G.R. No. 42551 September 4, 1935 said Sonja Maria Lilius, Aleko E.

Lilius and Brita Marianne Lilius

ALEKO E. LILIUS, for himself and as guardian ad
litem of his minor child, Brita Marianne Lilius, and One-third of the claim of the St. 518.19
SONJA MARIA LILIUS, plaintiffs-appellees, Paul's Hospital by
vs. virtue of a joint written assignment
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendant. of September 21, 1933, by the
LAURA LINDLEY SHUMAN, MANILA WINE said Sonja Maria Lilius, Aleko E.
MERCHANTS, LTD., BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE Lilius and Brita Marianne Lilius to
ISLANDS AND MANILA MOTOR CO., INC., intervenors- it
appellants, and
W.H. WATEROUS, M. MARFORI, JOHN R. MCFIE, JR., and the balance of the award was ordered paid to the said
ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC., PHILIPPINE Brita Marianne Lilius, and
EDUCATION CO., INC., HAMILTON BROWN SHOE CO.,
ESTRELLA DEL NORTE and EASTERN & PHILIPPINE
(b) As against the sum of P4,109.28, separately awarded to
SHIPPING AGENCIES, LTD., intervenors-appellees.
the plaintiff Brita Marriane Lilius, the following claims or
portions thereof in the order stated:
J.W. Ferrier for intervenor-appellant Shuman.
Franco and Reinoso for intervenor-appellant Manila Wine
Merchants, Ltd. One-third of the claim of Laura Lindley P661.13
Feria and La O for intervenor-appellant Bank of the Shuman by virtue of a joint judgment
Philippine Islands. obtained by her on August 10, 1933, in
Gibbs and McDonough for intervenor-appellant Manila Case No. 44254 of the Court of First
Motor Co. Instance of Manila, against the said
Harvey and O'Brien for plaintiffs-appellees. Brita Marianne Lilius, Sonja Maria
John R. Mcfie, Jr., in his behalf and for the intervenors- Lilius and Aleko E. Lilius
appellees.
One-third of the claim of St. Paul's 518.18
Hospital by virtue
GODDARD, J.:
of a joint written assignment of
September 21, 1933, by the
In this case Laura Lindley Shuman, the Manila Wine said Brita Marianne Lilius, Sonia Maria
Merchants, Ltd., the Bank of the Philippine Islands and the Lilius and Aleko
Manila Motor Co., Inc., have appealed from an order of the E. Lilius
Court of First Instance of Manila fixing the degree of
preference of the claimants and distributing the proceeds of
the judgment of this court in the case of Lilius vs. Manila and the balance of the award was ordered paid to the said
Railroad Co. (59 Phil., 758), the amount of which judgment Brita Marianne Lilius, and
in the sum of P33,525.03, including interest and costs, was
deposited by the railroad company with the clerk of the (c) As against the sum of P13,181.33, awarded to the
lower court in that case. After deducting the attorneys' fees plaintiff Aleko E. Lilius, the following claims or portions
in the sum of P8,016.88, which is not questioned, the net thereof in the order stated:
amount in the hands of the clerk of the lower court pertaining
to each of the plaintiffs in the original action is follows:
The other half of the claim of Dr. W.H.
Waterous by virtue of the final judgement in
Aleko E. Lilius P13,181.33 the original case, G.R. No. 39587 P1,500.00

Sonja Maria Lilius 8,218.54 The claim of Dr. M. Marfori, by virtue of the
final judgment in the original case, G.R. No.
Brita Marianne Lilius 4,109.28 39587 250.00
The claim of John R. McFie, Jr., by virtue of
There was a total of twenty-eight claimants to these funds, a written assignment to him by the said
whose claims were presented and decided without Aleko E. Lilius of November 13, 1931 500.00
objection in the original case in the lower court.
The balance of P10, 931.33 of the judgment
The trial court in its order from which these appeals are pertaining to the said Aleko E. Lilius was
taken, allowed: allowed and distributed by the lower court
proportionately among the following
(a) As against the sum of P8,218.54, separately awarded to claimants by virtue of their written
the plaintiff Sonja Lilius, the following claims or portions assignment of January 27, 1932:
thereof in the order stated:
Erlanger & Galinger, Inc. 3,374.50

