FIRST DIVISION ALONZO Q. ANCHETA, G.R. No. 139868 Petitioner, Present: PANGANIBAN, C .J . (Chairperson) - versus - * YNARES-SANTIAGO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO, SR., and CHICO-NAZARIO, J J . CANDELARIA GUERSEY- DALAYGON, Promulgated: Respondent. June 8, 2006 x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x D E C I S I O N AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J .: Spouses Audrey O’Neill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were American citizens who have resided in the Philippines for 30 years. They have an adopted daughter, Kyle Guersey Hill (Kyle). On July 29, 1979, Audrey died, leaving a will. In it, she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard, who was also designated as executor. [1] The will was admitted to probate before the Orphan’s Court of Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A, which named James N. Phillips as executor due to Richard’s renunciation of his appointment. [2] The court also named Atty. Alonzo Q. Ancheta (petitioner) of the Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices as ancillary administrator. [3]
Spouses Audrey O’Neill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were American citizens who have
resided in the Philippines for 30 years. They have an adopted daughter, Kyle Guersey Hill (Kyle). On July 29,
1979, Audrey died, leaving a will. In it, she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard, who was also designated as
executor.[1] The will was admitted to probate before the Orphan’s Court of Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A, which
named James N. Phillips as executor due to Richard’s renunciation of his appointment. [2] The court also named
Atty. Alonzo Q. Ancheta (petitioner) of the Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices as ancillary
administrator.[3]
In 1981, Richard married Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon (respondent) with whom he has two children,
namely, Kimberly and Kevin.
On October 12, 1982, Audrey’s will was also admitted to probate by the then Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Branch 25, Seventh Judicial District, Pasig, in Special Proceeding No. 9625.[4] As administrator of Audrey’s
estate in the Philippines, petitioner filed an inventory and appraisal of the following properties: (1) Audrey’s
conjugal share in real estate with improvements located at 28 Pili Avenue, Forbes Park, Makati, Metro Manila,
valued at P764,865.00 (Makati property); (2) a current account in Audrey’s name with a cash balance of P12,417.97;
and (3) 64,444 shares of stock in A/G Interiors, Inc. worth P64,444.00.[5]
On July 20, 1984, Richard died, leaving a will, wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to respondent, save
for his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares, which he left to Kyle. [6] The will was also admitted to
probate by the Orphan’s Court of Ann Arundel, Maryland, U.S.A, and James N. Phillips was likewise appointed as
executor, who in turn, designated Atty. William Quasha or any member of the Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Pena &
Nolasco Law Offices, as ancillary administrator.
Richard’s will was then submitted for probate before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 138,
docketed as Special Proceeding No. M-888.[7] Atty. Quasha was appointed as ancillary administrator on July 24,
1986.[8]
On October 19, 1987, petitioner filed in Special Proceeding No. 9625, a motion to declare Richard and
Kyle as heirs of Audrey.[9] Petitioner also filed on October 23, 1987, a project of partition of Audrey’s estate, with
Richard being apportioned the ¾ undivided interest in the Makati property, 48.333 shares in A/G Interiors, Inc.,
and P9,313.48 from the Citibank current account; and Kyle, the ¼ undivided interest in the Makati property, 16,111
shares in A/G Interiors, Inc., and P3,104.49 in cash.[10]
The motion and project of partition was granted and approved by the trial court in its Order dated February 12,
1988.[11] The trial court also issued an Order on April 7, 1988, directing the Register of Deeds of Makati to cancel
TCT No. 69792 in the name of Richard and to issue a new title in the joint names of the Estate of W. Richard
Guersey (¾ undivided interest) and Kyle (¼ undivided interest); directing the Secretary of A/G Interiors, Inc. to
transfer 48.333 shares to the Estate of W. Richard Guersey and 16.111 shares to Kyle; and directing the Citibank to
release the amount of P12,417.97 to the ancillary administrator for distribution to the heirs.[12]
Consequently, the Register of Deeds of Makati issued on June 23, 1988, TCT No. 155823 in the names of the
Estate of W. Richard Guersey and Kyle.[13]
Meanwhile, the ancillary administrator in Special Proceeding No. M-888 also filed a project of partition
wherein 2/5 of Richard’s ¾ undivided interest in the Makati property was allocated to respondent, while 3/5 thereof
were allocated to Richard’s three children. This was opposed by respondent on the ground that under the law of the
State of Maryland, “a legacy passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator in the property subject of
the legacy.”[14] Since Richard left his entire estate to respondent, except for his rights and interests over the A/G
Interiors, Inc, shares, then his entire ¾ undivided interest in the Makati property should be given to respondent.
The trial court found merit in respondent’s opposition, and in its Order dated December 6, 1991,
disapproved the project of partition insofar as it affects the Makati property. The trial court also adjudicated
Richard’s entire ¾ undivided interest in the Makati property to respondent.[15]
On October 20, 1993, respondent filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) an amended complaint for the
annulment of the trial court’s Orders dated February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988, issued in Special Proceeding No.
9625.[16] Respondent contended that petitioner willfully breached his fiduciary duty when he disregarded the laws of
the State of Maryland on the distribution of Audrey’s estate in accordance with her will. Respondent argued that
since Audrey devised her entire estate to Richard, then the Makati property should be wholly adjudicated to him,
and not merely ¾ thereof, and since Richard left his entire estate, except for his rights and interests over the A/G
Interiors, Inc., to respondent, then the entire Makati property should now pertain to respondent.
Petitioner filed his Answer denying respondent’s allegations. Petitioner contended that he acted in good
faith in submitting the project of partition before the trial court in Special Proceeding No. 9625, as he had no
knowledge of the State of Maryland’s laws on testate and intestate succession. Petitioner alleged that he believed
that it is to the “best interests of the surviving children that Philippine law be applied as they would receive their just
shares.” Petitioner also alleged that the orders sought to be annulled are already final and executory, and cannot be
set aside.
