In the absence of summons and severance, all defendants
against.whom a decree in an equity suit is entered must join in the
appeal.
Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U.
S. 179.
In a suit coming from a territory, this Court is not inclined to
overthrow the assumptions of the trial court in regard to matters
controlled by the local law, and so held in affirming a judgment in
a case coming from Porto Rico involving questions of inheritance
and prescription.
Quaere as to the effect of Article 811 of the Civil
Code of Porto Rico, requiring, an ascendant inheriting property
under certain conditions
Page 216 U. S. 599
to reserve the property in favor of relatives belonging to the
line from which the property originally came, as to property
inherited before the adoption of the article by one dying after its
adoption still possessed of the property.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are cross-appeals in a proceeding brought by Monserrate
and Dominga Garcia, two sisters of Manuel Garcia Maytin, and by
another plaintiff now dropped out, to establish their rights in
property descended from the said Manuel Garcia. The claim is
founded upon Article 811 of the former Civil Code, of which the
following is the War Department translation:
"The ascendant who inherits property from his descendant,
acquired by the latter for a good consideration from another
descendant [ascendant] or from a brother or sister, is obliged to
reserve the property he may have acquired by force of law in favor
of the relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from
which such property originated."
The following is the course of the property concerned:
1. Complainants' brother, Manuel Garcia Maytin. Died intestate
in 1886, succeeded by
2. His daughter, Mrs. Beatriz Garcia de Ibarra, as sole heir.
Died intestate and without descendants 1891, succeeded by
3. Her mother, Mrs. Beatriz Alos, widow of Manuel Garcia Maytin,
as sole heir. Died, 1904, leaving a will, devising to
Page 216 U. S. 600
4. Her mother, Beatriz de los Angeles, and nephews and nieces,
who, with Vela, the executor of the will, and with purchasers from
Mrs. Beatriz Alos, are the defendants.
It will be seen that (3) Mrs. Beatriz Alos was an ascendant who
inherited from her descendant (2), Mrs. Beatriz Garcia, property
acquired by the latter from the ascendant (1) her father.
Therefore, the devisees of Mrs. Beatriz Alos would be postponed by
the law just quoted in favor of the relatives within the third
degree, who are the two sisters bringing this complaint.
The Supreme Court of Porto Rico, in a very lucid and persuasive
opinion, established the position of the plaintiffs and answered
the objections urged by the defense. It was shown that, as Mrs.
Beatriz Alos (3) inherited all the property of her daughter (2) as
sole heir, notwithstanding the fact that the husband of the latter
had the usufruct of one third for life, the obligation extended to
all the property so inherited, being the same property that the
daughter had inherited from her father, she not appearing to have
had any other estates with insignificant exceptions. It was shown
further that the obligation of Mrs. Beatriz Alos and Mrs. Beatriz
de los Angeles was not affected by the failure of the plaintiffs
and others to make it appear in the registry that the property was
subject to be reserved. Mortgage law, Art.199. That section was not
the source of the plaintiffs' rights, but only a means of securing
them against
bona fide purchasers. It did not extinguish
their rights as against the relatives under Art. 811 of the Civil
Code, in case of neglect. Finally, a satisfactory answer was given
to the argument that the plaintiffs were barred by prescription,
under an order of the military government of Porto Rico, published
on April 4, 1899, by which the Civil Code, Art.1957, was amended so
that ownership should prescribe by possession for six years with
good faith and a proper title. The daughter died in 1891, and her
mother recorded her title in the registry and held from 1891 to her
death, in 1904. But it was replied that,
Page 216 U. S. 601
in the first place, prescription had not been pleaded, and was
not open, and, secondly, that Art. 1957, and therefore the
amendment, referring to prescription to acquire ownership, coexists
with Art.1963, which fixes a term of thirty years for the
prescription by which ownership of real property is lost through a
failure to bring a real action, and that in this case the
prescription relied upon (and, we may add, probably the only one
that could have been relied upon) was that resulting from the
plaintiffs not having sued.
For these reasons the supreme court affirmed a judgment of the
district court, condemning the defendants to deliver to the
plaintiffs certain specified land, or, where the same had been
sold, the value of the same, to be ascertained by appraisement,
with the costs in the district court. The defendant, Mrs. Beatriz
de los Angeles, appealed, her appeal being number 245 in this
Court, but, as the other defendants did not join in the appeal, and
there was no summons and severance, not to speak of other possible
objections, the appeal must be dismissed.
Hardee v.
Wilson, 146 U. S. 179. We
therefore go no farther on this part of the case than to give the
foregoing brief summary of an argument from which we see no reason
to dissent.
The plaintiffs also appeal, and this makes it necessary to
mention one or two facts not noticed thus far. On the death of
Manuel Garcia, his widow, in the course of proceedings for the
settlement of his estate, filed what seems to have been called a
petition for partition, admitting, however, that there were no
properties belonging to the conjugal partnership. An auditor was
appointed and he prepared schedules of assets and liabilities, of
the portion of assets distributed to the widow for the payment of
such liabilities, and of the remainder awarded to the daughter and
sole heir; this last consisting of two parcels of land and some
personalty of small value. Thereupon the partition was closed. The
judgment appealed from gave the plaintiffs only the land inherited
by the mother from the daughter and included in the
last-mentioned
Page 216 U. S. 602
schedule. The plaintiffs set up that the partition proceedings
were void upon their face for several reasons, and that they
therefore are entitled to all the property that Manuel Garcia
left.
The local courts answered this claim by saying that, if there
were otherwise any foundation for it, it is barred by the
limitation of four years set to rescissory actions and actions for
nullity by Arts. 1076 and 1301 of the Civil Code. For, in the first
place, neither the daughter nor her husband, Mr. Ibarra, ever took
any steps to set the partition aside, and it is plausible to say
that the plaintiffs claim by inheritance from her, since, if she
had left descendants, the property would have gone from her to
them. Hence, notwithstanding the daughter's inability to cut the
plaintiffs off in the event that happened, it is questionable, at
least, whether they are not barred by what barred her. In the next
place, the plaintiffs took no steps after the daughter's death,
during the whole lifetime and occupation of her mother, from 1891
to 1904. Even if, as the plaintiffs say, their right would have
been divested by their death during the life of the mother, Mrs.
Beatriz Alos (3), it seems to have vested at the death of the
daughter, Mrs. Beatriz Garcia (2). We are not prepared to overthrow
the assumption made by the court, whose experience in such
questions is entitled to much consideration (
Armijo v.
Armijo, 181 U. S. 558,
181 U. S. 561;
Albright v. Sandoval, Feb. 21, 1910,
ante, p.
216 U. S. 331),
that the plaintiffs had a sufficient interest to entitle them to
bring an action to set aside the so-called partition on the
daughter's death, and that, on their failing to do so, the right to
dispute the same was barred by lapse of time.
If the partition stands, the other questions argued, as to
purchasers from the mother, Mrs. Beatriz Alos, etc., need no
further answer. We deem it proper to add one remark. Article 811
created the right by which the plaintiffs recover. It did not go
into effect until after the death of Manuel Garcia, so that it
would seem to have been open to argument that
Page 216 U. S. 603
his daughter inherited his property by an absolute title which
that law should not be construed to have disturbed. But, as it did
go into effect before the daughter's death, and as it has been
assumed on all hands that that moment was the decisive one, we have
made the same assumption under the circumstances and for the
purposes of this case. It seems to us, however, that the plaintiffs
have reason to be satisfied with retaining what they got by the
judgment below.
No. 90.
Judgment affirmed.
No. 245.
Appeal dismissed.