This action is for  the  liquidation  and partition of the property belonging  to the  conjugal  partnership of the spouses Claro  Patricio and  Cecilia  Rivera who died on January  3,  1916.

In the year 1914,  the deceased Cecilia Rivera had commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila an action for the liquidation and separation of the property belonging to her and to her husband, the  herein defendant, as ganancial property; but that action was dismissed in 1916 on account of the death of the said Cecilia Rivera.

In 1923,  Josefa Patricio, the only surviving child of the spouses, Rivera and Patricio,  brought this action.  She died on July 5, 1924, and was substituted by her minor children Pablo, Gerundia, Carmen, and Rosa  Rivera and  Rosario Patricio, all represented  by their  guardian  ad litem appointed by the court; so that the question now pending is between grandchildren and grandfather.

On January 8, 1924, the defendant made the liquidation, as ordered  by the lower court, from which it appeared that there was a balance of P384.75 in favor of the defendant. This liquidation having been objected to by the plaintiffs, the parties introduced their evidence as to the conjugal property that should have been included in the liquidation and the court rendered judgment sentencing the defendant  to pay the plaintiffs the sum of  P12,868 with  legal interest thereon from January 6,  1923, the date of the filing of the complaint,  plus the costs.

From this judgment both parties  appealed. Plaintiffs  claim  that the total  value of  the conjugal partnership property in question exceeds P148,340.75; on the other hand the defendant  maintains that at the time of the dissolution of the conjugal partnership between him and his deceased spouse Cecilia Rivera there did not even exist the sum  of P26,921.69 left, as  stated in the liquidation made  by the lower court in its judgment.

The trial court, in discussing the evidence presented in this case, says in part in its decision the following:  "The great amount of oral and documentary evidence introduced by both parties during the trial of this case shows that the defendant acquired many valuable properties, immovables and cash, after becoming a widower and  his marriage with the deceased Cecilia Rivera having been dissolved.   Inasmuch as the plaintiffs have not succeeded in proving  that said properties have been  acquired with money belonging to the conjugal partnership,  the court  cannot hold  that such properties  belonged to the  conjugal partnership nor. that the plaintiffs are entitled thereto."

We agree with this holding of the trial court, except as to the properties to be later enumerated, which must belong to the conjugal partnership formed by the  deceased Cecilia Rivera and the defendant.

The liquidation of  the conjugal partnership  property must  be made in accordance with the provisions of articles 1418  to 1431 of the Civil Code.   (Tabotabovs.. Molero, 22 Phil., 418.)

In the case of De la Rama vs.. De la Rama (7 Phil., 745), this court held:

"In liquidating a conjugal partnersnip an inventory of the actual property possessed by the spouses at the time of the dissolution must be made.   It is error to determine the amount to be  divided by adding  up the  profits which had been made in each year of its continuance and saying that the result is that amount."

Under the above cited doctrine the  amounts mentioned in the appealed judgment, to wit, the P6,000 deposited by the defendant with the Bank  of the Philippine Islands on January 20, 1913; the P3,000 deposited by the defendant on  November  29, 1915,  with the same  bank;  and the P13,621.69  deposited by the  defendant  in the  Monte de Piedad  on several occasions from January 1,  1905, to  January  1,  1916, should  not be included in the liquidation for the reason that they did not exist at the time of the dissolution of the partnership, which occurred on January 3,1916.   It is true that the said sums of P6,000 and P3,000 were deposited by the defendant with the Bank of the Philippine Islands on the dates Aforementioned, but it appears that said sums were withdrawn from that Bank by the said defendant in the months of January and  February, 1914. It is  also true that the defendant at different times has made deposits with the  Monte de  Piedad, but  from  the evidence of the plaintiffs, it appears that on December 31, 1915, the defendant had  only a balance of P16.40 in the said Monte de Piedad, as on previous occasions he had made several  withdrawals;  so  that  the amount of P13,621.69 stated in the  judgment  should not  be included  in the liquidation.