On March 18, 1999, the CA rendered the assailed Decision annulling the trial court’s Orders
dated February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988, in Special Proceeding No. 9625.[17] The dispositive portion of the
assailed Decision provides:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Orders of February 12, 1998 and April 7, 1988 are hereby ANNULLED and, in lieu thereof, a new one is entered ordering:
(a) The adjudication of the entire estate of Audrey O’Neill Guersey in favor of the estate
of W. Richard Guersey; and (b) The cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 15583 of the Makati City
Registry and the issuance of a new title in the name of the estate of W. Richard Guersey. SO ORDERED.[18]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was denied by the CA per Resolution dated August 27,
1999.[19]
Hence, the herein petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court alleging that the CA
gravely erred in not holding that:
A) THE ORDERS OF 12 FEBRUARY 1988 AND 07 APRIL 1988 IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 9625 “IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR PROBATE OF THE WILL OF THE DECEASED AUDREY GUERSEY, ALONZO Q. ANCHETA, ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR”, ARE VALID AND BINDING AND HAVE LONG BECOME FINAL AND HAVE BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED AND EXECUTED AND CAN NO LONGER BE ANNULLED. B) THE ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR HAVING ACTED IN GOOD FAITH, DID NOT COMMIT FRAUD, EITHER EXTRINSIC OR INTRINSIC, IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AS ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR OF AUDREY O’NEIL GUERSEY’S ESTATE IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND THAT NO FRAUD, EITHER EXTRINSIC OR INTRINSIC, WAS EMPLOYED BY [HIM] IN PROCURING SAID ORDERS.[20]
Petitioner reiterates his arguments before the CA that the Orders dated February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988
can no longer be annulled because it is a final judgment, which is “conclusive upon the administration as to all
matters involved in such judgment or order, and will determine for all time and in all courts, as far as the parties to
the proceedings are concerned, all matters therein determined,” and the same has already been executed.[21]
Petitioner also contends that that he acted in good faith in performing his duties as an ancillary
administrator. He maintains that at the time of the filing of the project of partition, he was not aware of the relevant
laws of the State of Maryland, such that the partition was made in accordance with Philippine laws. Petitioner also
imputes knowledge on the part of respondent with regard to the terms of Aubrey’s will, stating that as early as 1984,
he already apprised respondent of the contents of the will and how the estate will be divided.[22]
Respondent argues that petitioner’s breach of his fiduciary duty as ancillary administrator of Aubrey’s
estate amounted to extrinsic fraud. According to respondent, petitioner was duty-bound to follow the express terms
of Aubrey’s will, and his denial of knowledge of the laws of Maryland cannot stand because petitioner is a senior
partner in a prestigious law firm and it was his duty to know the relevant laws.
Respondent also states that she was not able to file any opposition to the project of partition because she
was not a party thereto and she learned of the provision of Aubrey’s will bequeathing entirely her estate to Richard
only after Atty. Ancheta filed a project of partition in Special Proceeding No. M-888 for the settlement of Richard’s
estate.
A decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased person vests the title to the land of the estate in the
distributees, which, if erroneous may be corrected by a timely appeal. Once it becomes final, its binding effect is
like any other judgment in rem.[23] However, in exceptional cases, a final decree of distribution of the estate may be
set aside for lack of jurisdiction or fraud.[24] Further, in Ramon v. Ortuzar,[25] the Court ruled that a party interested
in a probate proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside when he is left out by reason of circumstances beyond
his control or through mistake or inadvertence not imputable to negligence.[26]
The petition for annulment was filed before the CA on October 20, 1993, before the issuance of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure; hence, the applicable law is Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (B.P. 129) or the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980. An annulment of judgment filed under B.P. 129 may be based on the ground that a
judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or that the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud. [27] For fraud to
become a basis for annulment of judgment, it has to be extrinsic or actual, [28] and must be brought within four years
from the discovery of the fraud.[29]
In the present case, respondent alleged extrinsic fraud as basis for the annulment of the RTC Orders
dated February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988. The CA found merit in respondent’s cause and found that petitioner’s
failure to follow the terms of Audrey’s will, despite the latter’s declaration of good faith, amounted to extrinsic
fraud. The CA ruled that under Article 16 of the Civil Code, it is the national law of the decedent that is applicable,
hence, petitioner should have distributed Aubrey’s estate in accordance with the terms of her will. The CA also
found that petitioner was prompted to distribute Audrey’s estate in accordance with Philippine laws in order to
equally benefit Audrey and Richard Guersey’s adopted daughter, Kyle Guersey Hill.
Petitioner contends that respondent’s cause of action had already prescribed because as early as 1984,
respondent was already well aware of the terms of Audrey’s will, [30] and the complaint was filed only in 1993.
Respondent, on the other hand, justified her lack of immediate action by saying that she had no opportunity to
question petitioner’s acts since she was not a party to Special Proceeding No. 9625, and it was only after
Atty. Ancheta filed the project of partition in Special Proceeding No. M-888, reducing her inheritance in the estate
of Richard that she was prompted to seek another counsel to protect her interest.[31]
It should be pointed out that the prescriptive period for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud
commences to run from the discovery of the fraud or fraudulent act/s. Respondent’s knowledge of the terms of
Audrey’s will is immaterial in this case since it is not the fraud complained of. Rather, it is petitioner’s failure to
introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of Maryland that is the fraudulent act, or in this case, omission,
alleged to have been committed against respondent, and therefore, the four-year period should be counted from the
time of respondent’s discovery thereof.
