No. L-16925. March 31, 1962. Civil procedure; Case at bar; Prescription of claims.

—In the
FABIAN PUGEDA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAFAEL TRIAS, case at bar, plaintiff's failure to intervene and assert any claim to
MIGUEL TRIAS, SOLEDAD TRIAS, assisted by her husband the properties which were the subject of intestate proceedings for
Angel Sanchez, CLARA TRIAS, assisted by her husband the settlement of the estates of the first husband of his (plaintiff's)
wife (which proceedings covered a period from 1915 to 1929) now
Victoriano Salvanera, GABRIEL TRIAS, minors ROMULO
bars him from asserting any claim usufructuary or otherwise, in
VINIEGRA, GLORIA VINIEGRA and FERNANDO
said properties by the filing of an action in 1948. The value of
VINIEGRA JR., assisted by guardian-ad-litem, Rafael Trias, plaintiff's claim for useful improvements on the land of his wife not
TEO FILO PUGEDA, and VIRGINIA PUGEDA, assisted by having been proved in court, the provisions of Art. 1404 of the old
her husband Ramon Portugal, defendants-appellants. Civil Code, to the effect that useful expenditures for the benefit of
Evidence; Marriages; Requisites of evidence competent to prove the separate properties, can not be applied. But even if such useful
fact of marriage; Failure of registry not bar to fact of marriage.— improvements had been proved, plaintiff may no longer recover his
When the question as to whether or not a mar riage has been share in the value of the improvements in the paraphernal
contracted arises in litigation, said marriage may be proved by properties of his wife as he instituted the present action only after
evidence of any kind. Testimony by one of the parties or witnesses 14 years from the death of his wife in 1934. In 1935 defendant
to the marriage, or by the person who solemnized the same, is children of plaintiff's wife presented a project of partition to
admissible. Public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after plaintiffs, which partition made no mention whatsoever of any
the alleged marriage, birth and baptismal certificates of children participation of plaintiff therein. This express omission in said deed
borne by the alleged spouses, and a statement of such marriage in of partition, though not signed by plaintiff, was enough to deprive
subsequent documents are competent evidence to prove the fact of him of any share or participation in the properties left by his
marriage. The mere fact that no record of the marriage exists in the deceased wife, even of the usufruct that the law assigns to him. No
registry of marriage does not invalidate said marriage, as long as in action having been taken by him until 1948, thirteen years later,
the celebration thereof all requisites for its validity are present. The plaintiff i s right if any, have prescribed.
forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate to the registry is not APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
one of said requisites. Cavite. Gonzales, J.
850
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Placido Ramos for plaintiff-appellee.
Pugeda vs. Trias
Cajulis, Trias & Viniegra for defendants-appellants
Friar lands; Distinguished from public land; Acquisition not
Trias, et al.
governed by Public Land Law.—The Friar Lands Act (Act No. 112)
expressly declares that friar lands are not public land in the sense Ramon C. Aquino for defendants-appellants Teofilo
in which this word is used in the Public Land Act, and their Pugeda and Virginia Pugeda.
851
acquisition is not governed by the provisions of the Public Land Act.
Same; Certificate of sale a, conveyance of ownership; Resolutory VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 851
condition attached to the sale.—Under Act No. 1120 the conveyance Pugeda vs. Trias
executed in favor of a buyer or purchaser, is a conveyance of the
ownership of the property, subject only to the resolutory condition LABRADOR, J.:
that the sale may be cancelled if the price agreed upon is not paid
for in full. The subject of this action, which was appealed from the Court
of First Instance of Cavite, is certain lands acquired from the
Friar Lands Estate Administration known as lots Nos. 225, Pugeda vs. Trias
226, 269, 311, 1803, 1814, 1816, 1832, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2282, complaint, or that said properties had been administered by
2284, 2378, 2412, 2282, 2683, 2685, 2686, 2688, 2722, 3177 the defendants in trust as co-owners with the plaintiff, and by
and 3178 of the San Francisco de Malabon estate located in way of special and affirmative defense they alleged that the
General Trias, Cavite, a house of strong materials, a barn properties subject of the complaint had been inherited by the
(camarin) also of strong materials, and a store also of strong defendants from their deceased father Mariano Trias and
materials in General Trias, Cavite and sets of household deceased mother Maria C. Ferrer and had been in possession
furniture. The plaintiff claims participation in the said and full enjoyment thereof for more than 10 years, peacefully,
properties on the ground that the same were acquired by him uninterruptedly, quietly and adversely under a claim of
and the deceased Maria C. Ferrer, with whom plaintiff ownership to the exclusion of all others, and that plaintiff is
contracted marriage in January, 1916 and who died on estopped from claiming or asserting any rights or
February 11, 1934. participation in the said properties. Defendants Trias also
The defendants Rafael, Miguel, Soledad, Clara, Constancia denied for lack of knowledge and belief the claim of plaintiff in
and Gabriel, all surnamed Trias are the children of the his complaint that he was married to Maria C. Ferrer and that
deceased Maria C. Ferrer with her first husband Mariano the marriage continued up to the death of the latter in 1934.
