SUBJECT:

Succession

TOPIC:

TITLE:

IN RE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED FRANCISCO TORDILLA.

GAUDENCIA TORDILLA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. MOISES TORDILLA,
OPPONENT AND APPELLANT.

CITATION:

G. R. No. 39547, May 03, 1934

FACTS:

Francisco Tordilla died intestate, leaving as his only heirs his widow, a legitimate son, the
defendant and appellant, and a recognized natural daughter, petitioner and appellee. The
appellant has a number of contentions. Some of which are:

First, where a certain value is in a deed of donation, the value cannot be

questioned when properties are brought into collation.

Second, the appellant questions the validity of Exhibit H, a contract entered into
between the appellee and the appellant in another case and signed shortly before
the death of their father.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the contentions of the appellant is correct?

HELD:

1. For the first contention, this is incorrect, as Article 1045 of the Civil Code provides for
the assessment of the property at its actual valuation at the time of donation. The recital
in the deed cannot therefore be controlling.
 1889 Civil Code:

“Article 1,045. It is not required to bring to collation or to the partition the things
which were given themselves, but their value at the time of appraisal of the estate.
Any physical accretion or impairment subsequent to the gift, and even its total loss
by accident or negligence shall be at the donee’s account and risk or benefit.”

2. The second portion of the contract Exhibit H is null and void.

The contract is in the nature of a compromise and covered two items, namely, first, the
support of the natural daughter which the brother agreed to assume for one year and,
second, a proposed division of their future inheritance upon the death of their father. It is
assumed that appellant has complied with his terms of the contract, and the father died
before the obligation of the brother terminated. The second portion of the contract Exhibit
H clearly relates to the anticipated future inheritance and, therefore, is null and void under
the provisions of article 1271 of the Civil Code which reads:

"ART. 1271. All things, even future ones, which are not out of the commerce of
man, may be the subject-matter of contracts.

"Nevertheless, no contract may be entered into with respect to future inheritances,

except those the object of which is to make a division intervivos of the estate, in
accordance with article 1056.

"Any services not contrary to law or to good morals may also be the subject-matter
of a contract."

The action of the trial court in holding Exhibit H to be uncontroverted and predicating its
final action on the terms of that document was erroneous and contrary to law.

Fallo:

The decision and orders of the trial court must therefore be reversed and the case
remanded for further proceedings consonant with this opinion. Costs against appellee.
So ordered.