Records bear the fact that the filing of the project of partition of Richard’s estate, the opposition thereto,
and the order of the trial court disallowing the project of partition in Special Proceeding No. M-888 were all done in
1991.[32] Respondent cannot be faulted for letting the assailed orders to lapse into finality since it was only through
Special Proceeding No. M-888 that she came to comprehend the ramifications of petitioner’s acts. Obviously,
respondent had no other recourse under the circumstances but to file the annulment case. Since the action for
annulment was filed in 1993, clearly, the same has not yet prescribed.
Fraud takes on different shapes and faces. In Cosmic Lumber Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[33] the Court
stated that “man in his ingenuity and fertile imagination will always contrive new schemes to fool the unwary.”
There is extrinsic fraud within the meaning of Sec. 9 par. (2), of B.P. Blg. 129, where it is
one the effect of which prevents a party from hearing a trial, or real contest, or from presenting all of his case to the court, or where it operates upon matters, not pertaining to the judgment itself, but to the manner in which it was procured so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy. In other words, extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. Fraud is extrinsic where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had any knowledge of the suit, being
kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat; these and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment and open the case for a new and fair hearing.[34]
The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing
litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.[35]
Petitioner is the ancillary administrator of Audrey’s estate. As such, he occupies a position of the highest
trust and confidence, and he is required to exercise reasonable diligence and act in entire good faith in the
performance of that trust. Although he is not a guarantor or insurer of the safety of the estate nor is he expected to be
infallible, yet the same degree of prudence, care and judgment which a person of a fair average capacity and ability
exercises in similar transactions of his own, serves as the standard by which his conduct is to be judged.[36]
Petitioner’s failure to proficiently manage the distribution of Audrey’s estate according to the terms of her
will and as dictated by the applicable law amounted to extrinsic fraud. Hence the CA Decision annulling the RTC
Orders dated February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988, must be upheld.
It is undisputed that Audrey Guersey was an American citizen domiciled in Maryland, U.S.A. During the
reprobate of her will in Special Proceeding No. 9625, it was shown, among others, that at the time of Audrey’s
death, she was residing in the Philippines but is domiciled in Maryland, U.S.A.; her Last Will and Testament dated
August 18, 1972 was executed and probated before the Orphan’s Court in Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A., which was
duly authenticated and certified by the Register of Wills of Baltimore City and attested by the Chief Judge of said
court; the will was admitted by the Orphan’s Court of Baltimore City on September 7, 1979; and the will was
authenticated by the Secretary of State of Maryland and the Vice Consul of the Philippine Embassy.
Being a foreign national, the intrinsic validity of Audrey’s will, especially with regard as to who are her
heirs, is governed by her national law, i.e., the law of the State of Maryland, as provided in Article 16 of the Civil
Code, to wit:
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country
where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. (Emphasis supplied)
Article 1039 of the Civil Code further provides that “capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the
nation of the decedent.”
As a corollary rule, Section 4, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court on Allowance of Will Proved Outside the
Philippines and Administration of Estate Thereunder, states:
SEC. 4. Estate, how administered.—When a will is thus allowed, the court shall grant
letters testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed, and such letters testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the Philippines. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses of administration, shall be disposed of according to such will, so far as such will may operate upon it ; and the residue, if any, shall be disposed of as is provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another state or country. (Emphasis supplied)
While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice of them;[37] however, petitioner, as ancillary administrator of Audrey’s estate, was duty-bound to
introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of Maryland.[38]
Petitioner admitted that he failed to introduce in evidence the law of the State of Maryland on Estates and
Trusts, and merely relied on the presumption that such law is the same as the Philippine law on wills and
succession. Thus, the trial court peremptorily applied Philippine laws and totally disregarded the terms of Audrey’s
will. The obvious result was that there was no fair submission of the case before the trial court or a judicious
appreciation of the evidence presented.
Petitioner insists that his application of Philippine laws was made in good faith. The Court cannot accept
petitioner’s protestation. How can petitioner honestly presume that Philippine laws apply when as early as the
reprobate of Audrey’s will before the trial court in 1982, it was already brought to fore that Audrey was a U.S.
citizen, domiciled in the State of Maryland. As asserted by respondent, petitioner is a senior partner in a prestigious
law firm, with a “big legal staff and a large library.”[39] He had all the legal resources to determine the applicable
law. It was incumbent upon him to exercise his functions as ancillary administrator with reasonable diligence, and
to discharge the trust reposed on him faithfully. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to perform his fiduciary duties.
Moreover, whether his omission was intentional or not, the fact remains that the trial court failed to
consider said law when it issued the assailed RTC Orders dated February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988, declaring
Richard and Kyle as Audrey’s heirs, and distributing Audrey’s estate according to the project of partition submitted
by petitioner. This eventually prejudiced respondent and deprived her of her fullsuccessional right to
the Makati property.
In GSIS v. Bengson Commercial Bldgs., Inc.,[40] the Court held that when the rule that the negligence or
mistake of counsel binds the client deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes a great hindrance and
chief enemy, its rigors must be relaxed to admit exceptions thereto and to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and the
court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice
require it.