Trias, while the defendants Teofilo Pugeda and Virginia They further presented a counterclaim against the plaintiff for
Pugeda are children of the plaintiff with said deceased Maria the sum of P40,000, this amount being what was contributed
C. Ferrer. by them in support of the candidacies of plaintiff when
The plaintiff alleges that during the lifetime of the running for the office of provincial governor of Cavite. They
marriage between himself and the deceased Maria C. Ferrer, also filed a counterclaim for 30 pieces of Spanish gold coins
they acquired with conjugal partnership funds lots Nos. 273, and P5,000 in cash amounting in value to the total sum of
2650, 2680, 2718 and 2764 of the San Francisco de Malabon P50,000 and a counterclaim for P100,000 which is the value of
estate with the following interest therein; 71% in lot No. 273, four big parcels of land belonging to the defendants which the
82% in lot No. 2650, 77% in lot No. 2652, 77% in lot No. 2080, plaintiff had appropriated for his own use.
64% in lot No. 2718 and 76% in lot No. 2764; that plaintiff is The defendants Pugeda joined the plaintiff in the latter's
the owner of one-half of the said interest in the lots above- claim that the properties mentioned in plaintiff's complaint
mentioned; that upon the death of Maria C. Ferrer in 1934 were joint properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. They
plaintiff and defendants became co-owners of said properties also allege that the properties had gone to the management
and defendants managed the properties in trust as co-owners and control of the defendants Trias who should be required to
thereof. Plaintiff prays that the properties above described, answer for the fruits and profits thereof during the
acquired as conjugal properties by the plaintiff and deceased administration by them of said properties. As cross-claim
Maria C. Ferrer, be partitioned and one-half thereof be given against their co-defendants, they allege that they are each
as share therein of plaintiff. entitled to one-eighth of the properties left by their mother as
The defendants surnamed Trias and Viniegra denied the listed in the first ten paragraphs of the complaint, as well as a
claims of the plaintiff to the properties described in the share of oneeighth each in lots Nos. 98, 2015 of the San
852 Francisco de Malabon estate and in a parcel of land in Lingad,
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Litlit in Silang, Cavite and in 60 heads of cattle.
 Plaintiff denied the counterclaim of the defendants Trias marriage was held inspite of the prominence of the contracting
and the defendants Trias, answering the cross-claim parties because plaintiff was then busy campaigning for the
853 office of Member of the Provincial Board and Maria C. Ferrer
VOL. 4, MARCH 81, 1962 853 was already on the family way.
Pugeda vs. Trias The defendants denied the existence of the marriage and
of their co-defendants Pugeda, denied all the allegations introduced a photostatic copy of the record of marriages .
contained in the answer of the defendants Pugeda, and further 854
alleged that the cross-claim is improper as the same should be 854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the subject of probate proceedings, and the defendants Pugeda Pugeda vs. Trias
are estopped and barred by prescription from claiming any in the municipality of Rosario, Cavite, in the month of
further right to the properties left by their deceased mother. January, 1916, which showed that no record of the alleged
There are two questions or issues raised in the present case. marriage existed therein; but this absence was explained by
The first is the alleged existence of a marriage of Fabian the Justice of the Peace that perhaps the person who kept the
Pugeda and Maria C. Ferrer. The second is the claim of the register forgot to make an entry of the marriage in the
plaintiff to various lands acquired from the Friar Lands Estate registry.
under certificates of sale issued first in the name of Mariano Other witnesses were introduced to the effect that after the
Trias and later assigned to Maria C. Ferrer, but paid for in marriage plaintiff lived in the house of Maria C. Ferrer, which
part during the marriage of plaintiff and Maria C. Ferrer. A was the house of spouses Mariano Trias and Maria C. Ferrer.
