Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ramirez
Facts:
Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national died in Spain with only hi widow as
compulsory heir. His will was admitted to probate. Maria Luisa Palacios, the administratrix
submitted a project of partition as follows: the property of the deceased is to be divided
into two parts: One part shall go to the widow in satisfaction of her legitime; the free
portion shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez. Furthermore, 1/3 of the free portion is
charged with the widows usufruct and the remaining 2/3 with a usufruct in favor of
Wanda. Jorge and Roberto opposed the project of partition on the grounds that the
provisions for vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda with respect to the widows usufruct
and in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio Ramirez with respect to Wandas usufruct
are invalid because the first heir survived the testator and;
(For fideicommisary substitution issue)
Jorge and Roberto opposed the project of partition on the grounds that the
provisions for fideicommisary substitution are invalid because the first heirs are not
related to the second heirs or substitutes within the first degree.
Widows legitime (Not entitled to any usufruct)
They admit that the testators dispositions impaired his widows legitime. Since
Marcelle alone survived the deceased, she is entitled to one half of his estate over which
he could impose no burden, encumbrance, condition or substitution of any kind
whatsoever.
It is the 1/3 usufruct over the free portion which appellants question. It appears that
the court approved the usufruct in favor of Marcelle because the testament provides a
usufruct of 1/3 in her favor of the estate. The court erred for Marcelle is entitled to of
the estate as her legitime and which is more than what she is given under the will is not
entitled to have any additional share in the estate. To give Marcelle more that her legitime
will run counter to the testators intention for it would have impaired her legitime and
tended to favor Wanda.
Substitutions
They alleged that the substitution in its vulgar aspect as void because Wanda
survived the testator or because she did not predecease the testator. But dying before the
testator is not the only case for vulgar substitution for it also includes refusal or incapacity
to accept the inheritance. Hence, the vulgar substitution is valid.
Substitution in its fideicommisary aspect, the appeallants are correct in their claim
that it is void because the substitutes are not related to Wanda, the heir originally
instituted. Substitution must not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted.
1 | Page
Fideicommisary can only be either a child or a parent of the first degree. These are
the only relatives who are one generation or degree from fiduciary.
The testator even contradicts the establishment of a fideicommisary substitution
when he permits the properties subject of the usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement
of the usufructuaries and the naked owners.
Thus, all the requisites of a fideicommisary substitution are present. The inheritance
does not belong to the heiress instituted but to her children.
the portion of the estate of the late Rev. Fr. Teodoro Aranas, administered by Vicente
Aranas, is nun and void after twenty years from January 19, 1954 ... " and declared in the
same order the heirs of the late Fr. Teodoro Aranas.
Ruling:
Art. 870. The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the estate
inalienable for more than twenty years are void.
It was the sincere intention and desire of the testator to reward Vicente Aranas for
his faithful and unselfish services by allowing him to enjoy one-half of the fruits of the
testator's third group of properties until Vicente's death and/or refusal to act as
administrator in which case, the administration shall pass to anyone chosen by Carmelo
Aranas among his sons and upon Carmelo's death, his sons will have the power to select
one among themselves. Vicente Aranas therefore as a usufructuary has the right to enjoy
the property of his uncle with the obligation to return, at the designated time, either the
same thing, or in special cases its equivalent. This right of Vicente to enjoy the fruits of the
properties is temporary and therefore not perpetual as there is a limitation namely his
death or his refusal. Likewise his designation as administrator of these properties is limited
by his refusal and/or death and therefore it does not run counter to Art. 870 of the Civil
Code relied upon by the petitioners. Be it noted that Vicente Aranas is not prohibited to
dispose of the fruits and other benefits arising from the usufruct. Neither are the naked
owners (the other heirs) of the properties, the usufruct of which has been given to Vicente
Aranas prohibited from disposing of said naked ownership without prejudice of course to
Vicente's continuing usufruct. The proviso must be respected and be given effect until the
death or until the refusal to act as such of the instituted usufructuary/administrator, after
which period, the property can be properly disposed of, subject to the limitations provided
concerning a fideicommissary substitution.
A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary or first heir instituted
is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the whole or
part of the inheritance, shall be valid and shall take effect, provided such substitution does
not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted, and provided further, that the
fiduciary or first heir and the second heir are living at the time of the death of the testator.
