SOLLA v.

ASCUETA
G.R. No. 24955
September 4 1926
Julian
Solla
et
al
petitioners
responden Ursula Ascueta et al

Villa-Real

Hermosisima

ts
summary I apologize in advance for the crazy digest since the case was badly written.

Maria Solla died, leaving some legacies and appointing her grandson, Leandro
Serrano as the universal heir. Her orders were for Leandro to deliver the
legacies during his lifetime as well as to give sufficient amounts of money to
the church for prayers and novenas every year. Said will also contained orders
to Leandro to order the latters heirs to fulfill her orders as well. Leandro
occupied the properties left by Maria without any of the legatees filing a case
for partition or distribution for such a long time (39 years to be exact). Leandro
died, stating in his will that his heirs should still fulfill Marias orders. Now the
relatives of some of the legatees filed a case for delivery of their ancestors
legacies. The RTC sided with them, holding that the action has not prescribed
and that Leandros orders to his relatives to comply with Maria Sollas order
meant that they should deliver the legacies. SC reversed the RTC. 1 st, the RTC
clearly disregarded an Exhibit (which the counsels of both sides agreed to
submit) showing that the legatees renounced their rights to the estate. Add to
that the fact that Leandro was occupying to the exclusion of the whole world, in
the concept of an owner, the properties for 39 years= action prescribed. Lastly,
the Court held that the provision in Leandros will pointing to Maria Sollas will
about the relatives complying with her order must be interpreted to mean only
those orders which Leandro could not do during his lifetime. In interpreting a
will, to determine the intention of the testator, her circumstance during the
time she made the will must be taken into consideration. Lastly, when the
intention of the testator is manifest in writing but the words are ambiguous,
then the words have to give way to the intention such that the courts should
limit the words to make way for intention.

facts of the case

-

Dona Maria Solla died in June 1883 in the municipality of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, leaving a
will executed in accordance with the laws in force, but which has not been probated. It
named as legatees:
o Sergio Solla
o Cayetano Solla
o Josefa Solla
o Jacinto Serna
o Roesnda Lagmay
o Silvestra Sajor and Matias Seveda
o Leandro Serrano (her grandson) as universal heir
The legatees did not claim their legacies during the lifetime of Serrano, who was taking
possession of the properties (June 11 1883 to August 5 1921). Neither was there any
testamentary proceeding instituted for the settlement of the estate left. Serrano on the
other hand did not deliver anything
Plaintiffs Julia Solla, Ambrosio Lagmay, Lucia Solla etc are the heirs of some of the original
legatees (Silvestra Sajor and Rosenda Lagmay)
1

Defendants on the other hand are heirs of Leandro Serrano. The facts as stated above are
because of the stipulation of facts signed by the parties
RTC rendered a judgment, ordering the partition of the land being held by the Serranos in
order that the legacies may be delivered. It also ordered the delivery of cash and other
property. Thus this appeal, raising:
o 1) Lack of appropriate description of each parcel of land claimed is a bar to the
action
o 2) The RTC made a mistake in allowing the attorneys of both parties t0 agree about
Exhibit A (statements of the estate left by Maria) when it did not even state a
description of the land being claimed by plaintiffs
o 3) The action has already prescribed
o 4) Paragraph 3 of Leandro Serranos will did not order the delivery of the legacies
left by Maria Solla in her will. RTC erred in applying Leandro Serranos will to mean
that every legacy found in Maria Sollas will is ordered delivered. A distinction
should be made between those which Leandro shouldve done on his own and those
which his heirs are still obligated to do

issue

Whether weather yes or no question. YES OR NO PARA KITA AGAD.

ratio

1st and 2nd arguments:

- While Exhibit A did in fact contain some lands which are proven to be Leandro Serranos
own, it does not mean that the other parcels in said Exhibit are not those left by the
deceased
3rd Issue
- First off, the SC found it error on the part of the trial court to disregard the other exhibitis
which the parties agreed to submit to the court. Most relevant of these is Exhibit 4 which is
the record of proceedings in the municipality of Cabugao where, upon the instance of
Leandro Serrano, a formal renunciation of the legacies was made by the legatees in Maria
Sollas will
- In addition to that, Leandro was in possession of the property from June 11 1883 to August
5 1921. He even obtained a possessory information, registered in the Registry of Deeds,
exclusively enjoyed the products of the properties without anyone judicially or
extrajudicially claiming a title to anything
- In one of the possessory information filed by Serrano, one of the legatees even testified in
support of the petitions
- Thus, under Articles 1940 and 1957 of the Civil Code, in addition to the Code of Civil
Procedure, the plaintiffs have lost by prescription whatever right of ownership they have
had to the same because of Serranos exclusive, open, peaceful and continuous
possession which was adverse to all the world for a period of 39 years under
claim of ownership.
5th issue
- Maria Solla, in her will, ordered her grandson Leando Serrano to beher universal heir and
to strictly comply with her orders and requests in her will.
- In his last will on the other hand, Leandro Serrano ordered his son, as executor to separate
all of his property that came from his grandmom and to comply with her orders.
- What are the requests that Maria Solla wanted to be complied with?
o 1st there is the distribution of the legacies
2

2nd is the delivery of a sufficient sum of money to the parish of Cabugao for the
annual novena
o 3rd that Leandro order his heirs to comply as well with her orders
Now, all that Leandro could have and should have done was to deliver the legacies and
order his relatives to comply with the wishes of his grandmother.
What then are Leandros heirs liable for? It is not logical to conclude that Maria Solla
intended that all the orders should be complied with by the heirs of Leandro. That was why
she chose Leandro, because the trusted him to do her wishes during his lifetime. The only
obligation left for the heirs to do is to regularly give money to the parish of Cabugao.
In order to determine the testators intention, the court should place itself as near as
possible in his position. Where the language of the will is ambiguous or doubtful,
the court should take into consideration the situation of the testator and the
facts and circumstances surrounding him at the time the will was executed.
Where the testators intention is manifest in his will but is obscured by the
mode of expression, the language will be subordinated to the intention and in
order to give effect to such intention, the court may depart from the strict
wording
Thus, in this case, it clearly appears that Maria Solla meant that Leandro
Serranos heirs only comply with the pious orders. Her statement in the will
therefore all that I have ordered as well as the statement in Leandros will
saying all her orders must be limited to the pious orders.
o