third but minor issue is the claim for furniture alleged by Evidence was also submitted to the effect that the first issue
plaintiff to have been bought by him and Maria C. Ferrer was baptized on August 26, 1917 and the one who acted as
during the marriage, which plaintiff claims is in the sponsor was a sister-in-law of Maria C. Ferrer. The baptismal
possession of the defendants. certificate submitted states that the baptized child was the
On the first issue, the existence of marriage, plaintiff and issue of the spouses Fabian Pugeda and Maria C. Ferrer. The
his witness Ricardo Ricafrente testified that in the afternoon registry of said birth was also submitted and it states that the
of January 5, 1916, on the eve of Epiphany or Three Kings, father is Fabian Pugeda and the mother is Maria C. Ferrer.
plaintiff and the deceased Maria C. Ferrer went to the office of It is also not denied that after the marriage, plaintiff
the Justice of the Peace, who was then witness Ricardo cohabited with the deceased wife, as husband and wife, until
Ricafrente, to ask the latter to marry them; that accordingly the death of the latter, publicly and openly as husband and
Ricafrente celebrated the desired marriage in the presence of wife. Lastly, a document entitled "Project of Partition"
two witnesses one of whom was Santiago Salazar and another (Exhibit 5-Trias) was signed by the parties defendants
Amado Prudente, deceased; that after the usual ceremony themselves. The document contains the following significant
Ricafrente asked the parties to sign two copies of a marriage statement or admission:
contract, and after the witnesses had signed the same, he "WHEREAS the parties hereto are the only children and forced
delivered one copy to the contracting parties and another to heirs of the said deceased: Rafael, Miguel, Soledad, Clara,
the President of the Sanitary Division, which officer was at Constancia, and Gabriel, all surnamed Trias y Ferrer, are the
that time the keeper of the records of the civil register. children of her first marriage with Mariano Trias, now deceased;
Plaintiff and his witnesses explained that no celebration of the
and Teofilo and Virginia, both surnamed Pugeda y Ferrer, are the "Testimony by one of the parties to the marriage, or by one of the
children of her second marriage with Fabian Pugeda. witnesses to the marriage, has been held to be admissible to prove
"x x x. That it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto the fact of marriage. The person who officiated at the solemnization
that lots Nos. 3177 and 3178 known as the Buenavista property will is also competent to testify as an eyewitness to the fact of marriage."
be administered by one of the parties to be agreed upon and for said (55 C.J.S., p. 900).
purpose they appoint MIGUEL F. TRIAS, and all earnings, rentals In our judgment the evidence submitted shows conclusively
and income or profits shall be expended for the improvement and that plaintiff Fabian Pugeda was in fact married to Maria C.
welfare of the said property and for the payment of all claims and Ferrer, said marriage subsisting from 1916 until 1934, upon
accounts of our deceased mother Maria C. Ferrer, and for the the death of the latter, and we affirm the finding of the trial
maintenance and education of Teofilo and Virginia Pugeda y
court to that effect.
Ferrer."
On the second issue the evidence introduced at the trial
The judge who heard the evidence, after a review of the
shows that the lands subject of the action were formerly Friar
testimonial and documental evidence, arrived at the
Lands included in the San Francisco de Malabon Estate,
conclusion that plaintiff Fabian Pugeda was in fact mar-
855
province of Cavite, which were acquired under certificates of
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 855 sale in the name of Mariano Trias in the year 1910 and later
Pugeda vs. Trias assigned to his widow Maria C. Ferrer in the year 1916. The
different lots, the dates of their acquisition and assignment to
ried to Maria C. Ferrer on January 5, 1916, this conclusion
said Maria C. Ferrer, wi-
being borne out not only by the chain of circumstances but also 856
by the testimonies of the witnesses to the celebration of the 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
marriage, who appeared to be truthful, as well as by the fact Pugeda vs. Trias
that plaintiff and deceased Maria C. Ferrer lived together as
dow, are set forth in a table appended to this decision as Annex
husband and wife for eighteen years (1916-1934) and there is
"A".
a strong presumption that they were actually married.
On the basis of the facts about their acquisition and
On the competency of the evidence submitted by plaintiff to
assignment Judge Lucero declared that the lots in question
prove the marriage we cite the following authority:
were conjugal properties of Mariano Trias and Maria C.