Art. 871- Institution
Natividad vs. Gabino
Facts:
Salvador y Reyes contracted a valid and legal marriage with Anselma Nicasio, who
died leaving a daughter Higinia who married Clemente Natividad. Higinia Salvador died
and was survived by two children Emilio and Purificacion. Tiburcio Salvador disposed all his
4 | Page
property in the manner recorded in the will executed instituting as sole heirs his
grandchildren Emilio and Purificacion. In the sixth clause of this will the testator left to
Basilia Gabino the legacy. Literally, this clause is as follows:
I bequeath to Doa Basilia Gabino the ownership and dominion of the urban
property, consisting of a house and lot situated on Calle Lavezares of the said district of
San Nicolas and designated by No. 520, and in addition eleven meters by two meters of
the lot designated by No. 419, situated on Calle Madrid. This portion shall be taken from
that part of the lot which is adjacent to the rear of said property No. 520. If the said
legatee should die, Lorenzo Salvador shall be obliged to deliver this house, together with
the lot on which it stands, to my grandson Emilio Natividad, upon payment by the latter to
the former of the sum of four thousand pesos (P4,000), Philippine currency.
The executor of the estate of the decedent is the decedent's own heir, Emilio
Natividad, who in due season and by counsel presented to the court for its approval a
proposed partition of the property pertaining to the estate, setting forth in the fourth basis
the following relative to the legacy made to Basilia Gabino:
The ownership of the property upon which this right and legacy are established
belongs to the heir Emilio Natividad who, by the express will of the testator, had been
made liable for these encumbrances.
Counsel for the legatee Basilia Gabino opposed the approval of the proposed
partition with regard to the adjudication to the legatee of the usufruct only of the property
at No. 520 Calle Lavezares, claiming that said legatee ought to be recognized as entitled
to the dominion and ownership of the same.
Issue: What construction must be given to the sixth clause of the will executed by
Tiburcio Salvador?
Ruling:
A person is entirely free to make his will in such manner as may best please him,
provided the testamentary provisions conform to law and meet its requirements. He may
impose conditions, either with respect to the institution of heirs or to the designation of
legatees, and, when the conditions imposed upon the former or the latter do not fall within
the provisions of those articles of the Civil Code touching heirs and legatees, they shall be
governed by the rules therein prescribed for conditional obligations, (Civ. Code, arts. 790
and 791.)
In the sixth clause of the will executed by the decedent Tiburcio Salvador y Reyes,
he bequeathed to Basilia Gabino the ownership and dominion of the property on condition
that if the legatee should die Lorenzo Salvador would be obliged, upon the payment of
P4,000 by Emilio Natividad, to hand over this property to the latter.
5 | Page
The condition imposed by the testator in the double legacy depends upon the
happening of the event constituting the condition, to wit, the death of the legatee Basilia
Gabino, a perfectly legal condition according to article 1114 of the Civil code, as it is not
impossible of performance and is not contrary to law or public morals, as provided in
article 1116 of said code.
The moment the legatee Gabino dies the other legatee, Lorenzo Salvador, is obliged
to deliver the property to the heir Emilio Natividad who, in his turn and in exchange, must
pay the legatee Salvador the sum of P4,000, thereby fulfilling the double legacy contained
in the said sixth clause of the will, the first of these legacies being the voluntary
reservation to Basilia Gabino of the ownership of the said house, and the second, the
conditional legacy of P4,000 to Lorenzo Salvador.
Ruling:
The fact is, however, that the said condition is void, being contrary to law, for article
792 of the civil Code provides the following:
Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or good morals shall be considered
as not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner whatsoever,
even should the testator otherwise provide.
And said condition is contrary to law because it expressly ignores the testator's
national law when, according to article 10 of the civil Code above quoted, such national
law of the testator is the one to govern his testamentary dispositions.
Said condition then is considered unwritten, and the institution of legatees in said
will is unconditional and consequently valid and effective even as to the herein oppositor.
Thus, the second clause of the will is null and void being contrary to law.
Art. 874- Prohibition to Marry
Morete vs. Dela Santa
Facts:
The will of Consuelo Morente contains the following clauses:
2. That my said husband shall not marry anyone; should my said husband have
children by anyone, he shall not convey any portion of the property left by me, except the
one-third part thereof and the two remaining thirds shall be and remain for my brother
Vicente or his children should he have any.
