Alunan vs VelosoThis case deals with an account filed in these intestate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Rosendo Hernaez by hisjudicial administrator, Rafael Alunan, and approved by the court below. Jose Hernaez, one of the heirs interested in this proceedings, assignedthe whole of his portion to leuteria !h. "eloso, and the latter objects to some of the items of the account filed, assigning four errors to theresolution of the court below.#ne of the alleged errors is made to consist in the lower court having admitted the partition proposed by the administrator in his account.According to this account, the total amount to be partitioned among the heirs is $%%,&'&.(%, which the administrator distributed e)ually amongall the heirs, including the widow*s, each one receiving $++,+,,.-%.This partition with respect to the widow is being objected. .t is alleged that the distributed amount is in money, and since the widow*s right isonly a usufruct, and as there can be no usufruct of money, since it is a fungible thing, the adjudication made to the widow was erroneous. .t isincorrect to say that there can be no usufruct of money, because it is a fungible thing /art. 0%,, !ivil !ode1..t is li2ewise alleged, that, at any rate, this amount which should go to the widow should be offset by the $33,((( which she has alreadyreceived as a pension. 4either do we find any ground for this error, since, according to the agreement of the heirs already referred to, herportion in the inheritance either wholly or in part.5astly, it is alleged, that the portion given to the widow is not in accordance with law. 6e find the objection with respect to this point to becorrect. The widow, according to the law, only has a right to a portion of the estate e)ual to that of the legitime of each of the children withoutbetterment. .n the instant case none of the children received a betterment. !onse)uently, the widow should receive a portion e)ual to the shareof each in the two7thirds of the distributable amount ma2ing up the legitime, to be ta2en from the one7third forming the betterment. Then, theother free third, which the decedent failed to dispose of, must be partitioned among the heirs to the e8clusion of the widow, as an addition totheir legitime. 6or2ing out the computations on this basis, the widow should receive only $%,0'0.+&.Therefore, it being understood that there be eliminated from the decision the holding that the Panaogao Hacienda, which was adjudged to theappellant, should answer for the amount of $,(,((( as a lien in favor of Rafael Alunan should the latter be ordered to pay it in civil case 4o.9-&+ of the !ourt of :irst .nstance of .loilo, and it being further understood that the widow*s portion is only $%,0'0.+&, the remainder of the$%%,&'&.(% which is distributable, pertaining to the heirs, share and share ali2e, e8cluding the widow, the judgment appealed from is affirmed,without special pronouncement as to costs. ;o ordered.G.R. No. L-29158December 29, 1928Estateof thedeceasedRosendoHernaez. RAAELR.AL!NAN, administrator-appellee, vs.ELE!"ER#A $H. %EL&'&, opponent-appellant.Hipolito Alo for appellant.R. Nolan for appellee. A%AN$E(A, C. J.:This case deals with anaccount filedintheseintestateproceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceasedRosendo Hernaez by his judicial administrator, RafaelAlunan, andapprovedbythecourt below. oseHernaez,one of the heirs interested in this proceedings, assigned thewholeofhis portion to !leuteria "h.#eloso, and thelatterobjects to some of the items of the account filed, assigningfour errors to the resolution of the court below.$nthefirstplace,it isallegedthatthelowercourterredinimposing a preferred lien of %&',()*.)* upon thePanaogaoHacienda, adjudicated to the appellant !leuteria "h. #eloso.+eforethepartition, oseHernaezleasedsaid%anaogaoHaciendafor two harveststhe stipulated rent being &' percent of all the sugar to be produced thereon, provided,however, that he shouldpay at least&' per cent of ),,,,,even if the production should fall below this amount. -uringthe two years ose Hernaez produced less than ),,,,piculs, andonly&'per cent of what hedidproducewascollected from him as rent, thus leaving him indebted in anamount e.ualto the difference between &' per cent of thesugar he produced, and &' per cent of ),,,, piculs which hehad to pay at least. The %&',()*.)* to which the first errorrefers is the value of this difference and is therefore a legaldebt of oseHernaez/stransmittedtotheappellant, andaffecting here participation in the intestate estate. Accordingto an agreement previously entered into by and between theheirs, the share belonging or which may belong to each heirshall be liable and subject to a lien in favor of all the heirs forany account or debt pending which the heirs may owe to theintestate estate.This first error then is not well grounded.1awphi1.netAs to the second error, which is made to consist in the lowercourt havingheldthat thesumof %',,,,,isanotherlienupon the said Panaogao Hacienda, in favor of theadministrator Rafael Alunan, should the latter be ordered topaythat sumincivil case0o. (*1&of the"ourt of 2irst$nstance of $loilo, 3r. Alunan is agreeable that this holding beeliminated from the judgment appealed from.The third error refers to the sum of %'4,11&.4' as attorney/sfees and compensation of the administrators who too5 partin this proceeding. This amount, it is alleged, is e6cessive. $tappearsthat agreat part of thesefeeswerepaidtooseHernaez himself, the appellant/s predecessor in interest, andmostof thesefees, as wellas of the attorney/s fees,havealreadybeenapprovedbythecourt below. At all events,since it has been found necessary to employ several lawyersandmorethanoneadministrator inthisproceeding, andta5ing into account the unusual amount of the interestsinvolved, we find no merit in the objection to this item of theaccount.The fourth error is made to consist in the lower court havingadmittedthepartitionproposedbytheadministratorinhisaccount.Accordingtothisaccount, thetotal amount tobepartitioned among the heirs is %)),171.,), which theadministrator distributed e.ually among all the heirs,including the widow/s each one receiving %&&,&''.*).Thispartitionisobject towithrespect tothewidow. $t isallegedthat thedistributedamount isinmoney,andsincethe widow/s right is only a usufruct, and as there can be nousufruct of money, since it is a fungible thing, theadjudication made to the widow was erroneous. $t isincorrect tosaythat therecanbenousufruct of money,because it is a fungible thing 8art. 4)', "ivil "ode9.$t isli5ewisealleged, that, at anyrate, thisamount whichshouldgotothewidowshouldbeoffset bythe%::,,,,which she has already received as a pension. 0either do wefind any ground for this error, since, according to theagreement of the heirs already referred to, her portion in theinheritance either wholly or in part.;astly, it is alleged, that the portion given to the widow is notin accordance with law.