"Art. 53.—As to marriages contra cted subsequently, no proof other
than a certificate of the record in the civil register shall be admitted, Ferrer, and consequently decreed that 1/2 thereof, should be
unless such books have never been kept, or have disappeared, or the adjudicated to Mariano Trias, as the latter's share in the
question arises in litigation, in which cases the marriage may be conjugal properties, to be divided among his 6 children at the
proved by evidence of any kind." (p. 27, Civil Code) rate of 1/6 each, and the other half to Maria C. Ferrer, as her
"The mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff's share in the conjugal properties, to be assigned to her children
natural father and mother, while the latter was in articulo by both marriages at the rate of 1/9 each and the balance of
mortis, failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the 1/9 to widower Fabian Pugeda in usufruct. From this
municipal secretary, does not invalidate said marriage, since it does judgment the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.
not appear that in the celebration thereof all requisites for its When the case was before the Court of Appeals, the
validity were not present, and the forwarding of a copy of the
attorneys for the defendants presented a motion for new trial
marriage certificate not being one of said requisites." (Madridejo v.
on the ground that they discovered copies of four documents
De Leon, 55 Phil., 1)
namely-Annexes "A", "B", "C," "D" and "E" Record on Appeal, they do not loss the character of conjugal property for
pp. 108-117, (The last document is a copy of a court order payments were made from the crops thereof;
issued by Judge Manuel V. Moran approving the project of 3. [Link] since Mariano Trias during his marriage to Maria C.
partition in Case No. 860, Intestate estate of Mariano Trias) Ferrer contributed in the payment for the installments of
these 21 lots amounting to P8,911.84, half of which must be
which if admitted might alter the decision. The Court of
reimbursed in favor of the children or heirs of Mariano
Appeals granted the motion and remanded the case to the
Trias to be paid from the mass of the hereditary estate of
Court of First Instance of Cavite for the consideration of said Maria C. Ferrer; the other half of P4,455.92 to be
evidence. distributed among all the children or heirs of Maria C.
Upon the return of the case to the Court of First Intance, Ferrer in her first and second marriage to be deducted from
Judge Primitivo Gonzales who then presided the court, the mass of her estate;
rendered a new decision. Judge Gonzales found that the total 4. [Link] lots 2266, 2683, 2685, 2686, 2688 and 2722 since all
amount paid by Mariano Trias and Maria C. Ferrer on the lots the installments for these six (6) lots were fully paid during
in question amounts to only P8,911.84, while the installments marriage of Mariano Trias and Maria C. Ferrer, they are
paid during the marriage of the spouses Fabian Pugeda and hereby declared to be conjugal between them—one half of
Maria C. Ferrer totaled P35,146.46. He also found that lots which must go to the children or heirs of Mariano Trias, the
other half must equally go to the children or heirs of Maria
3177 and 3178 were paid for during the marriage of Pugeda
C. Ferrer in her first and second marriage;
and Ferrer in the total sum of P16,557.32. Judge Gonzales
5. [Link] Miguel Trias as administrator of all the properties
therefore ruled that the two marriages should participate in which commenced after the death of his mother who died on
the ownership of the lands, according to the actual February 11, 1934, must render an accounting of his
contributions made by each marriage in the installments in administration within three (3) months time from the date
payment of the lands. The dispositive part of the decision, now this judgment has become final.
subject of the appeal, is as follows: 6. [Link] defendants Trias to pay the costs of this action."
857 (Record on Appeal, pp. 154-156)
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 857
Pugeda vs. Trias Against this ruling the appeal has come to this Court.
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATION, the Court Defendants-appellants claim that Judge Gonzales had no
hereby renders judgment: power or authority to change the decision of Judge Lucero, as
it was not he but Judge Lucero himself, who had heard the
1. [Link] lots 2378, 225, 226, 269, 311, 1808, 1804, 1816; 1832, evidence. They have also assigned before Us a set of errors
2264, 2265, 2282, 2284, 2412, 2682, 273, 2650, 2652, 2680, which may be boiled down to the three main issues set forth
2718, 2764 (21 lots) are conjugal assets of Pugeda and above. As the issue of marriage has already been considered
Maria C. Ferrer in the proportion of percentage and
we will now pass to the second and more important question
indicated in each individual lot;
2. [Link] lots 3177 and 3178, since all the installments for the
as to whether the lands subject
858
same were fully paid during the marriage of Pugeda and
Maria C. Ferrer are hereby declared conjugal of the couple
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Pugeda and Ferrer; and even some of the installments for Pugeda vs. Trias
these two lots were paid after the death of Maria C. Ferrer,
of the action may be considered conjugal properties of the first settler and occupant to comply with this requirement shall be
marriage or of the second or of both. considered as a refusal to purchase, and he shall be ousted as above
A consideration of the legal nature and character of the provided and thereafter his holding may be leased or sold as in case
acquisition of the various lots is necessary that the issues in of unoccupied lands: x x x."