Her husband, Gumersindo de la Santa, married again within four months of the
death of the testatrix. Elena Morente, a sister of the deceased, filed a petition to the
probate of the will of Consuelo Morente in which she alleged the second marriage of
Gumersindo de la Santa and asked that the legacy to him be annulled.
She claims that by the mere act of marriage the husband at once lost all rights
acquired by the will. It is neither alleged nor proven that any children have been born to
the husband since the death of the testatrix.
Issue: Did the testatrix intend to impose a condition upon the absolute gift which is
contained in the first clauses of the will?
Ruling:
7 | Page
8 | Page
Ruling: No. The near descendants being referred to in the will are the heirs of Dr.
Rabadilla. Ownership over the devised property was already transferred to Dr. Rabadilla
when Aleja died. Hence, when Dr. Rabadilla himself died, ownership over the same
property was transmitted to Johnny Rabadilla by virtue of succession.
Under Article 776 of the Civil Code, inheritance includes all the property, rights and
obligations of a person, not extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr.
Rabadilla had by virtue of the Will were transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his
death. And since obligations not extinguished by death also form part of the estate of the
decedent; corollarily, the obligations imposed by the Will on the deceased Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his death. It is clear
therefore, that Johnny should have continued complying with the terms of the Will. His
failure to do so shall give rise to an obligation for him to reconvey the property to the
estate of Aleja.
9 | Page
768 shall belong exclusively to Victoriana Saavedra. Should Victoriana Saavedra die before
Macario Macrohon Ong Ham, Lot No. 817 be adjudicated to Segunda Saavedra, widow,
sister of Victoriana Saavedra, free of all liens and encumbrances. Lot No. 768 be
adjudicated to Segunda Saavedra and her heirs, on condition that she devote the products
of the same to having masses said for the repose of the soul of Victoriana Saavedra. In
case of the death of either of the two, the surviving spouse be appointed executor of this
our last will and testament.This executor submitted a scheme of partition and distribution
of the property in accordance with the terms of the joint will, to which Juan Saavedra and
others filed an opposition. The executor rejoined insisting upon the approval of the scheme
and asking that the opposition of Juan Saavedra and others be overruled.
The lower court solving the question raised by the parties in their agreement of
facts, held that the one-half of the property described in the will
ISSUE:
1. WON the trial court erred in holding that Victoriana Saavedra died partly
intestate.
2. WON the brother, sister, nephews, and nieces of the testatrix, were entitled
to receive her share in the said sixteen parcels of land, given to the legatees,
Ong Ka Chiew and Ong Ka Jian, under the terms of the said joint will.
HELD
1.
ART. 658. Succession is effected either by the will of man expressed by the
testament or, in the absence of a testament, by operation of law.
The first is called testamentary, the second legal succession.
It may also be effected partly by the will of man and partly by operation of law.
10 | P a g e
According to this, there are three ways in which succession may be effected: by the
will of man, by the law, or by both at the same time. In the first case the succession is
called testamentary, because it is based on the last will and testament, which is the
orderly manifestation of the testator's will; in the second, it is called legal, because it takes
effect by operation of the law; and the third is called mixed, because it partakes of the
character of both testamentary and legal succession.
This is a refutation of the appellant's argument that no one who has executed a will
can die partly intestate. That the rule of indivisibility of the testator's will invoked by the
appellant does not hold good in this jurisdiction, is shown, moreover, by articles 764 and
912 of the Civil Code. According to the first of these articles, a will is valid even though it
does not contain any institution of an heir, or if such institution does not include the entire
estate, and even though the person instituted does not accept the inheritance or is
disqualified to inherit; according to the second, one of the ways in which legal succession
may take place is when the will does not institute an heir to all or part of the property, or
does not dispose of all that belongs to the testator, in which case legal succession shall
take place only with respect to the property which the testator has not disposed of.
2. Yes.
Yes. As we have said, the acquisition of right by the alleged legatees depends on the
occurrence of the event constituting the condition, that is, the death of Macario Macrohon
Ong Ham prior to that of his wife; and this condition not having been complied with, the
said Ong Ka Chiew and Ong Ka Jian have not acquired any right, and therefore the
testatrix's estate is to be divided among her heirs in accordance with the law
11 | P a g e