One-half of the claim of Dr. W.H. P1,500.00 Philippine Education Co., Inc., 3,394.94
Waterous by virtue of a written Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. 1,878.98
assignment of March 9, 1933, by
the said Sonja Maria Lilius to him Estrella del Norte 1,850.76
One-third of the claim of the 661.13 Eastern & Philippine Shipping Agencies, 432.15
appellant Laura Lindley Ltd.
Shuman by virtue of a joint
judgement obtained by her on
August 10, 1933, in the Case No. APPEAL OF LAURA LINDLEY SHUMAN
44254 of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, against the
First assignments of error: "The lower court erred in holding her claim for her services as a nurse. This assignment of
that Dr. W.H. Waterous and Dr. M. Marfori had a claim error should be and is hereby sustained.
against the plaintiff, Aleko E. Lilius superior to the claim of
the appellant, Laura Lindley Shuman, against him." This appellant in her second assignment of error contends
that the trial court erred in failing to allow her claim in the
One of the contentions of this appellant under this sum of P61.94 as costs in the case in which judgment was
assignment of error is that her claim, having been made the rendered in her favor against the herein plaintiffs-appellees.
basis of the plaintiffs' action and of the award for damages, The record shows that the reason for the disallowance of
as shown in the original decision herein, should constitute, this item was because no proof was offered as to the
and does constitute a superior lien against the funds amount of such costs. The only thing appearing in the
awarded said plaintiffs, to those of any other claimants, transcript on this point is the statement of counsel that the
except the two doctors, the hospital and the other nurse, amount of costs in case No. 44254, as shown by the bill of
and that as to the claims of the two doctors, the hospital and costs, was P6l.94. Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Courts
the other nurse the claim of this appellant has equal of First Instance requires that ". . . costs shall be taxed by
preference with their claims. the clerk on five days' written notice given by the prevailing
party to the adverse party, with which notice given by the
The following items were made the basis of a part of the prevailing party, verified by his oath or that of his attorney,
judgment for damages awarded to the plaintiffs in the shall be served. . . ." The proper evidence, therefore, of the
original action against the Manila Railroad Company: costs in that case would have been the bill of costs and the
taxation of such costs by the clerk. In order to recover such
costs in a separate proceeding, such as this, evidence must
Por honorarios del Dr. Waterous be presented as to the amount of the same. As there was
(Exhibit N-2) P3,000.00 no evidence offered in this case as to the amount of said
Por la primera cura hecha en el costs, the lower court was correct in disallowing that item.
Hospital de Calauang (Exhibit N-5) 250.00 This assignment of error is overruled.