859
the action may be justly determined.
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 859
A study of the provisions of the Friar Lands Act (Act No.
1120) discloses that the friar lands were purchased by the
Pugeda vs. Trias
"Sec. 15.—The Government hereby reserves the title to each and
government for sale to actual occupants (actual settlers and
every parcel of land sold under the provisions of this Act until the
occupants at the time said land are acquired by the full payment of all installments of purchase money and interest by
Government). (Paragraph 3 of Declaration of Purposes, Act the purchaser has been made, and any sale or incumbrance made
1120). The said act expressly declares that the lands are not by him shall be invalid as against the Government of the Philippine
public land in the sense in which this word is used in the Islands and shall be in all respects subordinate to its prior claim."
Public Land Act, and their acquisition is not governed by the "Sec. 16.—In the event of the death of a holder of a certificate the
provisions of the Public Land Act (Par. IV, Declaration of issuance of which is provided for in section twelve hereof, prior to
Purposes, Id.) the execution of a deed by the Government to any purchaser, his
The pertinent provisions of said Act No. 1120 are as follows: widow shall be entitled to receive a deed of the land stated in the
"Sec. 12.—x x x. When the costs thereof shall have been thus certificate upon showing that she has complied with the
ascertained, the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall give the requirements of law for the purchase of the same. In case a holder
said settler and occupant a certificate which shall set forth in detail of a certificate dies before the giving of the deed and does not leave
that the Government has agreed to sell to such settler and occupant a widow, then the interest of the holder of the certificate shall
the amount of land so held by him, at the price so fixed, payable as descend and deed shall issue to the persons who under the laws of
provided in this Act at the office of the Chief of the Bureau of Public the Philippine Islands would have taken had the title been perfected
Lands, in gold coin of the United States or its equivalent in before the death of the holder of the certificate, upon proof of the
Philippine currency, and that upon the payment of the final holders thus entitled of compliance with all the requirements of the
installment together with all accrued interest the Government will certificate. In case the holder of the certificate shall have sold his
convey to such settler and occupant the said land so held by him by interest in the land before having complied with all the conditions
proper instrument of conveyance, which shall be issued and become thereof, the purchaser from the holder of the certificate shall be
effective in the manner provided in section one hundred and twenty- entitled to all the rights of the holder of the certificate upon
two of the Land Registration Act. x x x." presenting his assignment to the Chief of the Bureau of Public
"Sec. 13.—The acceptance by the settler and occupant of such Lands for registration." (Vol. III, Public Laws, pp. 315-316).
certificate shall be considered as an agreement by him to pay the A study of the above quoted provisions clearly indicates that
purchase price so fixed and in the installments and at the interest the conveyance executed in favor of a buyer or purchaser, or
specified in the certificate, and he shall by such acceptance become the so-called certificate of sale, is a, conveyance of the
a debtor to the Government in that amount together with all ownership of the property, subject only to the resolutory
accrued interest, xxx. Provided however, That every settler and condition that the sale may be cancelled if the price agreed
occupant who desires to purchase his holding must enter into the upon is not paid for in full. In the case at bar the sale
agreement to purchase such holding by accepting the said certificate certificates were made in favor of Mariano Trias, and upon his
and executing the said receipt whenever called on so to do by the
death they were assigned in accordance with Sec. 16, to his
Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands, and a failure on the part of the
widow. But the law provides that when the buyer does not his widow remarries both she and the second husband are
leave a widow, the rights and interests of the holder of the entitled to the land; the new husband has the same right as
certificate of sale are left to the buyer's heirs in accordance his wife. Such is not the case with friar lands. As indicated in
with the laws of succession. In the case of the Director of Section 16 of Act 1120, if a holder of a certificate dies before
Lands, et al. vs. Ricardo Rizal, et al., G.R. No. 2925 prom. the payment of the price in full, the sale certificate is assigned
December 29, 1950, this court thru Mr. Justice Montemayor to the widow, but if the buyer does not leave a widow, the right
held: to the friar lands is transmitted to his heirs at law.
