In the matter of the Estate of Tomas Rodriguez

Manuel Torres, special admin and Luz Lopez de Bueno v.

Margarita Lopez

035

G.R. No. 25966, 1 November 1926, Street, J.

Digested by Zoe Velasco Law 105 SUCESSION
Topic: Testamentary Capacity and Intent Arts. 796-803
Tomas, the testator, bequeathed to Vicente, who was his guardian and Luz (Vicentes daughter)
his entire estate. But Vicente died first. Margarita claims 1/2 of the estate and says that the will
was invalid because of the fact that Vicente was the guardian therefore incapacitated to be an
heir. SC: Will was valid. Vicente only had a special or accidental incapacity. Everything should
go to Luz
FACTS

January 3, 1924: Tomas Rodriguez executed his last will and testament where he gave all
his property to his cousin Vicente F. Lopez and his daughter Luz Lopez de Bueno.
o Prior to the time of the execution of this will the testator, Tomas Rodriguez, had
been judicially declared incapable of taking care of himself and had been placed
under the care of his cousin Vicente F. Lopez, as guardian.

January 7, 1924: Vicente died (so he predeceased Tomas). February 25, 1924: Tomas
died.

At the time the will was made Vicente F. Lopez had not presented his final accounts as
guardian, and no such accounts had been presented by him at the time of his death.
Margarita Lopez was a cousin and nearest relative of the decedent. The will referred to,
and after having been contested, has been admitted to probate.

Thus, the appeal involves a controversy over of Tomas estate. Margarita claims said
half by the intestate succession as next of kin and nearest heir; while Luz Lopez de
Bueno, claims the same by accretion and in the character of universal heir the will of the
decedent. The RTC favoured Luz.

(Note: The contentions of the parties were explained in the ratio so I stuck it there.)

ISSUES & HOLDING

WON the will was valid? YES (WON Margarita can inherit by virtue of the right of accretion?
NO.)
RATIO

1) ON INCAPACITY:

NCC 753- applies in this case which says that: with certain exceptions in favor of near
relatives, no testamentary provision shall be valid when made by a ward in favor of his
guardian before the final accounts of the latter have been approved.

The provision made in the will of Tomas Rodriguez in favor of Vicente F. Lopez was a
special incapacity due to the accidental relation of guardian and ward existing between
the parties.

2) ON THE RIGHT OF ACCRETION:

NCC 982- Accretion takes place in a testamentary succession in the ff: 1) when the two
or more persons are called to the same inheritance or the same portion thereof without
special designation of shares 2) when one of the persons so called dies before the testator
or renounces the inheritance or is disqualifying to receive it.

Applying NCC 982 to CAB : 1) Vicente F. Lopez, and his daughter, Luz Lopez de
Bueno was called in the will to the same inheritance without special designation of
shares. 2) Vicente predeceased the testator. (Note that he was also disqualified to receive
the estate even if he had been alive at the time of the testator's death.)

Therefore the effect of this is to give to the survivor, Luz Lopez de Bueno, not only the
undivided half which she would have received in conjunction with her father if he had
been alive and qualified to take, but also the half which pertained to him aka the TC was
right in saying that she can have the WHOLE ESTATE.

APPELLANTS ARGUMENT #1: The will of Tomas was valid and Margarita can
inherit the share of the disqualified heir because there has supervened a partial intestacy
with respect to the half of the estate which was intended for Vicente and that this half has
descended to the appellant, Margarita, as next of kin and sole heir at law of the decedent
as per NCC 764 and NCC 912.

(NCC 764: a will may be valid even though the person instituted as heir is disqualified to
inherit. NCC 912: legal succession takes place if the heir dies before the testator and also
when the heir instituted is disqualified to succeed.)

SC: Appellants contention is UNTENABLE.

912 is more general than 983 as it deals with intestate succession while the latter is more
specific, defining the particular conditions under which accretion takes place. In case of
conflict, therefore, the provisions of the former article must be considered limited by the
latter.

In 912 (3) the provision with respect to intestate succession is expressly subordinated 983
by the expression "and (if) there is no right of accretion." It is true that the same express
qualification is not found in 912 (4), yet it must be so understood, in view of the rule of
interpretation above referred to, by which the more specific is held to control the general.
Also NCC 986 affords independent proof that intestate succession to a vacant portion can
only occur when accretion is impossible.

APPELLANTS ARGUMENT #2: NCC 912 (4)- intestate succession occurs when the
heir instituted is disqualified to succeed (incapaz de suceder), while, under the last
provision in NCC 982 (2)- accretion occurs when one of the persons called to inherit
under the will is disqualified to receive the inheritance (incapaz de recibirla).

CAB: The disability of Vicente falls under 912 rather than 982. His disability was not a
general disability to succeed but an accidental incapacity to receive the legacy, a
consideration which makes a case for accretion rather than for intestate succession.

According to commentators, the right of accretion with regard to portions of an

inheritance left vacant by the death or disqualification of one of the heirs or his
renunciation of the inheritance is governed by article 912, without being limited, to the
extent supposed in appellant's brief, by provisions of the Code relative to intestate
succession.

There has always existed both in the civil and in the common law a certain legal
intendment, amounting to a mild presumption, against partial intestacy. In Roman law:
partial testacy systems a presumption against it, a presumption which has its basis in
the supposed intention of the testator.
DISPOSITIVE
The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.