Por el alquiler de la ambulancia del Under her third assignment of error this appellant contends
Hospital General (Exhibit N-4) 10.00 (1) that the funds separately awarded the wife, Sonja Maria
Lilius, partake of the nature of conjugal property, at least to
Por la estancia en el Hospital Saint the extent of the sum of P800 awarded to her as interest on
Paul (Exhibit N-3) 3,355.00 the principal award of P10,000 made in her favor by the trial
Por los servicios prestados por la court, and as such should respond for the support of the
enfermera Laura Shuman (Exhibit N- family, including medical expenses and (2) that even
6) 2,156.00 assuming that the sums awarded separately to Sonja Maria
Lilius are not conjugal property, but her own paraphernal
Por los servisios prestados por la property, still under the provisions of the Civil Code payment
enfermera Alejandra Alcayaga may be required out of said funds, her husband being
(Exhibit N-9) 1,450.00 insolvent, under her liability for the medical expenses
incurred by her husband, one of the obligations imposed by
Porlos servicios prestados por la law upon the wife.
enfermera Carmen Villanueva
(Exhibit N-11) 240.00
The second contention under this assignment of error can
Por la perdida de la camara be disposed of by calling attention to the fact that there is
fotografica, pluma fuente y lapiz no proof in this case that her husband is insolvent. It has not
(Exhibit N-1) 43.00 been proved that Aleko E. Lilius had no other property
outside of the sum awarded to him in the case against the
Por trajes dañados en el choque 131.00 Railroad Company.
Total 10,635.00
APPEAL OF THE MANILA WINE MERCHANTS, LTD.,
AND THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
The trial court in that case directed the defendant Railroad
Company to pay P3,000 to Dr. Waterous and to pay to Dr. The appellants, the Manila Wine Merchants. Ltd., and the
Marfori P250, but failed to direct the defendant to pay the Bank of the Philippine islands also contend that the sum
corresponding sums to the other persons and entities separately awarded Sonja Maria Lilius is conjugal property
mentioned in the portion of the decision copied above. and therefore liable for the payment of the private debts of
her husband, Aleko E. Lilius, contracted during her
It must be admitted that the amounts due Dr. Waterous and marriage.
the others mentioned is the original decision, including the
appellant Shuman, were all used as a basis for a part of the it is contended that the damages awarded for personal
judgment which plaintiffs secured against the defendants injury are not classified as separate property of each of the
Railroad Company. spouses in article 1396 of the Civil Code and they should
therefore be resumed conjugal. In answer to this, article
From the foregoing it is clear that the claim of this appellant 1401 of the same Code, in enumerating the property
rests upon the same ground as those of Doctors Waterous belonging to the conjugal partnership, does not mention
and Marfori. She was also among those who rendered damages for personal injury.
services to plaintiffs in aid of their recover from the injuries
received by them in the accident for which damages were The question raised by these appellants is one of first
awarded them in the case against the Railroad Company. impression in this jurisdiction and apparently has never
The fact that the trial court did not direct the defendant been passed upon by the Supreme Court of Spain.
Railroad Company to pay directly to this appellant the
amount of her claim does not modify or do away with her The following comment is found in Colin y Capitant, Vol. 6,
equitable right to the same status as that given to the two pages 217 and 218:
doctors mentioned above. The inevitable conclusion is that
the claims of Waterous and Marfori have no preference over
"No esta resuelta expresamente en la legislacion preference granted by article 1924 of the Civil Code to prior
espa_¤_ola la cuestion de si las indemnizaciones debidas judgments. This error, if at all, is however non-prejudicial as
por accidentes del trabajo tienen la consideracion de the record shows that all the creditors declared by the court
gananciales o son bienes particulares de los conyuges. as having a right to participate in the proceeds of the
judgment in favor of Aleko E. Lilius were so held by virtue of
"Inclinan a la solucion de que estas indemnizaciones deben deeds of assignment executed prior to the date of the
ser consideradas como gananciales, el hecho de que la service of notice of the bank's writ of garnishment on the
sociedad pierde la capacidad de trabajo con el accidente, Manila Railroad Company. These creditors are John R.
que a ella le pertenece, puesto que de la sociedad son los McFie, jr., whose claim is based on a deed of assignment
frutos de ese trabajo; en cambio, la consideracion de que dated November 13, 1931, and Erlanger & Galinger,
de igual manera que los bienes que sustituyen a los que Philippine Education Co., Inc., Hamilton Brown Shoe Co.,
cada conyuge lleva al matrimonio como propios tienen el Estrella del Norte and Eastern & Philippine Shipping
caracter de propios, hace pensar que las indemnizaciones Agencies, Ltd., whose claims are based on a deed of
que vengan a suplir la capacidad de trabajo aportada por assignment dated November 17, 1931. As the record shows
cada conyuge a la sociedad, deben ser juridicamente that whatever was left of the judgment in favor of Aleko E.
reputadas como bienes propios del conyuge que haya Lilius is not sufficient to pay in full the credits of the above
sufrido el accidente. Asi se Ilega a la misma solucion mentioned creditors and furthermore, in view of the fact that
aportada por la jurisprudencia francesa.". strictly speaking, there was no existing credit in favor of
Aleko E. Lilius to be garnished on February 3, 1933, as it
From the above it appears that there are two distinct had been assigned, before that date, to his creditors, this
theories as to whether damages rising from an injury assignment of error, therefore, must be overruled.
suffered by one of the spouses should be considered
conjugal or separate property of the injured spouse. The APPEAL OF THE MANILA MOTOR CO., INC.
theory holding that such damages should form part of the
conjugal partnership property is based wholly on the The two error assigned by this appellant read as follows:
proposition, also advanced by the Manila Wine Merchants,
Ltd., that by the injury the earning capacity of the injured "I. The lower court erred in considering the date of the date
spouse is diminished to the consequent prejudice of the judgment, Exhibit A, Manila Motor Co., Inc., instead of the
conjugal partnership. date of the public document upon which it was based in
determining the preference among the several claims filed
Assuming the correctness of this theory, a reading of the and litigated in this proceeding.
decision of this court in G. R. No. 39587 will show that the
sum of P10,000 was awarded to Sonja Maria Lilius "by way "ll. The lower court erred in not holding the claim of the
of indemnity for patrimonial and moral damages." The claimant-appellant, Manila Motor Co., Inc., preferred over all
pertinent part of that decision on this point reads: other claims against Aleko E. Lilius evidenced by public
instruments and final judgments.".
"Taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff Sonja
Maria Lilius, wife of the plaintiff Aleko E. Lilius is-in the The claimant has not proven that its credit is evidenced by
language of the court, which saw her at the trial "young and a public document within the meaning of article 1924 of the
beautiful and the big scar, which she has on her forehead Civil Code. The only evidence offered by the Manila Motor
caused by the lacerated wound received by her from the Co., Inc., in support of its claim of preference against the
accident, disfigures her face and that the fracture of her left fund of Aleko E. Lilius was a certified copy of its judgment
leg has caused a permanent deformity which renders it very against him in civil case No. 41159 of the Court of First
difficult for her to walk', and taking into further consideration Instance of Manila, together with a certified copy of the writ
her social standing, neither is the sum of P10,000, of execution and the garnishment issued by virtue of said
adjudicated to her by the said trial court by way, of indemnity judgment. These documents appear in the record as
for patrimonial and moral damages, excessive.". Exhibits A, B and C. The alleged public document
evidencing its claim was not offered in evidence and
It should be added that the interest on that sum is part of the counsel of the Manila Motor Co., Inc., merely stated at the
damages "patrimonial and moral" awarded to Sonja Maria hearing in the lower court that its judgment was based on a
Lilius. public document dated May 10, 1931. There is no
explanation as to why it was not presented as evidence
Furthermore it appears in the decision of the trial court in G. along with Exhibits A, B, and C. In their brief in this court,
R. No. 39587 that Aleko E. Lilius claimed the sum of counsel for the Motor Co., Inc., merely assume that its credit
P10,000 as damages on account of the loss of the services is evidenced by a public document dated may 10, 1931,
of Sonja Maria Lilius as secretary and translator, her because the court, in its judgment in said civil case No.
particular work as a member of the conjugal partnership. 41159, refers to a mortgage appearing in the evidence as
The trial court disallowed this claim and neither of the Exhibit A, as the basis of its judgment, without mentioning
plaintiffs in that case appealed to this court. the date of the execution of the exhibit. This reference in
said judgment to a mortgage is not competent or
In view of the foregoing it is held that the sum of P10,000 satisfactory evidence as against third persons upon which
with interest thereon awarded to Sonja Maria Lilius as to base a finding that the Manila Motor Company's credit
damages is paraphernal property. evidenced by a public document within the meaning of
article 1924 of the Civil Code. This court is not authorized to
make use of that judgment as a basis for its findings of fact
The third assignment of error of the appellant Shuman, the
in this proceeding. This is shown by the decision of this court
second assignment of error of the appellant Bank of the
in the case of Martinez vs. Diza 920 Phil., 498). In that
Philippine Islands and the sole assignment of error of the
syllabus of that decision it is stated:
appellant Manila Wine Merchants, Ltd., are overruled.
"1. COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE; JUDGMENT IN
In its first assignment of error it is contended by the Bank of
FORMER CIVIL ACTION AS BASIC FOR FINDINGS OF
the Philippines Islands that by virtue of its writ of
FACT; ERROR.-A person who was not a party to a former
garnishment served on the Manila Railroad Company of
civil action, or who did not acquire his rights from one of the
February 8, 1933, it acquired a lilen superior to the
parties thereto after the entry of judgment therein, is not
bound by such judgment; nor can it be used against him as The remaining portion of the dispositive part of the decision
a basis for the findings of fact in a judgment rendered in a of the trial court is modified as follows:
subsequent action.".
"That from the sum of P13,181.33 pertaining to Aleko E.
But even if the court is authorized to accept the statement Lilius, which is deposited with the clerk of the trial court, the
in that judgment as a basis for its finding of fact in relation following claims shall first be paid:
to this claim, still it would not establish the claim of
preference of the Manila Motor Co., Inc. Granting that a
Dr. W.H. Waterous P1,500.00
mortgage existed between the Manila Motor Co., Inc., and
Aleko E. Lilius, this does not warrant the conclusion that the Dr. M. Marfori 250.00
instrument evidencing that mortgage is a public document
entitled to preference under article 1924 of the Civil Code. Laura Lindley Shuman 661.13
Under section 5 of Act No. 1507 as amended by Act No.
2496, a chattel does not have to be acknowledge before a John R. McFie, Jr. 500.00
notary public. As against creditors and subsequent
encumbrances, the law does require an affidavit of good and the balance of the sum pertaining to Aleko E. Lilius shall
faith appended to the mortgage and recorded with it. (See be divided among the following entities in proportion to their
Giberson vs. A. N. Jureidini Bros., 44 Phil., 216, and Betita respective claims:
vs. Ganzon, 49 Phil., 87.) A chattel mortgage may, however,
be valid as between the parties without such an affidavit of
good faith. In 11 Corpus Juris, 482, the rule is expressly Amount of
stated that as between the parties and as to third persons claim
who have no rights against the mortgagor, no affidavit of Erlanger & Galinger, Inc. P3,672.76
good faith is necessary. It will thus be seen that under the
law, a valid mortgage may exist between the parties without Philippine Education Co., 3,695.20
its being evidenced by a public document. This court would Inc.
not be justified, merely from the reference by the lower court
in that case to a mortgage, in assuming that its date appears Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. 2045.00
in a public document. if the Manila motor Co., Inc., desired Estrella del Norte 2,014.45
to rely upon a public document in the form of a mortgagor
as establishing its preference in this case, it should have Eastern and Philippine 470.38
offered that document in evidence, so that the court might Shipping Agencies, Ltd.
satisfy itself as to its nature and unquestionably fix the date
of its execution. There is nothing either in the judgment
relied upon or in the evidence to show the date of said So ordered without special pronouncement as to costs.
mortgage. The burden was upon the claimant to prove that
it actually had a public Code. It is essential that the nature Malcolm, Villa-Real, Imperial, and Butte, JJ., concur.
and the date of the document be established by competent
evidence before the court can allow a preference as against
the other parties to this proceeding. Inasmuch as the
claimant failed to establish its preference, based on a public
document, the lower court properly held that its claim
against the said Aleko E. Lilius was based on the final
judgment in civil case No. 41159 of the Court of First
Instance of Manila of May 3, 1932. The court, therefore,
committed no error in holding that the claim of the Manila
Motor Co., Inc., was inferior in preference to those of the
appellees in this case.