"x x x All this clearly and inevitably leads to the conclusion that the It is true that the evidence shows that of the various parcels
purchaser, even before the payment of the full price and before the of land now subject of the action none was paid for in full
execution of the final deed of conveyance, is considered by the law during the marriage of Mariano Trias and Maria C. Ferrer,
as the actual owner of the lot pur- and that payments in installments continued to be made even
860
after the marriage of Pugeda and Maria C. Ferrer on January
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
5, 1916. But it is also true that even after said marriage the
Pugeda vs. Trias
certificates of sale were assigned to Maria C. Ferrer and
chased, under obligation to pay in full the purchase price, the role
installments for the lots
or position of the Government being that of a mere lien holder or 861
mortgagee. VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 861
"x x x In conclusion, we find and hold that in the sale of a Friar
Lands lot or parcel under Act 1120, pending payment in full of the Pugeda vs. Trias
purchase price, altho the Government reserves title thereto, merely after said marriage continued in the name of Maria C. Ferrer;
for its protection, the beneficial and equitable title is in the also all the amounts paid as installments for the lots were
purchaser, and that any accretion received by the lot even before taken from the fruits of the properties themselves, according
payment of the last installment belongs to the purchaser thereof." to the admission of plaintiff Fabian Pugeda himself, thus:
We also invite attention to the fact that a sale of friar lands is "Mr. Viniegra:
entirely different from a sale of public lands under the Q — De los productos de esos terrenos, durante la
provisions of the Public Land Act. In the case of public lands, administracion por los demandados, recibia Vd. su
a person who desires to acquire must first apply for the parcel participacion ?
of land desired. Thereafter, the land is opened for bidding. If A — No, señor.
the land is awarded to an applicant or to a qualified bidder the Q — Nunca?
successful bidder is given a right of entry to occupy the land A — Because I know there are obligations to be paid to
and cultivate and improve it (Secs. 22-28, Commonwealth Act the Bureau of Lands, and I have been informed tha
141). It is only after satisfying the requirements of cultivation the obligations have been paid annually from the
and improvement of 1/5 of the land that the applicant is given products of the land.
a sales patent (Sec. 30).
Q — Therefore, from the products of these lands—the
In the case of friar lands the purchaser becomes the owner
proceeds—the obligations to the Bureau of Lands
upon issuance of the certificate of sale in his favor, subject only
are being disc ounted from the said proceeds and
to cancellation thereof in case the price agreed Upon is not
paid. In case of sale of public lands if the applicant dies and
 after the remainder, as in palay, are equally lots purchased from the Friar Lands Estates (Exh. 2, Trias)
divided, is that what you mean to say? and the project of partition in said special proceedings
A — Perhaps they were following the practice that, from submitted to the court as Exh. 3-Trias adjudicated 1/2 of said
the products of the lands the obligations to the lands as the share of Mariano Trias in the conjugal properties,
Bureau of Lands would be paid. the other 1/2 being awarded to Maria C. Ferrer.
Court: The above considerations, factual and legal, lead us to the
Q — Pero Vd. no ha recibido ninguna cantidad, o sea les inevitable conclusion that the friar lands purchased as above
da alguna participacion ? described and paid for, had the character of conjugal
A — No señor, porque estaba en Manila, but they properties of the spouses Mariano Trias and Maria C. Ferrer.
informed me that the obligations to the Bureau of But another compelling legal reason for this conclusion as
Lands were being paid from the products of the against plaintiff, is the judicial pronouncement on said nature
lands. of the lands in question. In the year 1915, even before the
marriage of plaintiff and Maria C. Ferrer took place, the latter
Mr. Viniegra:
was appointed administratrix of the -estate of her deceased
Q — You do not claim any participation in the
husband Mariano Trias in Civil Case No. 860 of the Court of
remainder of the products after paying the Bureau
First Instance' of Cavite (Exh. "1" Trias). An inventory of the
of Lands?
estate left by the deceased Mariano Trias, dated January 15,
A — How would I ask for I knew they were still paying 1929, was submitted by her and on April 10, 1929, the project
the obligations to the Bureau of Lands—that was of partition of the properties was submitted. The project
until the Japanese time, and h i kn ew s ome includes the friar lands subject of the action, and in accordance
obligat ions wer e not as a result of which the sales with it one-half of the properties listed in the inventory was
certificates of some big lots were cancelled. adjudicated to the deceased Mariano Trias as his share and
Court: the other half adjudicated to Maria C. Ferrer also as her share.
