Professional Documents
Culture Documents
oppositors-appellants.
Jul25
FACTS:
Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain on December
11, 1964, with only his widow as compulsory heir. His will was admitted
to probate by the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch X, on July
27, 1965. Maria Luisa Palacios was appointed administratrix of the
estate.
On June 23, 1966, 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 en plenodominio in satisfaction of her
legitime; the other part or free portion shall go to Jorge and Roberto
Ramirez en nudapropriedad. Furthermore, one third (1/3) of the free
portion is charged with the widows usufruct and the remaining two-
third (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of Wanda.
Brief Facts: The testator instituted Wanda as first heir, and Juan and
Horacio as second heirs in a fideicommissary substitution. Juan and
Horacio are strangers to Wanda.
FACTS:
1. Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain in 1964, with
only his widow as compulsory heir. His will was admitted to probate
by the CFI of Manila in 1965. Maria Luisa Palacios was appointed
administratrix of the estate.
2. In 1966, Palacios submitted a project of partition. Jose Eugenios
property is to be divided into two parts.
One part shall go to Marcelle (Jose Eugenios French widow who
lives in Paris) en pleno dominio" 1 in satisfaction of her legitime;
the other part or "free portion" shall go to Jorge and Roberto
Ramirez "en nuda propriedad".2
Furthermore, 1/3 of the free portion is charged with the widow's
usufruct and the remaining 2/3 with a usufruct in favor of Wanda
de Wrobleski (Jose Eugenios Austrian companion who lives in
Spain).
3. Jorge and Roberto (Jose Eugenios grandnephews) opposed the
project of partition on the following grounds:
(a) The provisions for vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda with
respect to the widow's usufruct and in favor of Juan Pablo
Jankowski and Horacio Ramirez, with respect to Wanda's usufruct
are invalid because the first heirs (Marcelle and Wanda) survived
the testator;
(b) The provisions for fideicommissary substitutions are invalid
because the first heirs are not related to the second heirs or
substitutes within the first degree, as provided in Art. 863, CC;
(c) The grant of a usufruct over real property in the Philippines in
favor of Wanda, an alien, violates Sec. 5, Art. III of the Philippine
Constitution; and
(d) The proposed partition of the testator's interest in the Santa Cruz
(Escolta) Building between Marcelle and the appellants violates
the testator's express will to give this property to them (Jorge and
Roberto).
4. Lower court approved the project of partition. Jorge and Roberto
appealed.
ISSUES:
1.Whether the 1/3 usufruct over the free portion in favor of Marcelle is
valid [NO]
2.Whether the fideicommissary substitution in connection with
Wandas usufruct over 2/3 of the estate in favor of Juan Pablo and
Horacio is valid [NO]
3.Whether Wandas usufruct is valid [YES]
RATIO:
1. NO. It appears that the court a quo approved the usufruct in favor of
Marcelle because the testament provides for a usufruct of 1/3 of the
estate in her favor. The court a quo erred for Marcelle who is entitled
1
Freehold.
2
In bare ownership.
to of the estate en pleno dominio 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 than her
legitime will run counter to the testators intention, seeing as the
latters dispositions even impaired Marcelles legitime and tended to
favor Wanda.
Appellants here also questioned the legality of the vulgar
substitution in favor of Wanda with respect to Marcelles usufruct.
However, since Marcelle is not entitled to any usufruct, the
question has become moot.
c. Effect
d. When Extinguished
9. Testamentary Dispositions
a. In General