This appellant's assignments of error are overulled.

In view of the foregoing the following portion of the

dispositive part of the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

"Por estas consideraciones, se ordena y se decreta (a) que

del saldo de P8,219.54, que pertenece a Sonja Maria LIllius
y que se halla depositado en la Escribana del Juzgado, se
pague po el Escribano al Dr. W. H. Waterous la suma de
mil quinientos pesos (P1,500), a Laura L. Shuman,
seiscientos sesenta y un pesos con trece centavos
(P661.13, y al St. Paul's Hospital, quinientos diez y ocho
pesos con diez y ocho centavos (P518.18), y el remanente
de cinco mil cuatrocientos setenta y siete pesos con
veinticuatro centavos (P5,477.24), a Sonja Maria Lililus, o
su apoderado; (b) que del saldo de P4,109.28 que pretence
a Brita Marianne Lilius y que se halla deposito en la
Escribania del Juzgado, se pague por el Escribano a Laura
Shuman, la suma de seicientos sesenta y un pesos con
trece centavos (P661.13); y al St. Paul's Hospital,
quinientos diez y ocho pesos con diez y ocho centavos
(P518.18)y, y el sado de dos mil ochocientos sesenta y
siete pesos con noventa y siete centavos (P2,867.97), a
Brita Marianne Lilius, por conducto de su tutor;".