The CA aptly noted that petitioner was remiss in his responsibilities as ancillary administrator of Audrey’s
estate. The CA likewise observed that the distribution made by petitioner was prompted by his concern over Kyle,
whom petitioner believed should equally benefit from the Makati property. The CA correctly stated, which the
Court adopts, thus:
In claiming good faith in the performance of his duties and responsibilities, defendant Alonzo H. Ancheta invokes the principle which presumes the law of the forum to be the same as the foreign law (Beam vs. Yatco, 82 Phil. 30, 38) in the absence of evidence adduced to prove the latter law (Slade Perkins vs. Perkins, 57 Phil. 205, 210). In defending his actions in the light of the foregoing principle, however, it appears that the defendant lost sight of the fact that his primary responsibility as ancillary administrator was to distribute the subject estate in accordance with the will of Audrey O’Neill Guersey. Considering the principle established under Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, as well as the citizenship and the avowed domicile of the decedent, it goes without saying that the defendant was also duty-bound to prove the pertinent laws of Maryland on the matter. The record reveals, however, that no clear effort was made to prove the national law of Audrey O’Neill Guersey during the proceedings before the court a quo. While there is claim of good faith in distributing the subject estate in accordance with the Philippine laws, the defendant appears to put his actuations in a different light as indicated in a portion of his direct examination, to wit:
x x x
It would seem, therefore, that the eventual distribution of the estate of Audrey O’Neill Guersey was prompted by defendant Alonzo H. Ancheta’s concern that the subject realty equally benefit the plaintiff’s adopted daughter Kyle Guersey. Well-intentioned though it may be, defendant Alonzo H. Ancheta’s action appears to have breached his duties and responsibilities as ancillary administrator of the subject estate. While such breach of duty admittedly cannot be considered extrinsic fraud under ordinary circumstances, the fiduciary nature of the said defendant’s position, as well as the resultant frustration of the decedent’s last will, combine to create a circumstance that is tantamount to extrinsic fraud. Defendant Alonzo H. Ancheta’s omission to prove the national laws of the decedent and to follow the latter’s last will, in sum, resulted in the procurement of the subject orders without a fair submission of the real issues involved in the case.[41] (Emphasis supplied)
This is not a simple case of error of judgment or grave abuse of discretion, but a total disregard of the law
as a result of petitioner’s abject failure to discharge his fiduciary duties. It does not rest upon petitioner’s pleasure
as to which law should be made applicable under the circumstances. His onus is clear. Respondent was thus
excluded from enjoying full rights to the Makati property through no fault or negligence of her own, as petitioner’s
omission was beyond her control. She was in no position to analyze the legal implications of petitioner’s omission
and it was belatedly that she realized the adverse consequence of the same. The end result was a miscarriage of
justice. In cases like this, the courts have the legal and moral duty to provide judicial aid to parties who are deprived
of their rights.[42]
The trial court in its Order dated December 6, 1991 in Special Proceeding No. M-888 noted the law of the
State of Maryland on Estates and Trusts, as follows:
Under Section 1-301, Title 3, Sub-Title 3 of the Annotated Code of the Public General Laws of Maryland on Estates and Trusts, “all property of a decedent shall be subject to the estate of decedents law, and upon his death shall pass directly to the personal representative, who shall hold the legal title for administration and distribution,” while Section 4-408 expressly provides that “unless a contrary intent is expressly indicated in the will, a legacy passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator in the property which is the subject of the legacy”. Section 7-101, Title 7, Sub-Title 1, on the other hand, declares that “a personal representative is a fiduciary” and as such he is “under the general duty to settle and distribute the estate of the decedent in accordance with the terms of the will and the estate of decedents law as expeditiously and with as little sacrifice of value as is reasonable under the circumstances”.[43]
In her will, Audrey devised to Richard her entire estate, consisting of the following: (1) Audrey’s conjugal
share in the Makati property; (2) the cash amount of P12,417.97; and (3) 64,444 shares of stock in A/G Interiors,
Inc. worth P64,444.00. All these properties passed on to Richard upon Audrey’s death. Meanwhile, Richard, in his
will, bequeathed his entire estate to respondent, except for his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares,
which he left to Kyle. When Richard subsequently died, the entire Makati property should have then passed on to
respondent. This, of course, assumes the proposition that the law of the State of Maryland which allows “a legacy to
pass to the legatee the entire estate of the testator in the property which is the subject of the legacy,” was sufficiently
proven in Special Proceeding No. 9625. Nevertheless, the Court may take judicial notice thereof in view of the
ruling in Bohanan v. Bohanan.[44] Therein, the Court took judicial notice of the law of Nevada despite failure to
prove the same. The Court held, viz.:
We have, however, consulted the records of the case in the court below and we have
found that during the hearing on October 4, 1954 of the motion of Magdalena C. Bohanan for withdrawal of P20,000 as her share, the foreign law, especially Section 9905, Compiled Nevada Laws, was introduced in evidence by appellants' (herein) counsel as Exhibit "2" (See pp. 77-79, Vol. II, and t.s.n. pp. 24-44, Records, Court of First Instance). Again said law was presented by the counsel for the executor and admitted by the Court as Exhibit "B" during the hearing of the case on January 23, 1950 before Judge Rafael Amparo (see Records, Court of First Instance, Vol. 1).
In addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not dispute the above-quoted
provision of the laws of the State of Nevada. Under all the above circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the pertinent law of Nevada, especially Section 9905 of the Compiled Nevada Laws of 1925, can be taken judicial notice of by us, without proof of such law having been offered at the hearing of the project of partition.
In this case, given that the pertinent law of the State of Maryland has been brought to record before the CA,
and the trial court in Special Proceeding No. M-888 appropriately took note of the same in disapproving the
proposed project of partition of Richard’s estate, not to mention that petitioner or any other interested person for that
matter, does not dispute the existence or validity of said law, then Audrey’s and Richard’s estate should be
distributed according to their respective wills, and not according to the project of partition submitted by
petitioner. Consequently, the entire Makati property belongs to respondent.
Decades ago, Justice Moreland, in his dissenting opinion in Santos v. Manarang,[45] wrote:
A will is the testator speaking after death. Its provisions have substantially the same force and effect in the probate court as if the testator stood before the court in full life making the declarations by word of mouth as they appear in the will. That was the special purpose of the law in the creation of the instrument known as the last will and testament. Men wished to speak after they were dead and the law, by the creation of that instrument, permitted them to do so x x x All doubts must be resolved in favor of the testator's having meant just what he said.
