Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
493
SECOND DIVISION.
494
494
1/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
grantors nearest male relative living at the time of his death and
not any indefinite time thereafter.We hold that the said bequest
refers to the testators nearest male relative living at the time of
his death and not to any indefinite time thereafter. In order to be
capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or legatee must be living
at the moment the succession opens, except in case of
representation, when it is proper. The said testamentary
provisions should be sensibly or reasonably construed. To
construe them as referring to the testators nearest male relative
at any time after his death would render the provisions difficult to
apply and create uncertainty as to the disposition of his estate.
That could not have been his intention.
Same Same.In 1935, when the testator died, his nearest
legal heirs were his three sisters or seconddegree relatives, Mrs.
Escobar, Mrs. Manaloto and Mrs. Quiambao. Obviously, when the
testator specified his nearest male relative, he must have had in
mind his nephew or a son of his sister, who would be his third
degree relative, or possibly a grandnephew. But since he could not
prognosticate the exact date of his death or state with certitude
what category of nearest male relative would be living at the time
of his death, he could not specify that his nearest male relative
would be his nephew or grandnephew (the son of his nephew or
niece) and so he had to use the term nearest male relative.
Same Evidence Evidence aliunde has no probative value.
Of course, Mrs. Gamalindas affidavit, which is tantamount to
evidence aliunde as to the testators intention and which is
hearsay, has no probative value. Our opinion that the said
bequest refers to the testators nephew who was living at the time
of his death, when his succession was opened and the successional
rights to his estate became vested, rests on a judicious and
unbiased reading of the terms of the will.
Same As the testator was not survived by a nephew who
became a priest the bequest became inoperative and the
administration of the ricelands of the parish priest of Victoria,
Tarlac also became inoperative.Inasmuch as the testator was
not survived by any nephew who became a priest, the unavoidable
conclusion is that the bequest in question was ineffectual or
inoperative. Therefore, the ad
495
495
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
2/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
496
3/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
497
4/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
498
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
5/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
Title No.
Lot No.
Area in
Has.
T6530
3663
1.6249
18740
P340.00
T6548
3445C
24.2998
18730
7,290.00
T6525
3670
6.2665
18736
1,880.00
T6521
3666
11.9251
18733
3,580.00
44.1163
P13,090.00
499
6/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
500
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
7/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
8/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
501
9/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
priesthood
502
502
10/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
503
503
11/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
504
12/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
505
13/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
506
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
14/15
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME089
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
15/15