Del Rosario vs. Del Rosario

The pendency of testamentary proceedings for the liquidation and partition of conjugal properties bars a separate civil action seeking the same relief, the proper remedy being intervention in the pending proceedings as parties interested in the liquidation and partition.

Ramon del Rosario and Florencia Arcega were spouses whose conjugal partnership properties were never liquidated after Ramon's death in 1895, as no intestate proceedings were then commenced. Florencia continued to administer the properties and acquired additional properties using the products thereof. Upon Florencia's death in 1933, her testamentary proceedings were initiated, within which the liquidation of the conjugal partnership with Ramon was to be made. The parties disputed whether Act No. 3176 or the prior law governed the liquidation of conjugal properties upon the death of a spouse.

Ramon del Rosario and Florencia Arcega were husband and wife. Ramon died in 1895 without leaving a will, leaving conjugal partnership properties valued at ₱19,000. Florencia survived him by nearly four decades, dying only in 1933. Upon Ramon's death, no intestate proceedings were commenced and the conjugal properties were not liquidated. Florencia thereupon took charge of the administration of the conjugal properties and, with the income or products derived therefrom, acquired additional properties described in the complaint.

After Florencia's death in 1933, her testamentary proceedings were initiated and were pending at the time the action was filed. Among the matters to be taken up in those proceedings was the liquidation of the conjugal partnership properties of the deceased spouses. The plaintiffs and defendants are the heirs of both Ramon and Florencia.

The plaintiffs brought the present action to recover their shares not only in the conjugal properties originally left by Ramon but also in the properties subsequently acquired by Florencia with the products of those conjugal properties. Defendants demurred to the complaint on the grounds that another action was pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, that there was a defect of parties plaintiff and defendant, and that the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case, prompting the appeal.

• Exclusivity of Testamentary Proceedings: Whether the pendency of Florencia Arcega's testamentary proceedings, which included the liquidation of the conjugal partnership properties, bars a separate civil action seeking the recovery of the heirs' shares in those same properties.
• Applicable Law on Liquidation: Whether Act No. 3176 or the law prior thereto governs the liquidation of the conjugal partnership properties upon the death of a spouse.

• Exclusivity of Testamentary Proceedings: Yes. The pendency of testamentary proceedings aimed at the liquidation and partition of conjugal properties excludes any separate proceeding seeking the same purpose, though the plaintiffs may intervene as interested parties in the pending proceedings.
• Applicable Law on Liquidation: It was unnecessary to definitively resolve. Regardless of whether Act No. 3176 or the prior law applied, the result was the same because the testamentary proceedings of Florencia Arcega had been initiated and encompassed the required liquidation.

• Exclusivity of Testamentary Proceedings: Act No. 3176 amended the prior law by providing that upon the death of any of the spouses, the community property shall be liquidated in the testamentary or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. Even assuming arguendo that the prior law governed, the outcome remained unchanged. Ramon del Rosario's intestate proceedings were never commenced upon his death in 1895; it was only after Florencia Arcega died in 1933 that her testamentary proceedings were initiated, and those proceedings necessarily included the liquidation of the conjugal properties of both spouses. Because those testamentary proceedings were pending and were directed at the same liquidation and partition sought by the plaintiffs, a separate action was excluded under the doctrine in Zaide vs. Concepcion and Quintana. The proper remedy for the plaintiffs was to intervene in the pending testamentary proceedings as parties interested in the liquidation and partition of the conjugal properties among the heirs.

• Applicable Law on Liquidation: The parties disputed whether Act No. 3176 or the former law applied. The Court found it unnecessary to determine which law controlled, because both led to the same conclusion. Act No. 3176 differed from the prior law only in that it required liquidation of community property in the testamentary or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. Under either regime, the fact that Florencia's testamentary proceedings were already pending and encompassed the liquidation of the conjugal partnership was dispositive.

• Exclusivity of Testamentary or Intestate Proceedings for Conjugal Liquidation — When testamentary or intestate proceedings of a deceased spouse have been initiated and include the liquidation and partition of conjugal partnership properties, those proceedings exclude any separate civil action aimed at the same purpose. The proper remedy for parties claiming shares in the conjugal properties is to intervene in the pending proceedings as interested parties. The Court applied this doctrine by affirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs' separate action, citing Zaide vs. Concepcion and Quintana, 32 Phil. 403, and directing the plaintiffs to seek relief through intervention in Florencia Arcega's pending testamentary proceedings.

• "the pendency of these testamentary proceedings of the deceased wife excludes any other proceeding aimed at the same purpose" — This passage states the ratio decidendi: that a pending testamentary proceeding encompassing conjugal liquidation bars a separate action for the same relief.

• "the plaintiffs have a right to intervene in these proceedings as parties interested in the liquidation and partition of the conjugal properties of the deceased spouses" — This defines the proper remedy available to the heirs, clarifying that dismissal of the separate action does not leave them without recourse.

• Zaide vs. Concepcion and Quintana, 32 Phil. 403 — Controlling precedent followed. The Court relied on this case for the proposition that the pendency of testamentary proceedings excludes any other proceeding aimed at the same purpose of liquidating and partitioning conjugal properties.

• Act No. 3176 — Amended the prior law by providing that upon the death of any of the spouses, the community property shall be liquidated in the testamentary or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. The Court noted that whether this Act or the prior law applied, the result was the same because Florencia's testamentary proceedings were already pending and encompassed the required liquidation.

Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concurred.