Honorable as it seems, petitioner’s motive in equitably distributing Audrey’s estate cannot prevail over
Audrey’s and Richard’s wishes. As stated in Bellis v. Bellis:[46]
x x x whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent's national Law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.[47]
Before concluding, the Court notes the fact that Audrey and Richard Guersey were American citizens who
owned real property in the Philippines, although records do not show when and how theGuerseys acquired
the Makati property.
Under Article XIII, Sections 1 and 4 of the 1935 Constitution, the privilege to acquire and exploit lands of
the public domain, and other natural resources of the Philippines, and to operate public utilities, were reserved to
Filipinos and entities owned or controlled by them. In Republic v. Quasha,[48] the Court clarified that the Parity
Rights Amendment of 1946, which re-opened to American citizens and business enterprises the right in the
acquisition of lands of the public domain, the disposition, exploitation, development and utilization of natural
resources of the Philippines, does not include the acquisition or exploitation of private agricultural lands. The
prohibition against acquisition of private lands by aliens was carried on to the 1973 Constitution under Article XIV,
Section 14, with the exception of private lands acquired by hereditary succession and when the transfer was made to
a former natural-born citizen, as provided in Section 15, Article XIV. As it now stands, Article XII, Sections 7 and
8 of the 1986 Constitution explicitly prohibits non-Filipinos from acquiring or holding title to private lands or to
lands of the public domain, except only by way of legal succession or if the acquisition was made by a former
natural-born citizen.
In any case, the Court has also ruled that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently
becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of
the transferee is rendered valid.[49] In this case, since the Makati property had already passed on to respondent who
is a Filipino, then whatever flaw, if any, that attended the acquisition by theGuerseys of the Makati property is now
inconsequential, as the objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been
achieved.
WHEREFORE, the petition is denied. The Decision dated March 18, 1999 and the Resolution dated August
27, 1999 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Petitioner is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as an official of the
court.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 113725. June 29, 2000]
JOHNNY S. RABADILLA,[1] petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND MARIA MARLENA[2] COSCOLUELLA Y BELLEZA VILLACARLOS, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PURISIMA, J.:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,[3] dated December 23, 1993, in CA-G.R. No. CV-35555, which set aside the decision of Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court in Bacolod City, and ordered the defendants-appellees (including herein petitioner), as heirs of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, to reconvey title over Lot No. 1392, together with its fruits and interests, to the estate of Aleja Belleza.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in-interest of the herein petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of 511, 855 square meters of that parcel of land surveyed as Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre. The said Codicil, which was duly probated and admitted in Special Proceedings No. 4046 before the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, contained the following provisions:
"FIRST
I give, leave and bequeath the following property owned by me to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla resident of 141 P. Villanueva, Pasay City:
(a) Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4002 (10942), which is registered in my name according to the records of the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental.
(b) That should Jorge Rabadilla die ahead of me, the aforementioned property and the rights which I shall set forth hereinbelow, shall be inherited and acknowledged by the children and spouse of Jorge Rabadilla.
xxx
FOURTH
(a)....It is also my command, in this my addition (Codicil), that should I die and Jorge Rabadilla shall have already received the ownership of the said Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4002 (10942), and also at the time that the lease of Balbinito G. Guanzon of the said lot shall expire, Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies, every year to give to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, Seventy (75) (sic) piculs of Export sugar and Twenty Five (25) piculs of Domestic sugar, until the said Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza dies.
FIFTH
(a) Should Jorge Rabadilla die, his heir to whom he shall give Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4002 (10492), shall have the obligation to still give yearly, the sugar as specified in the Fourth paragraph of his testament, to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza on the month of December of each year.
SIXTH
I command, in this my addition (Codicil) that the Lot No. 1392, in the event that the one to whom I have left and bequeathed, and his heir shall later sell, lease, mortgage this said Lot, the buyer, lessee, mortgagee, shall have also the obligation to respect and deliver yearly ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, on each month of December, SEVENTY FIVE (75) piculs of Export and TWENTY FIVE (25) piculs of Domestic, until Maria Marlina shall die, lastly should the buyer, lessee or the mortgagee of this lot, not have respected my command in this my addition (Codicil), Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, shall immediately seize this Lot No. 1392 from my heir and the latter's heirs, and shall turn it over to my near desendants, (sic) and the latter shall then have the obligation to give the ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar until Maria Marlina shall die. I further command in this my addition (Codicil) that my heir and his heirs of this Lot No. 1392, that they will obey and follow that should they decide to sell, lease, mortgage, they cannot negotiate with others than my near descendants and my sister."[4]
Pursuant to the same Codicil, Lot No. 1392 was transferred to the deceased, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 44498 thereto issued in his name.
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his wife Rufina and children Johnny (petitioner), Aurora, Ofelia and Zenaida, all surnamed Rabadilla.
On August 21, 1989, Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza Villacarlos brought a complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 5588, before Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court in Bacolod City, against the above-mentioned heirs of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, to enforce the provisions of subject Codicil. The Complaint alleged that the defendant-heirs violated the conditions of the Codicil, in that:
1. Lot No. 1392 was mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank and the Republic Planters Bank in disregard of the testatrix's specific instruction to sell, lease, or mortgage only to the near descendants and sister of the testatrix.
2. Defendant-heirs failed to comply with their obligation to deliver one hundred (100) piculs of sugar (75 piculs export sugar and 25 piculs domestic sugar) to plaintiff Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza from sugar crop years 1985 up to the filing of the complaint as mandated by the Codicil, despite repeated demands for compliance.
3. The banks failed to comply with the 6th paragraph of the Codicil which provided that in case of the sale, lease, or mortgage of the property, the buyer, lessee, or mortgagee shall likewise have the obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar per crop year to herein private respondent.
The plaintiff then prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendant-heirs to reconvey/return-Lot No. 1392 to the surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza, the cancellation of TCT No. 44498 in the name of the deceased, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, and the issuance of a new certificate of title in the names of the surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza.
