[G.R. No. L-21809. January 31, 1966.

GIL P. POLICARPIO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. JOSE V.

SALAMAT, ET AL., defendants, VICENTE ASUNCION, ET
AL., defendants-appellants.

Tansinsin & Tansinsin for the defendants and appellants.

Eugenio Balabat for the plaintiffs and appellees.

SYLLABUS

1. USUFRUCT; DEATH OF ONE OF USUFRUCTUARIES BEFORE END OF

USUFRUCT; ACCRETION AMONG USUFRUCTUARIES; EXCEPTION.
There is accretion among usufructuaries who are constituted at the same time
when one of them dies before the end of the usufruct. The only exception is if the
usufruct is constituted in a last will and testament and the testator makes a
contrary provision. In the instant case, there is none. On the contrary, the
testatrix constituted the usufruct in favor of the children of her three cousins with
the particular injunction that they are the only ones to enjoy the same as long as
they live, from which it can be implied that, should any of them die, the share of
the latter shall accrue to the surviving ones. These provisions of the will are clear.
They do not admit of any other interpretation.

DECISION

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J : p

In a duly probated last will and testament of one Damasa Crisostomo,

she gave the naked ownership of a fishpond owned by her to her sister
Teodorica de la Cruz while its usufruct to the children of her cousins
Antonio Perez, Patricia Vicente and Canuto Lorenzo. The fishpond is
situated at a barrio of Hagonoy, Bulacan.

