Martinez v. Martinez (Case on Prodigality)

Facts: Pedro Martinez Ilustre brought an action against his father Francisco for a declaration of prodigality against him.  Pedro alleges that his father has been dissipating and squandering his estate by making donations to his 2nd wife, as well as the administration of his estate.  The father denied such allegations, instead he posted that his son was actually mismanaging and misappropriating the property of the estate.

Issue: What constitutes prodigality?

Held: Since prodigality is not defined in our law, it may be inferred that the acts of prodigality must show a morbid state of bind and a disposition to spend, waste, and lessen the estate to such an extent as is likely to expose the family to want of support, or to deprive the forced heirs of their undisposable part of the estate.  The testimony of the plaintiff was insufficient to support his allegations against his father.  There was no evidence to show his father has been transferring by sale or mortgage any property, which will reflect in the city record of public deeds.  The court found the defendant is far from being prodigal, and is still in the full exercise of his faculties and still possess the industry, thrift and ability in managing the estate.