Digest Author: Dodot

Jones v. Hortiguela (1937) Petition: Appeal from Order of Cebu CFI In re Instate of the deceased Marciana Escao. Petitioner-appellant-appellee: ANGELITA JONES Oppositor-appellant-appellee: FELIX HORTIGUELA, as administrator, widower and heir Ponente: J. Concepcion Date: 3 March 1937 Facts:

December 1914 Marciana marries Arthur Jones o 10 January 1918 Jones secured passport; never heard from again October 1919 Proceedings to have Arthur judicially declared as missing o 25 Oct 1919 Court declared Arthur as an absentee with the proviso that said judicial declaration of absence would not take effect until six months after its publication in the official newspapers [Art. 186, Old Civil Code] o 23 April 1921 the court issued another order for the taking effect of the declaration of absence, publication thereof having been made in the Official Gazette and in "El Ideal." 6 May 1927 Marciana and Felix marry Marciana Escao had died intestate [w/o will]: judicial declaration of only two heirs (Order issued 9 May 1932): o Felix Hortiguela (husband) appointed judicial administrator of estate Charged P10,000 as administrators fees, approved 10 January 1933 Project of Partition and Final Account approved, 26 June 1933 o Angelita Jones (daughter, by first marriage) 3 March 1934 Angelita filed a motion alleging that she was the only heir of her mother, Marciana: o Never valid marriage between Mariana and Felix (null and void) o Since no valid marriage, Felix not entitled to share in usufruct, 1/3 of inheritance o Angelita was a minor during intestate proceedings never assisted by counsel (Felixs lawyers) o Prayed for: Reopening of proceedings Her husband be appointed special administrator w/o bond Mariana-Felix marriage be declared null and void Partition of properties made by Felix be declared null and void; Angelita be declared only heir In case Mariana-Felix marriage not null and void, for Felix to not be entitled to usufruct; new partition of properties; grant only P4/day administrators fees 14 May 1935 Cebu CFI denies: o Motion to appoint new Admin. o Setting aside original declaration of heirs o Holding unwarranted declaring properties as paraphernal [control of wife] reserving option for parties to determine which are paraphernal and which are conjugal o Setting aside order granting Admin. Fees = P10,000 o Ordering presentation of another project of partition Both parties appealed

Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts: Art 186 [Old Civil Code] Declaration of Absence [Art. 384 to 386 in the new Civil Code?] Art. 384. Two years having elapsed without any news about the absentee or since the receipt of the last news, and five years in case the absentee has left a person in charge of the administration of his property, his absence may be declared. Art. 385. The following may ask for the declaration of absence: (1) The spouse present; (2) The heirs instituted in a will, who may present an authentic copy of the same; (3) The relatives who may succeed by the law of intestacy; (4) Those who may have over the property of the absentee some right subordinated to the condition of his death. (185)

Digest Author: Dodot

Art. 386. The judicial declaration of absence shall not take effect until six months after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. (186a) Issues: 1. Was the Marciana-Felix marriage valid? 2. Was Felix entitled to inherit in usufruct in testate or intestate succession. Ruling: 1. YES. The requisite minimum 7 years had elapsed since the spouse from the previous marriage had been absent. Note that marriage contract not registered in municipality of Malitbog, but this is not a ground for having the marriage declared null and void recall that the marriage contract is neither an essential nor formal requisite. [See Madridejo vs. De Leon (1931), and U. S. vs. De Vera (1914)] By virtue of his valid marriage to Marciana. Consequently, Court Order approving Project of Partition and Final Account also valid.

2.

YES

Ratio Decidendi: (1) In accordance with the foregoing legal provision, the absence of Marciana Escao's former husband should be counted from January 10, 1918, the date on which the last news concerning Arthur W. Jones was received, and from said date to May 6, 1927, more than nine years elapsed. Said marriage is, therefore, valid and lawful. Angelita had tried to establish that the absence of Marcianas previous husband should have begun to be counted on 23 April 1921 thus the gap between absence of the previous marriage But Angelita, seemed to have also presumed the death of the previous spouse as well, considering how she treated Felix as her true stepfather [even living with Marciana and Felix Sec. 334, No. 24, of the Code of Civil Procedure, a person not heard from in seven years is presumed to be dead. (2) Inasmuch as Felix Hortiguela was lawfully married to Marciana Escao and was divorced from her at the time of her death there is no doubt that he is entitled to inherit in usufruct, not only in testate but also in intestate succession Opinions: No separate opinions.

Decision: reverses the appealed order of March 14, 1935, in so far as it set aside the order of January 10, 1933, relative to the administrator's fees and the order of June 26, 1933, approving the final account and the project of portion Principles: Marriage when one spouse is absent.