 321.)

Neither does a widow lose her right in the homestead estate of her first husband by a second marriage. (Sandersvs.Rusell, 21 Am. St. Rep., 29; Milesvs.Miles, 88 Am. Dec., 208.)

Upon the death of the husband, the wife may continue to occupy the whole of the homestead. (Nicholasvs.Purczell, 89 Am. Dec., 572.)

The doctrine announced with reference to the right of the widow in the homestead upon the death of her husband, does no injustice to the creditors of the deceased, since they have it always in their power to protect themselves either by refusing credit or by demanding such security as will protect the from loss. (Keyesvs.Cyrus, 38 Am. St. Rep., 296.)

Said section 16 (Act No. 1120) provides that in the event of the death of a holder of a certificate prior to the execution of a deed by the Government, his widow shall be entitled to receive a deed of the land upon a showing that she has complied with the requirements of the law for the purchase of the same. In the present case the widow took the steps necessary under the law to protect her right, and had the necessary certificates of transfer made to her (Exhibits A to H). From that date the inchoate right which her husband possessed passed to her, and to her alone, and she had a right to continue making the partial payments required, and when completed, to secure an absolute conveyance from the Government. The law conceded to her the right held by her husband, without diminution of control, subject only to her completing the contract with the Government. That being true, we are fully persuaded that the administrator of the estate of Silvestre Estacion had no interest nor any control whatever in the administration of said lots or parcels of land. Under the law they did not belong to the estate of Silvestre Estacion. Whatever interest he had, passed immediately upon his death to his widow. The said lots constituted no part of the estate of Silvestre Estacion.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the judgment of the lower court be revoked; that the defendant, as administrator of the estate of Silvestre Estacion, exclude the said seven parcels of land immediately from the inventory of said estate, return the possession thereof to the plaintiff, and that he render to the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cavite, within a period of thirty days, a full and correct account of his administration of said parcels of land, and that he pay over to Valentina Jocson whatever sum or sums may be due her. And, without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.

Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Street, J., took no part.