Q — Como se mantenia Vd. ? The share of Mariano Trias was decreed in favor of his
A — Mi madre tenia la casa en Manila y , el la reci bia children and heirs. This project of partition was approved by
al gunata. My mother helped me. (Session of Judge Manuel V. Moran in an order dated February 11, 1929,
November 20, 1951, before Judge A. G. Lucero, submitted to the Court of Appeals as Annex "E", pp. 114-115
pp. 259-261, Matro.) (Brief for Defendants- of the record on appeal.
Appellants, pp. 49-51). The pendency of the above intestate proceedings for the
There is another reason why the above conclusion must be settlement of the estate of Mariano Trias must have been
upheld in the case at bar, and that is the fact that in the known to plaintiff Fabian Pugeda, who is a lawyer. It does not
proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the appear, and neither does he claim or allege, that he ever
862 appeared in said proceedings to claim participation in the
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED properties subject of the proceedings. His failure to intervene
Pugeda vs. Trias in the proceedings to claim that the friar lands or some of them
deceased Mariano Trias, which was instituted in August 1915, belonged to himself and his
the inventory of the estate left by said deceased included the 863
 VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 863 expenditures for the benefit of the separate properties of one
Pugeda vs. Trias of the spouses are partnership properties, cannot be applied.
wife Maria C. Ferrer, shows a conviction on his part that the But even if such useful improvements
said friar lands actually belonged to the spouses Mariano 864

Trias and Maria C. Ferrer, and that he had no interest therein. 864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The project of partition was approved as late as 1929, by which Pugeda vs. Trias
time plaintiff and defendant had already been married for a had been proved, the statute of limitations bars plaintiff's
period of 13 years. Plaintiff' s failu re to ass ert any c la im to action to recover his share therein because Maria C. Ferrer
the pro pe rti said intestate proceedings during its pendency died in 1934, whereas the present action was instituted by
now bars him absolutely from asserting the claim that he now plaintiff only in the year 1948. After the death of Maria C.
pretends to have to said properties. Ferrer, plaintiff came to Manila, took a second wife, and was
We will now proceed to consider plaintiff's claim that the not heard from for 14 years, that is, until he instituted this
lands in question had, through the joint effort of himself and action in 1948. His claim for the improvements, if any, is
his wife, increased in productivity from 900 cavans to 2,400 therefore also barred.
cavans of rice because of the introduction therein of The above ruling, that the action to demand his share in
improvements such as a system of irrigation for the lands. If, the value of the improvements in the paraphernal properties
as admitted by plaintiff himself, the installments remaining of Maria C. Ferrer is barred, is also applicable to the claim of
unpaid were taken from the produce or the yield of the said the plaintiff herein for the construction alleged to have been
lands and if it be taken into account that one-half of said lands made and the furniture supposedly bought by him and his
already belonged to the children of the first marriage, to whom spouse Maria C. Ferrer, and which had the character of
the lands were adjudicated in the settlement of the estate of conjugal partnership property of said spouses. In the year
their father, the deceased Mariano C. Trias, the only portion 1935, defendants herein presented a project of partition to
of the products or produce of the lands in which plaintiff could plaintiff for his signature (the project of partition is dated
claim any participation is the one-half share therein produced March, 1935 and is marked Exhibit "5"-Trias). In this project
from the paraphernal properties of Maria C. Ferrer. How of partition of the properties of the deceased Maria C. Ferrer,
much of said produce belonging to Maria C. Ferrer was mention is made of the participation of the plaintiff's children
actually used in the improvement of the lands is not shown, with the deceased Maria C. Ferrer, but no mention is made
but the fact that plaintiff was engaged in continuous political therein of any participation that plaintiff had or could have as
campaigns, ever since his marriage in 1916 (he had devoted usufruct or otherwise, or in any building or improvement, This
most of his time while married to Maria C. Ferrer to politics), deed of partition was shown to plaintiff but the latter did not
portions of the products of the paraphernal properties of Maria sign it.