As to the  amount  of P3,500, it appears from Exhibit G, that the defendant withdrew this sum from his account in the Bank of the Philippine Islands and placed it in the name of Asuncion Bautista y de Leon on February 24, 1914.  This transfer of the amount of P3,500 to Asuncion Bautista,  who is now the defendant's second  wife, made four months before the filing of the  original complaint for liquidation and partition of the conjugal property in question, is considered by us as made in fraud of  the defendant's first wife, who under the law was entitled to one-half of the conjugal  property, for as alleged in the complaint of 1914 at folio 263, second part of the record, the said defendant was  at that time  living  with the  aforesaid Asuncion Bautista, having abandoned his first wife Cecilia Rivera.   This amount  of  P3,500 must also be  included in the liquidation of the said conjugal property.

Plaintiffs maintain that the cabaret known as  La Casta Susana which was sold by the defendant to the National Amusement Co., Inc., for the price of F36,000 belongs also to the conjugal  partnership  of  Cecilia Hivera and Claro Patricio.   The parties introduced evidence about this point. Plaintiffs presented Exhibit Q, which contains the deed of purchase and sale of January 7,  1920, the deed  of sale executed by Claro Patricio on November 8, 1919, and the testimony of Claro Patricio.   On the other hand  the defendant introduced Exhibits, 9, 10, 10-A and 11 to 15 inclusive with which he  pretends  to  prove that the said cabaret was owned by Monico Salazar.  We have carefully examined all this evidence and our conclusion is that the said cabaret known as La Costa Susana was the property of the defendant since the year 1915; wherefore it  belongs to the conjugal partnership of himself and the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs.  In the deed of sale which he executed in favor of  the National Amusement  Co., Inc., the defendant clearly and  unconditionally stated that he possessed the building covered by the sale, and that it belonged to him since 1915, when he had it built, according to the testimony that the very defendant gave in court in a case concerning the rental of the furniture existing in the said cabaret.  After having admitted in court that he was the owner of said cabaret which he had constructed in 1915, he cannot now be heard to contradict his own testimony, by saying that the said cabaret belongs to  Monico Salazar.

The defendant having  admitted that he was the owner of the cabaret since 1915, the evidence presented by him to the effect that the said cabaret now belongs to Monico Salazar cannot have any weight so as to destroy the evidentiary value  of his admission,  which writers call the  queen of evidence. It appearing  from the record that he has sold to the National  Amusement Co., Inc., the cabaret in question for the sum of P36,000, this amount must be included in the liquidation as a part of the  property of the conjugal partnership acquired  by  him  and the  deceased  Cecilia Rivera.

Plaintiffs also claim that the value of the furniture in the cabaret belonged,  at the time of the sale, to the conjugal partnership in question.  For the same reason that the defendant has admitted that he was the owner  of such furniture since 1915, and that the value thereof is P4,000, this amount must be included in the  liquidation  now in question.   (See testimony of  defendant attached to Exhibit Q.)

Another item that should be included in the liquidation is the amount  of P800,  the price of property No. 547 on Calle Sevilla, which amount is mentioned in the liquidation Exhibit 4 filed by the defendant and which may  be seen at page 71 of the first part of the  record.   It, therefore, results from the foregoing that the  amounts  that must be included in the liquidation of  the partnership of Cecilia Rivera and the defendant are: P800, P3,500  and  P36,000, that is, a total of P40,300.  Deducting from this  amount the sum of P1,184.75, being' the expenses of support and education of the mother of the plaintiffs, Josefa Patricio, as shown by Exhibit 4, and also the amount of P2,000 that the  defendant  paid  to the broker  for selling the  Costa Susana  Cabaret, there remains a  balance of P37,115.25, one-half of which or P18,557.62 belongs to the plaintiffs, and the other half to the defendant.

For all of the foregoing the judgment appealed  from is affirmed in so far as is in harmony, and reversed in so far as  in conflict,  herewith, and  it is  ordered  that  the  defendant Claro Patricio be and is hereby sentenced to pay plaintiffs the amount of P18,557.62 with legal interest thereon  from the filing of the complaint without  special pronouncement as to  costs.   So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J.,   Johnson,  Street,  Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ.,  concur.