On February 26, 1990, the defendant-heirs were declared in default but on March 28, 1990 the Order of Default was lifted, with respect to defendant Johnny S. Rabadilla, who filed his Answer, accordingly.
During the pre-trial, the parties admitted that:
On November 15, 1998, the plaintiff (private respondent) and a certain Alan Azurin, son-in-law of the herein petitioner who was lessee of the property and acting as attorney-in-fact of defendant-heirs, arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on the obligation to deliver one hundred piculs of sugar, to the following effect:
"That for crop year 1988-89, the annuity mentioned in Entry No. 49074 of TCT No. 44489 will be delivered not later than January of 1989, more specifically, to wit:
75 piculs of 'A' sugar, and 25 piculs of 'B' sugar, or then existing in any of our names, Mary Rose Rabadilla y Azurin or Alan Azurin, during December of each sugar crop year, in Azucar Sugar Central; and, this is considered compliance of the annuity as mentioned, and in the same manner will compliance of the annuity be in the next succeeding crop years.
That the annuity above stated for crop year 1985-86, 1986-87, and 1987-88, will be complied in cash equivalent of the number of piculs as mentioned therein and which is as herein agreed upon, taking into consideration the composite price of sugar during each sugar crop year, which is in the total amount of ONE HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P105,000.00).
That the above-mentioned amount will be paid or delivered on a staggered cash installment, payable on or before the end of December of every sugar crop year, to wit:
For 1985-86, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on or before December of crop year 1988-89;
For 1986-87, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on or before December of crop year 1989-90;
For 1987-88, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on or before December of crop year 1990-91; and
For 1988-89, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on or before December of crop year 1991-92."[5]
However, there was no compliance with the aforesaid Memorandum of Agreement except for a partial delivery of 50.80 piculs of sugar corresponding to sugar crop year 1988 -1989.
On July 22, 1991, the Regional Trial Court came out with a decision, dismissing the complaint and disposing as follows:
"WHEREFORE, in the light of the aforegoing findings, the Court finds that the action is prematurely filed as no cause of action against the defendants has as yet arose in favor of plaintiff. While there maybe the non-performance of the command as mandated exaction from them simply because they are the children of Jorge Rabadilla, the title holder/owner of the lot in question, does not warrant the filing of the present complaint. The remedy at bar must fall. Incidentally, being in the category as creditor of the left estate, it is opined that plaintiff may initiate the intestate proceedings, if only to establish the heirs of Jorge Rabadilla and in order to give full meaning and semblance to her claim under the Codicil.
In the light of the aforegoing findings, the Complaint being prematurely filed is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED."[6]
On appeal by plaintiff, the First Division of the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court; ratiocinating and ordering thus:
"Therefore, the evidence on record having established plaintiff-appellant's right to receive 100 piculs of sugar annually out of the produce of Lot No. 1392; defendants-appellee's obligation under Aleja Belleza's codicil, as heirs of the modal heir, Jorge Rabadilla, to deliver such amount of sugar to plaintiff-appellant; defendants-appellee's admitted non-compliance with said obligation since 1985; and, the punitive consequences enjoined by both the codicil and the Civil Code, of seizure of Lot No. 1392 and its reversion to the estate of Aleja Belleza in case of such non-compliance, this Court deems it proper to order the reconveyance of title over Lot No. 1392 from the estates of Jorge Rabadilla to the estate of Aleja Belleza. However, plaintiff-appellant must institute separate proceedings to re-open Aleja Belleza's estate, secure the appointment of an administrator, and distribute Lot No. 1392 to Aleja Belleza's legal heirs in order to enforce her right, reserved to her by the codicil, to receive her legacy of 100 piculs of sugar per year out of the produce of Lot No. 1392 until she dies.
Accordingly, the decision appealed from is SET ASIDE and another one entered ordering defendants-appellees, as heirs of Jorge Rabadilla, to reconvey title over Lot No. 1392, together with its fruits and interests, to the estate of Aleja Belleza.
SO ORDERED."[7]
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid disposition by the Court of Appeals, petitioner found his way to this Court via the present petition, contending that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reversion of Lot 1392 to the estate of the testatrix Aleja Belleza on the basis of paragraph 6 of the Codicil, and in ruling that the testamentary institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla is a modal institution within the purview of Article 882 of the New Civil Code.
The petition is not impressed with merit.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the appeal in accordance with Article 882 of the New Civil Code on modal institutions and in deviating from the sole issue raised which is the absence or prematurity of the cause of action. Petitioner maintains that Article 882 does not find application as there was no modal institution and the testatrix intended a mere simple substitution - i.e. the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, was to be substituted by the testatrix's "near descendants" should the obligation to deliver the fruits to herein private respondent be not complied with. And since the testatrix died single and without issue, there can be no valid substitution and such testamentary provision cannot be given any effect.
The petitioner theorizes further that there can be no valid substitution for the reason that the substituted heirs are not definite, as the substituted heirs are merely referred to as "near descendants" without a definite identity or reference as to who are the "near descendants" and therefore, under Articles 843[8] and 845[9] of the New Civil Code, the substitution should be deemed as not written.
The contentions of petitioner are untenable. Contrary to his supposition that the Court of Appeals deviated from the issue posed before it, which was the propriety of the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prematurity of cause of action, there was no such deviation. The Court of Appeals found that the private respondent had a cause of action against the petitioner. The disquisition made on modal institution was, precisely, to stress that the private respondent had a legally demandable right against the petitioner pursuant to subject Codicil; on which issue the Court of Appeals ruled in accordance with law.
