The plaintiff  herein alleged that she, together  with her former husband (now deceased) Paulino Rendon, in the month of July, 1900, sold to  the defendant a parcel of land, with the improvements thereon, located in the municipality of Atimonan in the Province of  Tayabas, for the sum of $1,250 gold,  or  the sum of 2,999  pesos, Mexican currency, the sum of 2,999 pesos, Mexican currency, being the alleged value of the  $1,250 gold at the time  of  the alleged sale.

The plaintiff  admitted that the defendant had  paid on the said contract the  sum of 2,500 pesos, and alleged that there was still  due the sum of 499 pesos.  The plaintiff prayed in her petition that the  contract of sale be declared void for the failure of the  defendant to comply with its terms, and that said property be  returned to her  upon the payment by  her, to the defendant, of the sum which the defendant had actually paid upon the said contract.  To this petition the defendant demurred, which demurrer the court overruled.

Upon the overruling of the demurrer, the  defendant answered denying each and all  of the facts alleged in the complaint and, for a special defense, alleged that the said action was prescribed; that  the plaintiff had no interest in  the litigation of the question presented, and  that  she  signed the contract of purchase simply as the wife  of Paulino Rendon; that he had never entered into a contract with the plaintiff  for the purchase of the land in question.

The lower court, after hearing the evidence adduced during the trial  of the cause, said:

"The  undisputed  testimony shows that Paulino Rendon, with his wife, the plaintiff in this case, sold a house and lot in Atimonan for $1,250, gold coin of the United States, that being in circulation at the time.   When the contract of sale came  to be drawn up and signed, to insure the payment in gold the consideration was made 2,999 pesos.

"It is  admitted that  only 2,500 pesos was paid on this sale, but it is insisted that silver being worth at that time 2 pesos for  one gold dollar, that the obligation  was discharged.  This could not have been the agreement  or the reasonable construction of it, or 2,999 pesos would not have been named as the consideration in the written  contract of sale.

"It is  urged  that this plaintiff can  not  recover, because this amount  of 499 pesos, if due any one, is  due the  estate of the deceased Paulino Rendon, and that only his administrator could  maintain a suit for the amount.

"I can not agree with this theory of the plaintiff.  It was the undisputed proof that she and her husband acquired the property long after their marriage in  1881; she is the absolute owner of one-half of the property under the law, and if there is no administration of her husband's estate this can not debar her of her right to recover her part of the estate.

"The children of the deceased Paulino Rendon may or may not be of age and may not wish to join in  this suit.    They are not parties to this suit and do not ask  for an adjudication of their rights, but the plaintiff does.  I am  of the opinion that she has a  legal right to recover  one-half of the  amount  contracted  by the defendant to pay for the house, if not paid in $1,250 gold coin, less the 2,500 pesos, paid on the  contract price.

"Therefore it  is  the order and judgment of this court that the  plaintiff recover of the defendant 249.50 pesos, with interest at 6 per cent per annum, from this date, until paid, and the costs of this suit."

From this judgment of the lower court the defendant appealed and made the following assignments of error:

First. That the lower court committed an error in conceding to the plaintiff, in  his sentence, a remedy which was not prayed  for in the complaint.

Second. That the lower court committed an error in holding that the plaintiff was  the proper person to maintain the action in  question.

With reference to the first assignment of error it will be noted that the plaintiff prayed that the contract of purchase be declared null  and that the property be returned to  her upon her  returning to the defendant the amount of money which  the defendant had already paid upon said contract.

The lower court rendered  a  judgment in favor of  the plaintiff for one-half of  the unpaid purchase  price.  The question presented  in the petition was not even discussed by the lower court, to wit: the right of the plaintiff to have the contract declared null and the property in  question returned to her.   The court, in rendering its decision, ought to have limited itself to the issues presented by the parties in their pleadings.

With reference to the  second assignment of error,  the defendant and appellant,  relying upon section 685 of  the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, contends that the plaintiff was without authority to maintain the present action.
Said section 685 provides as follows:

"Community property. - One-half  the community property, as determined by the law in force in the Philippine Islands  before the 13th day of August, 1898, belonging to a husband and wife, shall be deemed to belong to the deceased husband or  wife, and  shall be  inventoried and accounted for, and distributed as a part of the estate, in  the same manner as all other property belonging to the estate."

This section has already been interpreted by this court in the case of Alfonso vs. Natividad (6 Phil. Rep., 240).  In that case it was said (p. 243):

"This section can not be so construed as to require one-half of the property of the conjugal partnership to be inventoried as the exclusive property  of the deceased spouse before any settlement  of the affairs of the  partnership. Such a construction would be in direct violation of the law, which requires that the partnership property be used to pay its debts, and provides that one-half of the net proceeds only belong to each spouse.  (Art. 1426, Civil Code.)   This section (685) must mean that when the partnership affairs have been settled, and all  its  debts  and obligations discharged, then one-half of the net proceeds shall be considered as the exclusive property  of the deceased spouse."

By the provisions of the new  Code of Civil Procedure, in the settlement of the estates of deceased persons, it is necessary to appoint commissioners, before whom the creditors of the deceased must present their claims, within a time  fixed by the court.

The husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership (art. 1412, Civil Code).  Debts contracted during this administration by the husband are payable out of the conjugal partnership property  (art.  1422,  Civil Code).  The amount of the conjugal property to  be distributed can not, therefore, be determined until after the debts are paid.  The surviving spouse can not claim one-half of the conjugal property until  after the  liquidation of  the debts.   While the proportion of the participation  of the surviving spouse in the conjugal property is fixed by law, the amount can not be determined until after the debts are paid.

It is true, under the provisions of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, that the heirs, if adults, may agree  upon a division  of the estate (sec. 596, Code of Procedure)  by assuming the payment of the  debts, if any, against the estate.   Until it  appears that  the  heirs have by mutual agreement among themselves agreed to a  division of the estate,  assuming thereby the obligation to pay the debts, the wife, no more than any of  the other  heirs, has a right to  sue  for her  participation  in  the  conjugal  property. Unless the adult heirs agree to a division of the  inheritance,  the estate must be administered  in accordance with law, by the appointment of an administrator,  and by  the appointment of commissioners  to hear claims against  the estate.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore declared to be of  no effect and the cause  is  hereby remanded to  the lower  court with direction that such steps be taken as may be  necessary for the proper division or  administration of the estate of Paulino Rendon.

Without any finding as to costs, it is so  ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.