CHIONG JOC-SOY, petitioner-appellant, vs. JAIME VAO, ET AL.,respondents-appellantsG.R. No. L-3459. March 22, 1907

FACTS:

Genoveva Rosales, a resident of Cebu, made her will on the 26th day of October, 1903. The third clause is in part as follows:"3. Of the third part of the estate, which is at my free disposal, I bequeath to the Chinaman Chiong Joc-Soy, the sum of 50,000 pesos, Mexican currency, of which amount 20,000 pesos are for the aforesaid Chiong Joc-Soy, and the balance of 30,000 pesos for the expenses of interment etc. of my late husband Don Nicasio Veloso, . . ." The rest of her property, which amounted in all to upward of 800,000pesos, she left to her children. After her death the will was presented for probate in CFI Cebu and was duly proved and allowed on the 24th of November, 1903, and an administrator with the will annexed was appointed. he was allowed one year from the 24th of November, 1903, in which to pay the debts and legacies of the deceased. On the 6th of February, 1905, the petitioner, Chiong Joc-Soy, filed a petition in the said proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased, Genoveva Rosales, asking that the administrator be directed to pay him the 50,000 pesos mentioned in the will. An order was made by consent on the 28th of February, 1905, directing the administrator to pay to the petitioner the 20,000 pesos expressed in the first part of the legacy. As to the remainder, the court, on the 6th day of May, 1906, made another ordering the administrator to pay the 30,000 pesos with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the date of presentation of the claim, rom the 6th of February, 1905.

ISSUE: W/N the court erred in ordering the payment of interest from the date of the presentation of the petition

HELD: No. article 884 provides: "If the bequest should not be of a specific and determined thing, but generic or of quantity, its fruits and interest from the death of the testator shall belong to the legatee if the testator should have expressly so ordered."In this case the while testatrix did not expressly provide that the legatee should be entitled to interest from her death, the legatee is entitled to interest from the date of his demand for payment.judgment of the court below is affirmed________________________

In re Estate of the late Mrs. R. H. Frankel, PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, administrator-appellee, vs. CLARA WEBBER ET AL., appellants. FREMA FISCHLER, appellee.G.R. No. 34480. February 16, 1932.

FACTS: appeal has been taken from an order of the CFI Manila regarding the estate of the late Mrs. Frankel the last opposition was filed by Frema Fischler, who claims the legal interest upon her legacy of P10,000. It is argued that since this sum of money has been in the administrator's hands for many years, this legatee is entitled to the legal interest upon it from the time of the testatrix's death

ISSUE: W/N the legacy of Frema Fischler is entitled to earn legal interest.

HELD: NO.While it is true that under article 882 of the Civil Code the legacy of a specific determinate thing vests in the legatee upon the testator's death, as well as any pending fruits or income, inasmuchas we are here concerned with a generic or a so-called legacy of quantity, article 884 of the Code must be applied, which provides that interest from the time of the testator's death shall be given the legatee if the testator's death shall be given the legatee if the testator has expressly so provided.With reference to the present opponent, it appears that the testatrix has not clearly and expressly provided for the payment of the interest upon the P10,000 legacy; according to the last-named article it is clear that the opponent is not entitled to the interest claimed. In Fuentes vs . Canon and Chiong Joc-Soy vs. Vao the Supreme Courtruled that generic legacies or legacies of quantity, like the one adjudicated to the opponent, do not draw legal interest until a demand is made for them: and a legacy cannot be legally demanded before the scheme of partition is duly approved by the probate court. And in the case cited by counsel for Fred Frankel (Ongpin vs. Rivera, 44 Phil., 808), the Supreme Court held that a cash legacy does not earn interest until the person bound to deliver it inthis case the judicial administrator is in default. The administrator in the present case is not in default, for the scheme of partition not only has notyet been approved, but is actually the subject matter of many oppositions filed by the legatees and the heir.Order appealed from AFFIRMED.