It is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent[10] and compulsory heirs are called to succeed by operation of law. The legitimate children and descendants, in relation to their legitimate parents, and the widow or widower, are compulsory heirs.[11] Thus, the petitioner, his mother and sisters, as compulsory heirs of the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latter by operation of law, without need of further proceedings, and the successional rights were transmitted to them from the moment of death of the decedent, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.
Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code, inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person, not extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue of subject Codicil 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 Codicil on the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his death.
In the said Codicil, testatrix Aleja Belleza devised Lot No. 1392 to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, subject to the condition that the usufruct thereof would be delivered to the herein private respondent every year. Upon the death of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, his compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and title over the said property, and they also assumed his (decedent's) obligation to deliver the fruits of the lot involved to herein private respondent. Such obligation of the instituted heir reciprocally corresponds to the right of private respondent over the usufruct, the fulfillment or performance of which is now being demanded by the latter through the institution of the case at bar. Therefore, private respondent has a cause of action against petitioner and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint below.
Petitioner also theorizes that Article 882 of the New Civil Code on modal institutions is not applicable because what the testatrix intended was a substitution - Dr. Jorge Rabadilla was to be substituted by the testatrix's near descendants should there be noncompliance with the obligation to deliver the piculs of sugar to private respondent.
Again, the contention is without merit.
Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person or persons to take the place of the heir or heirs first instituted. Under substitutions in general, the testator may either (1) provide for the designation of another heir to whom the property shall pass in case the original heir should die before him/her, renounce the inheritance or be incapacitated to inherit, as in a simple substitution,[12] or (2) leave his/her property to one person with the express charge that it be transmitted subsequently to another or others, as in a fideicommissary substitution.[13] The Codicil sued upon contemplates neither of the two.
In simple substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir by reason of incapacity, predecease or renunciation.[14] In the case under consideration, the provisions of subject Codicil do not provide that should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla default due to predecease, incapacity or renunciation, the testatrix's near descendants would substitute him. What the Codicil provides is that, should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed in the Codicil, the property referred to shall be seized and turned over to the testatrix's near descendants.
Neither is there a fideicommissary substitution here and on this point, petitioner is correct. In a fideicommissary substitution, the first heir is strictly mandated to preserve the property and to transmit the same later to the second heir.[15] In the case under consideration, the instituted heir is in fact allowed under the Codicil to alienate the property provided the negotiation is with the near descendants or the sister of the testatrix. Thus, a very important element of a fideicommissary substitution is lacking; the obligation clearly imposing upon the first heir the preservation of the property and its transmission to the second heir. "Without this obligation to preserve clearly imposed by the testator in his will, there is no fideicommissary substitution."[16] Also, the near descendants' right to inherit from the testatrix is not
definite. The property will only pass to them should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the obligation to deliver part of the usufruct to private respondent.
Another important element of a fideicommissary substitution is also missing here. Under Article 863, the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom the property is transmitted must not be beyond one degree from the first heir or the fiduciary. A fideicommissary substitution is therefore, void if the first heir is not related by first degree to the second heir.[17] In the case under scrutiny, the near descendants are not at all related to the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.
The Court of Appeals erred not in ruling that the institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla under subject Codicil is in the nature of a modal institution and therefore, Article 882 of the New Civil Code is the provision of law in point. Articles 882 and 883 of the New Civil Code provide:
Art. 882. The statement of the object of the institution or the application of the property left by the testator, or the charge imposed on him, shall not be considered as a condition unless it appears that such was his intention.
That which has been left in this manner may be claimed at once provided that the instituted heir or his heirs give security for compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of anything he or they may receive, together with its fruits and interests, if he or they should disregard this obligation.
Art. 883. When without the fault of the heir, an institution referred to in the preceding article cannot take effect in the exact manner stated by the testator, it shall be complied with in a manner most analogous to and in conformity with his wishes.
The institution of an heir in the manner prescribed in Article 882 is what is known in the law of succession as an institucion sub modo or a modal institution. In a modal institution, the testator states (1) the object of the institution, (2) the purpose or application of the property left by the testator, or (3) the charge imposed by the testator upon the heir.[18] A "mode" imposes an obligation upon the heir or legatee but it does not affect the efficacy of his rights to the succession.[19] On the other hand, in a conditional testamentary disposition, the condition must happen or be fulfilled in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the testator. The condition suspends but does not obligate; and the mode obligates but does not suspend.[20] To some extent, it is similar to a resolutory condition.[21]
From the provisions of the Codicil litigated upon, it can be gleaned unerringly that the testatrix intended that subject property be inherited by Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. It is likewise clearly worded that the testatrix imposed an obligation on the said instituted heir and his successors-in-interest to deliver one hundred piculs of sugar to the herein private respondent, Marlena Coscolluela Belleza, during the lifetime of the latter. However, the testatrix did not make Dr. Jorge Rabadilla's inheritance and the effectivity of his institution as a devisee, dependent on the performance of the said obligation. It is clear, though, that should the obligation be not complied with, the property shall be turned over to the testatrix's near descendants. The manner of institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla under subject Codicil is evidently modal in nature because it imposes a charge upon the instituted heir without, however, affecting the efficacy of such institution.
Then too, since testamentary dispositions are generally acts of liberality, an obligation imposed upon the heir should not be considered a condition unless it clearly appears from the Will itself that such was the intention of the testator. In case of doubt, the institution should be considered as modal and not conditional.[22]
Neither is there tenability in the other contention of petitioner that the private respondent has only a right of usufruct but not the right to seize the property itself from the instituted heir because the right to seize was expressly limited to violations by the buyer, lessee or mortgagee.
