G.R. No. 27871 , July 21, 1928
TIRSO DACANAY, administrator-appellee, vs. SILVERIO HERNANDEZ, in his own behalf and as guardian of the minor Maria Hernandez, EDUVIGIS HERNANDEZ, and CARIDAD HERNANDEZ, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

Justiniano Rogero Dacanay died in 1905, leaving a will executed in 1904. He was survived by one legitimate child, Bienvenida Julia Dacanay (who died in 1907, leaving three children), and three acknowledged natural children, Herminigilda, Tirso, and Paulina Dacanay. The will heavily favored the natural children, disinheriting the legitimate child Bienvenida for alleged disobedience. The will was probated in 1906, and Tirso Dacanay was appointed administrator. The probate proceedings became protracted over two decades. A scheme of partition submitted by commissioners in 1913 was disapproved for failing to segregate the separate properties of the spouses Justiniano and his predeceased wife Maria Ronquillo (Bienvenida’s mother) and for violating legal limits on shares of acknowledged natural children. In 1916, Judge Camus rendered a decision for a complete and fair distribution. Tirso Dacanay appealed but later moved to reopen the case based on newly discovered evidencean inventory of property allegedly donated to Bienvenida on her marriage. The Supreme Court remanded the case. In 1919, Judge Burgett found the inventory genuine and ordered a new partition, including the property in the inventory by collation. Silverio Hernandez (Bienvenida’s widower) appealed, but the appeal was dismissed as premature. The lower court eventually approved a partition plan in 1925, which Silverio Hernandez again appealed, arguing it violated legal limits on the shares of natural children and included properties not subject to collation.

ISSUE

1. Whether the partition approved by the lower court correctly applied the laws on succession, particularly the legitimate shares of compulsory heirs and the limits on shares of acknowledged natural children.
2. Whether the properties listed in the inventory (Exhibit A-1) donated to Bienvenida on her marriage were correctly included in the estate for collation.
3. Whether the accounts of administrator Tirso Dacanay should be approved and whether he should be removed for mismanagement.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the lower court’s decision.

1. On Succession and Partition: The Court held that the partition plan approved by the lower court was erroneous. Under Articles 806, 808, and 840 of the Civil Code, acknowledged natural children are entitled to a portion of the inheritance, but their share cannot prejudice the legitimate share of the forced heirs. The testator cannot dispose of more than one-fifth of his estate in favor of natural children if there is a legitimate child. The will attempted to give the natural children shares far exceeding this limit, to the detriment of the legitimate heir Bienvenida and her children. The Court reinstated the essential features of Judge Camus’ 1916 decision as the correct basis for partition, which properly segregated the conjugal property, the separate property of the deceased wife Maria Ronquillo (which should pass exclusively to her legitimate descendant Bienvenida), and the separate property of the testator Justiniano.

2. On Collation: The Court ruled that the properties listed in Exhibit A-1 (the dowry inventory) were not subject to collation. Collation applies to donations *advancement of inheritance* made to compulsory heirs. The evidence showed that the properties were given to Bienvenida by her maternal grandparents on the occasion of her marriage, not by the testator Justiniano. Therefore, these properties formed part of her separate estate and should not be included in Justiniano’s estate for partition.

3. On Administration and Removal of Administrator: The Court found administrator Tirso Dacanay grossly negligent and incompetent. He failed to expedite the settlement for over 20 years, submitted misleading accounts, and failed to collect significant debts owed to the estate. The Court ordered his immediate removal and the appointment of a suitable successor. He was ordered to render a strict account, deliver all estate property to his successor, and pay a debt of P2,584.43 to the estate. He was denied any compensation for his personal services or attorney’s fees.

DISPOSITIVE:
(a) Tirso Dacanay is removed as administrator, and the lower court is directed to appoint a successor.
(b) Tirso Dacanay must render a strict account of his administration from November 1, 1925, and immediately deliver all estate property to his successor. He is not allowed compensation for personal services or attorney’s fees.
(c) The estate is to be distributed at the earliest possible time in accordance with the plan outlined by Judge Camus in 1916, as modified by the Supreme Court’s discussion, including the collection of debts from Tirso Dacanay.
(d) Tirso Dacanay must pay the estate P2,584.43, representing his indebtedness from September 23, 1916, to October 31, 1925. This amount, along with net credits accruing thereafter, shall be distributed: two-thirds to the heirs of Bienvenida Dacanay and one-ninth to each of the two other natural children (Tirso and Paulina).
The administrator’s accounts up to October 31, 1925, are approved only as modified. No costs.