C. Ferrer must have been used in these political campaigns as The express omission of the name of plaintiff herein in the
well as in meeting the expenses of the conjugal partnership. above deed of partition as one of the heirs of the deceased
The value of the useful improvements introduced on the lands, Maria C. Ferrer was enough notice to plaintiff that defendants
joint properties of Maria C. Ferrer and her children, was not had intended to deprive him of any share or participation in
proved in court by plaintiff. Hence the provisions of Article the properties left by the deceased Maria C. Ferrer, even of the
1404 of the old Civil Code, to the effect that usefull usufruct that the law assigns to him. But in spite of his
knowledge of this fact no action was taken by him until presiding, decreeing the division of the properties of the
February, 1948 when plaintiff demanded his share in the deceased Maria C. Ferrer among her eight children and
properties and later brought this action. plaintiff, is hereby modified in the sense that all of her
The period of around 13 years therefore elapsed before properties be divided among her eight children at the rate of
plaintiff instituted this action. Consequently, whatever rights one-eight per child. As thus modified, the judgment of Judge
he may have had to any portion of the estate left by the Lucero is hereby affirmed. Without costs.
deceased Maria C. Ferrer, as a usufructuary or otherwise, Bautista
must be deemed to have prescribed. As a con- Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De Leon,
865 JJ., concur.
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 865 Bengzon, C.J. and Padilla, J., took no part.
Pugeda vs. Trias Complaint dismissed; Judgment modified.
sequence, we find that the order of Judge Lucero granting to 866
the plaintiff herein one-ninth share in the estate of the 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
deceased Maria C. Ferrer in usufruct should be set aside and Pugeda vs. Trias
the objection to the grant of such share to plaintiff on the
ground of prescription is sustained. A N N E X "A"
Having disposed of the claims of plaintiff Fabian Pugeda,
we will now proceed to consider the cross-claim of his children, Lands included in action—Dates of
namely, Teofilo Pugeda and Virginia Pugeda. Judge Lucero acquisition a nd assignment
decreed that the properties left by the deceased Maria C.
Lot Date of Date of Certificate of
Pugeda, be divided among her children, including the two
Number Sale Assignment to Title
cross-claimants Teofilo Pugeda and Virginia Pugeda, and
decreed one-ninth of the properties of the said deceased Maria
to Mariano Maria C.
C. Ferrer to each of these two children of hers with the plaintiff Trias Ferrer
and assigning also to the plaintiff one-ninth share in the said 225 April 30, 1960 May 17, 1915 —
estate left by her in usufruct. 226 April 5, 1910 May 17, 1915 —
In view of our finding that the claim of the plaintiff to any 269 April 5, 1910 May 17, 1915 —
share in the estate of his wife Maria C. Ferrer is already 311 April 13, 1910 May 17, 1915 —
barred by the statute of limitations, the decree entered by 1808(3) April 13, 1910 May 15, 1915 —
Judge Lucero declaring that her properties be divided into 1814 Not known May 17, 1915 —
nine parts, one part belonging to each heir and one to plaintiff 1816 April 13, 1910 May 17, 1915 —
in usufruct, is hereby modified, by eliminating the share in 1832 April 13, 1910 May 17, 1915 —
usufruct of the plaintiff therein and increasing the share of 2284 Nov. 1, 1910 Not known July 11, 1924
each of her heirs to one eighth. 2265 Nov. 1, 1910 July 11, 1924 —
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the 2266 Nov. 1, 1910 Not known July 11, 1924
plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed, and the judgment of 2282 April 30, 1910 Not known July 11, 1924
the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Hon. Antonio C. Lucero, 2284 Nov. 1, 1910 Not known July 11, 1924
 Lot Date of Date of Certificate of
Number Sale Assignment to Title
to Mariano Maria C.
Trias Ferrer
2378 April 30, 1910 May 17, 1915 —
2412 April 30, 1910 May 17, 1915 —
2682 Nov. 1, 1910 Not known July 11, 1924
2683 Nov. 1, 1910 Not known July 11, 1924
2685 Nov. 1, 1910 Not known July 11, 1924
2686 Nov. 1, 1910 Not known —
2688 Nov. 1, 1910 Not known July 11, 1924
2722 Jan. 1, 1913 Not known —
3177 Jan. 25, 1913 May 17, 1915 —
3178 Jan. 25, 1913 May 17, 1915 —
Other lots included in the complaint on which evidence was
submitted are the following:
273 April 30, May 17, —
1910 1915
2650 April 27, April 17, 1915 —
1910
2672 April 30, May 17, 1915 —
1910
2718 April 30, May 17, 1915 —
1910
2765 April 30, May 17, 1915 —
1910
Two other additional lots are the following:
2225 July 1, May 17, —
1909 1915
2226 July 1, — Sept. 20,
1909 1924
Sold to Ignacio Ascano
later to M. Trias on July
1, 1910