The children of Antonio Perez, Patricia Vicente and Canuto Lorenzo turned out to
be fourteen, namely: Maria, Pio, Fructuosa, Graciano, Vicente, Victoria, Teodora,
and Juan, all surnamed Perez, Apolonio Lorenzo, Bonifacio Lorenzo, Vicente
Asuncion, Francisco Lorenzo, Leoncio Perez and Servillano Perez. On the other
hand, Teodorica dela Cruz, the naked owner, bequeathed in her will all her rights
to the fishpond to Jose V. Salamat.
The fourteen usufructuaries leased the fishpond first to one Gil P. Policarpio who
used to give them proportionately the usufruct corresponding to them. During the
term of the lease, however, three of the usufructuaries died, namely, Francisco
Lorenzo, Leoncio M. Perez and Servillano Perez, and so, upon their death, both
the naked owner and the remaining usufructuaries claimed the shares
corresponding to the deceased usufructuaries in the amount of (P10,714.26.
Because of these conflicting claims, the lessee withheld said amount.
Subsequently, on May 31, 1962, the surviving usufructuaries leased the fishpond
to one Batas Riego de Dios who, after executing the contract of lease, came to
know of the existing conflicting claims, and not knowing to whom of the claimants
the shares of the deceased usufructuaries should be paid, said lessee was also
constrained to withhold the corresponding part of the usufruct of the property. So,
on November 15, 1962, the two lessees commenced the present action for
interpleader against both the naked owner and surviving usufructuaries to
compel them to interplead and litigate their conflicting claims.
Defendant Jose V. Salamat avers as special defense that he is the successor-in-
interest of Teodorica dela Cruz and as such he is entitled to the shares
corresponding to the three deceased usufructuaries in as much as the usufruct in
their favor was automatically extinguished by death and became merged with the
naked owner.
The surviving usufructuaries, on the other hand, adhere to the theory that since
the usufructuaries were instituted simultaneously by the late Damasa
Crisostomo, the death of the three usufructuaries did not extinguish the usufruct;
hence, the surviving usufructuaries are entitled to receive the shares
corresponding to the deceased usufructuaries, the usufruct to continue until the
death of the last usufructuary.
When the case was called for hearing, the parties agreed to submit the case for
decision upon the submission of their respective memoranda considering that the
issue involved was purely legal in nature, and on March 29, 1963, the trial court
rendered decision the dispositive part of which reads as follows:
"Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered declaring defendant Jose V.
Salamat entitled to the sum of P10,714.26 representing the shares of the
three deceased usufructuaries in the lease rental due from plaintiff Gil
Policarpio, ordering the latter to deliver to said defendant the aforesaid
amount; and likewise declaring said defendant Jose V. Salamat entitled
to share with the eleven usufructuaries in the proceeds of the lease
contract executed by them with plaintiff Batas Riego de Dios, ordering
the latter to deliver to him such amount as would be equivalent to the
shares of the three deceased usufructuaries, with the parties bearing
their own costs and expenses of litigation."
The surviving usufructuaries took the present appeal.
The important issue to be determined is whether the eleven surviving
usufructuaries of the fishpond in question are the ones entitled to the fruits
that would have corresponded to the three deceased usufructuaries, or the
naked owner Jose V. Salamat.
Appellants argue that it is the surviving usufructuaries who are entitled to receive
the shares of the deceased by virtue of Article 611 of the Civil Code which
provides: "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." On
the other hand, appellee contends that the most a usufruct can endure if
constituted in favor of a natural person is the lifetime of the usufructuary,
because a usufruct is extinguished by the death of the usufructuary unless a
contrary intention clearly appears (Article 603, Civil Code). Hence, appellee
argues, when the three usufructuaries died, their usufructuary rights were
extinguished and whatever rights they had to the fruits reverted to the naked
owner.
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. Furthermore, said theory would cause a partial
extinction of the usufruct, contrary to the provisions of Article 611 which
expressly provides that the usufruct shall not be extinguished until the death of
the last survivor. The theory of appellee cannot, therefore, be entertained.
The well-known Spanish commentators on the counterpart of Article 611 we have
copied above which implicitly provides that the share of a usufructuary who dies
in the meantime inures to the benefit of the surviving usufructuaries, also uphold
the view we here express. Thus, the following is their comment on the matter:
"Al comentar el art. 469 (now Art. 564) hablamos, entre las formas de
constitucin del usufructo, del disfrute simultaneo y sucesivo. Ninguna
duda cabe, puesto que elderecho de acrecer es aplicable a los
usufructuaros, segn el art. 987 (now Art. 1023), sobre la no extincin
del usufructo simultneo, hasta la muerte de la ltima persona que
sobreviva . . .
". . . Al referirse . . . el art. 521 (now Art. 621) al usufructo constituido en
provecho de varias personas vivas al tiempo de su constitucion, parece
referirse al usufructo simultneo. Sin embargo, es indudable que se
refiere tambien al sucesivo, puesto que en esta especie de usufructo el
segundo usufructuario no entra en el disfrute, salvo expresion en
contrario, hasta la muerte del primero, y es claro que al morir el ltimo
llamado, se extingue el usufructo, que es precisamente lo que ordena el
presente articulo." (Manresa, Comentarios al Codigo Civil Espaol,
1931, Tomo IV, p. 486).
 ". . . refiriendonos al caso de muerte natural, ha de tenerse presente que
si son muchos los llamados al usufructo simultneamente, muerto
uno, su porcian acrece dems no ser que el testador exprese lo
contrario, se infiriera as del ttulo en que se constituy el usufructo,
para lo cual puede verse la doctrina de la ley 33, tit. I, lib. VII del
Digesto, que habla del derecho de acrecer en el usufructo, y el tit. IV del
mismo libro, en que se proponen algunos casos de excepcion. El
usufructo constituido en provecho de varias personas vivas al tiempo de
su constitucin. no se extingur hasta la muerte de la ltima que
sobrevvere. Cd. Civ. art. 521." (Del Viso, Lecciones Elementales de
Derecho Civil, sexta edicion, Tomo I, p. 86.)
"Si a varios usufructuarios se les lega la totalidad de una herencia, o
una misma parte de ella, se da el derecho de acrecer cuando uno de
ellos muere despues del testador, sobreviviendo otro y otros? Como
dice la obra anotada, el Digesto admiti, segn un texto de Paulo, la
solucin afirmativa, y Pothier reprodujo dicha doctrina.
"La jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo espaol ha admitido y
sancionado tambin en le sentencia de 29 de marzo de 1905, aunque
no por aplicacin del derecho de acrecer, y s por aplicacin de la
voluntad presunta del testador, que habindose legado el usufructo
vitalicio del remanente de sus bienes, por partes iguales, a dos
hermanas, debe entenderse que ellas, o cualquiera de las dos que
sobreviviere a la otra, haba de disfrutar dicho usufructo, no
constituyendo la separacin de partes sino una previsin del testador,
para el arreglo del usufructo total durante la vida de las dos
usufructuaries." (Colin and Capitant, Curso Elemental de Derecho Civil,
1957, Tomo VIII, pp. 605-606)
It, therefore, appears that the Spanish commentators on the subject are
unanimous that there is accretion among usufructuaries who are
constituted at the same time when one of them dies before the end of the
usufruct. The only exception is if the usufruct is constituted in a last will and
testament and the testator makes a contrary provision. Here there is none. On
the contrary, the testatrix constituted the usufruct in favor of the children of her
three cousins with the particular injunction that they are the only ones to enjoy
the same as long as they live, from which it can be implied that, should any of
them die, the share of the latter shall accrue to the surviving ones. These
provisions of the will are clear. They do not admit of any other interpretation.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The eleven surviving

usufructuaries are hereby declared to be entitled to the shares of the three
deceased usufructuaries and, hence, as a corollary, appellees Gil P. Policarpio
and Batas Riego de Dios are hereby ordered to pay to them the money withheld
by them respectively representing the shares of the deceased usufructuaries. No
costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon,
J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
(Policarpio v. Salamat, G.R. No. L-21809, [January 31, 1966], 122 PHIL 1248-
|||

1253)