Policarpio vs. Salamat

A usufruct constituted in favor of several persons living at the time of its constitution is not extinguished until the death of the last survivor, and the share of a usufructuary who dies accrues to the surviving usufructuaries, unless a contrary intention clearly appears in the instrument constituting the usufruct.

In a duly probated last will and testament, Damasa Crisostomo granted the naked ownership of her fishpond in Hagonoy, Bulacan to her sister, Teodorica de la Cruz, while granting the usufruct over the same to the fourteen children of her cousins Antonio Perez, Patricia Vicente, and Canuto Lorenzo. Teodorica de la Cruz, the naked owner, subsequently bequeathed all her rights to the fishpond to Jose V. Salamat in her own will. The fourteen usufructuaries leased the fishpond to third parties, but upon the death of three of them, conflicting claims arose between the naked owner and the eleven surviving usufructuaries regarding the deceased's shares, prompting the lessees to file an interpleader action.

The fourteen usufructuaries leased the fishpond to Gil P. Policarpio, who distributed the lease rentals proportionately among them. During the lease term, three usufructuaries—Francisco Lorenzo, Leoncio M. Perez, and Servillano Perez—died. Both the naked owner, Salamat, and the eleven surviving usufructuaries claimed the shares corresponding to the deceased, totaling P10,714.26. Because of these conflicting claims, Policarpio withheld the amount. Later, on May 31, 1962, the surviving usufructuaries leased the fishpond to Batas Riego de Dios, who also withheld the corresponding part of the usufruct after learning of the conflicting claims.

On November 15, 1962, the two lessees commenced an interpleader action against both the naked owner and the surviving usufructuaries to compel them to litigate their conflicting claims. Salamat claimed entitlement to the deceased's shares on the ground that the usufruct was automatically extinguished by death and merged with the naked ownership. The surviving usufructuaries contended that the usufruct was constituted simultaneously and would not be extinguished until the death of the last survivor. The parties submitted the case for decision based on memoranda, as the issue was purely legal. The trial court ruled in favor of the naked owner, prompting the surviving usufructuaries to appeal.

• Right of Accretion: Appellants argued that the surviving usufructuaries are entitled to receive the shares of the deceased by virtue of Article 611 of the Civil Code, which provides that 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.

• Extinguishment by Death: Appellee contended that a usufruct constituted in favor of a natural person endures only for the lifetime of the usufructuary, and is extinguished by death unless a contrary intention clearly appears under Article 603 of the Civil Code. Thus, upon the death of the three usufructuaries, their rights were extinguished and reverted to the naked owner.

• Entitlement to Usufructuary Shares: Whether the eleven surviving usufructuaries or the naked owner are entitled to the fruits that would have corresponded to the three deceased usufructuaries.

• Entitlement to Usufructuary Shares: Yes. The surviving usufructuaries are entitled to the shares of the deceased. The share of a deceased usufructuary accrues to the surviving usufructuaries under the right of accretion, as the usufruct is not extinguished until the death of the last survivor pursuant to Article 611 of the Civil Code.

• Entitlement to Usufructuary Shares: The Court applied Article 611 of the Civil Code, which provides that 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. If the appellee's theory that death extinguishes the usufruct and consolidates it with the naked owner were correct, Article 611 would be superfluous, as Article 603 already provides that death extinguishes the usufruct unless the contrary appears. Furthermore, appellee's theory would cause a partial extinction of the usufruct, contrary to Article 611. Spanish commentators (Manresa, Del Viso, Colin and Capitant) unanimously uphold that there is accretion among simultaneous usufructuaries when one dies before the end of the usufruct, unless the testator makes a contrary provision. In this case, the testatrix constituted the usufruct in favor of the children of her cousins with the injunction that they are the only ones to enjoy it as long as they live, implying that the share of any deceased would accrue to the survivors.

• Right of Accretion in Simultaneous Usufruct — When a usufruct is constituted in favor of several persons living at the time of its constitution (simultaneous usufruct), the death of one usufructuary does not extinguish the usufruct or revert the share to the naked owner. Instead, the share of the deceased usufructuary accrues to the surviving usufructuaries, and the usufruct continues until the death of the last survivor. This right of accretion applies unless the instrument constituting the usufruct expressly provides otherwise.

• "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." — This is the text of Article 611 of the Civil Code, which the Court applied to establish the right of accretion among simultaneous usufructuaries.
• "If the theory of appellee in the sense that the death of the three usufructuaries has the effect of consolidating their rights with that of the naked owner were correct, Article 611 of the Civil Code would be superfluous, because Article 603 already provides that the death of the usufructuary extinguishes the usufruct unless the contrary appears." — This passage explains the ratio decidendi, highlighting the interplay between Article 603 and Article 611 of the Civil Code and rejecting the naked owner's claim.

• Article 611, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that 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. The Court applied this to grant the shares of the deceased usufructuaries to the surviving ones.
• Article 603, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that the death of the usufructuary extinguishes the usufruct unless a contrary intention appears. The Court noted that if this general rule were applied to simultaneous usufructs, Article 611 would be superfluous.
• Article 1023, Civil Code of the Philippines — Mentioned in the Spanish commentary as supporting the application of the right of accretion to usufructuaries.

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