Remigio Tongson and Dona Marcelina Florentino were husband and wife, the latter dying in the year 1899.  Dona Marcelina Florentino brought to the marriage a considerable amount of property,  part of which  appears in the inventory found on page 8 of  the bill of exceptions.

After  the death of Dona Marcelina Florentino, her husband continued  in  the  administration of the property of the marital relation until on or about  the 30th of  April, 1906, when the Court  of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Sur,  upon the petition of certain  relatives of the deceased Dona Marcelina  Florentino,  appointed Prudencio Espiritu administrator  of her estate and ordered said administrator to take possession  of the  property found in the said  inventory.   The appointment of the  said administrator was opposed in the  Court of First Instance by Remigio Tongson, upon the grounds:

First.  That  he was the husband of Dona Marcelina Florentino  and was, therefore, entitled to  the administration of the marital property; and

Second. That  much of the property  mentioned in said inventory was not  the  sole and separate property of his former wife, but was conjugal property.

Notwithstanding this objection, however, the court appointed the administrator.

During the pendency of the action in  the Court of First Instance, Remigio Tongson died, and the defense was continued by his administrator, Jose Singson  Tongson, who had been duly and regularly appointed by the lower court.

From  the order of the lower court permitting the administrator of the deceased wife to administer the property in question, the defendant appealed and made several  assignments of error in this court.

The important question presented in the record is whether or not, after the death of his wife, a husband can be deprived of the right to administer the marital property,  composed of both conjugal and paraphernal  property,  by the appointment of an administrator for the estate of the deceased wife.

We have already decided in the case  of Alfonso vs. Natividad (6  Phil. Rep., 240)  that  when  the conjugal  partnership is dissolved by the death of the husband, it must be liquidated  in proceedings for the settlement  of the  estate of the  husband,  basing said decision  upon  articles 685 [Code of Civil  Procedure], and 1407, 1412, 1418, 1426, and 1428  of the Civil Code.

In  the case of Prado vs. Lagera (7 Phil. Rep.,  395), the decision in the case of Alfonso vs. Natividad was affirmed and it was there decided that where  the affairs of the conjugal partnership, dissolved by  the death of the husband, are in process  of litigation  in proceedings for the settlement of his estate, the widow can not maintain an action against his administrator for the purpose  of recovering either her part  of the conjugal property or her  bienes parafernales.   (Arts. 1421, 1422,  1423, Civil Code.)

The foregoing cases establish  the  method  of administering the estate of  a conjugal partnership  when  the same is dissolved by the death of the husband.

In the case of Enriquez vs. Victoria (10 Phil. Rep., 10), this court established  the  method of  administering the property of a  conjugal  partnership  when  it  is  dissolved by the death of the  wife.  The method  established is that when a conjugal partnership is dissolved by the  death  of the wife, the husband is the administrator of the affairs of the partnership until they are liquidated.   In the  event of a dissolution by  the  death of  the husband or in  case of the demise of the husband after the  dissolution by the death of the wife, his administrator is also the administrator of the partnership affairs and is the legal representative of the partnership.

In the  case of Amancio vs. Pardo (13 Phil. Rep.,  297), this court again affirmed its former decision and held that:

"When a conjugal partnership is  dissolved  by the  death of the  wife,  the surviving  husband, and not the judicial administrator appointed in  the proceedings for the settlement of the estate, is entitled to the possession of the  property  of the  conjugal  partnership until  he has liquidated its affairs.  It  is  an  error to  settle the  affairs of the conjugal  partnership, dissolved by the death  of  the  wife, in the special proceedings for the settlement of the wife's estate."

These decisions in our opinion are conclusive on the  question presented in the present case.  Therefore  the administrator of the deceased husband, Remigio Tongson, is entitled to the  administration of the conjugal property  until the same is liquidated.   Under the view which we take of the facts in the present case and the doctrine established in the above-cited cases, we deem it unnecessary to discuss  more in detail the assignments of error  made by the appellant.

Basing  our conclusions upon the above decisions of this court, it  is hereby ordered that the appointment of the administrator of the estate of the deceased Dona Marcelina Florentino is hereby  ordered annulled and it is further ordered that the administrator appointed for the estate of the deceased Remigio Tongson, upon giving a sufficient bond to be approved by the lower court, be given the possession of all of the conjugal property belonging to the said conjugal partnership of Remigio Tongson and Dona Marcelina Florentino, and that he be directed to proceed to the liquidation and distribution of said property as speedily as possible.

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

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.