In the interpretation of Wills, when an uncertainty arises on the face of the Will, as to the application of any of its provisions, the testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words of the Will, taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was made.[23] Such construction as will sustain and uphold the Will in all its parts must be adopted.[24]
Subject Codicil provides that the instituted heir is under obligation to deliver One Hundred (100) piculs of sugar yearly to Marlena Belleza Coscuella. Such obligation is imposed on the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, his heirs, and their buyer, lessee, or mortgagee should they sell, lease, mortgage or otherwise negotiate the property involved. The Codicil further provides that in the event that the obligation to deliver the sugar is not respected, Marlena Belleza Coscuella shall seize the property and turn it over to the testatrix's near descendants. The non-performance of the said obligation is thus with the sanction of seizure of the property and reversion thereof to the testatrix's near descendants. Since the said obligation is clearly imposed by the testatrix, not only on the instituted heir but also on his successors-in-interest, the sanction imposed by the testatrix in case of non-fulfillment of said obligation should equally apply to the instituted heir and his successors-in-interest.
Similarly unsustainable is petitioner's submission that by virtue of the amicable settlement, the said obligation imposed by the Codicil has been assumed by the lessee, and whatever obligation petitioner had become the obligation of the lessee; that petitioner is deemed to have made a substantial and constructive compliance of his obligation through the consummated settlement between the lessee and the private respondent, and having consummated a settlement with the petitioner, the recourse of the private respondent is the fulfillment of the obligation under the amicable settlement and not the seizure of subject property.
Suffice it to state that a Will is a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which a person disposes of his property, to take effect after his death.[25] Since the Will expresses the manner in which a person intends how his properties be disposed, the wishes and desires of the testator must be strictly followed. Thus, a Will cannot be the subject of a compromise agreement which would thereby defeat the very purpose of making a Will.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated December 23, 1993, in CA-G.R. No. CV-35555 AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 1439, Castaneda v. Alemany, 3 Phil. 426
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
March 19, 1904
G.R. No. 1439
ANTONIO CASTAÑEDA, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JOSE E. ALEMANY, defendant-appellant.
Ledesma, Sumulong and Quintos for appellant.
The court erred in holding that all legal formalities had been complied with in the execution of the will of Doña
Juana Moreno, as the proof shows that the said will was not written in the presence of under the express direction of
the testratrix as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Antonio V. Herrero for appellee.
The grounds upon which a will may be disallowed are limited to those mentioned in section 634 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
WILLARD, J.:
(1) The evidence in this case shows to our satisfaction that the will of Doña Juana Moreno was duly signed by
herself in the presence of three witnesses, who signed it as witnesses in the presence of the testratrix and of each
other. It was therefore executed in conformity with law.
There is nothing in the language of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure which supports the claim of the
appellants that the will must be written by the testator himself or by someone else in his presence and under his
express direction. That section requires (1) that the will be in writing and (2) either that the testator sign it himself
or, if he does sign it, that it be signed by some one in his presence and by his express direction. Who does the
mechanical work of writing the will is a matter of indifference. The fact, therefore, that in this case the will was
typewritten in the office of the lawyer for the testratrix is of no consequence. The English text of section 618 is very
plain. The mistakes in translation found in the first Spanish edition of the code have been corrected in the second.
(2) To establish conclusively as against everyone, and once for all, the facts that a will was executed with the
formalities required by law and that the testator was in a condition to make a will, is the only purpose of the
proceedings under the new code for the probate of a will. (Sec. 625.) The judgment in such proceedings determines
and can determine nothing more. In them the court has no power to pass upon the validity of any provisions made in
the will. It can not decide, for example, that a certain legacy is void and another one valid. It could not in this case
make any decision upon the question whether the testratrix had the power to appoint by will a guardian for the
property of her children by her first husband, or whether the person so appointed was or was not a suitable person to
discharge such trust.
All such questions must be decided in some other proceeding. The grounds on which a will may be disallowed are
stated the section 634. Unless one of those grounds appears the will must be allowed. They all have to do with the
personal condition of the testator at the time of its execution and the formalities connected therewith. It follows that
neither this court nor the court below has any jurisdiction in his proceedings to pass upon the questions raised by the
appellants by the assignment of error relating to the appointment of a guardian for the children of the deceased.
It is claimed by the appellants that there was no testimony in the court below to show that the will executed by the
deceased was the same will presented to the court and concerning which this hearing was had. It is true that the
evidence does not show that the document in court was presented to the witnesses and identified by them, as should
have been done. But we think that we are justified in saying that it was assumed by all the parties during the trial in
the court below that the will about which the witnesses were testifying was the document then in court. No
suggestion of any kind was then made by the counsel for the appellants that it was not the same instrument. In the
last question put to the witness Gonzales the phrase "this will" is used by the counsel for the appellants. In their
argument in that court, found on page 15 of the record, they treat the testimony of the witnesses as referring to the
will probate they were then opposing.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, eliminating therefrom, however, the clause "el cual debera ejecutarse
fiel y exactamente en todas sus partes." The costs of this instance will be charged against the appellants.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Cooper, Mapa, McDonough and Johnson, JJ., concur.
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-15737 February 28, 1962
LEONOR VILLAFLOR VDA. DE VILLANUEVA, plaintiff-appellant, vs.DELFIN N. JUICO, in his capacity as Judicial Administrator of the testate estate of FAUSTA NEPOMUCENO, defendant-appellee.
Amado G. Salazar for plaintiff-appellant.Sycip, Salazar, Luna and Associates for defendant-appellee.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Subject to this direct appeal to us on points of law is the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, in its Civil Case No. Q-2809, dismissing plaintiff-appellant's complaint for the recovery of certain properties that were originally owned by the plaintiff's granduncle, Nicolas Villaflor, and which he granted to his widow, Doña Fausta Nepomuceno, bequeathing to her "su uso y posesion mientras viva y no se case en segundas nupcias".
The following facts appear of record: On October 9, 1908, Don Nicolas Villaflor, a wealthy man of Castillejos, Zambales, executed a will in Spanish in his own handwriting, devising and bequeathing in favor of his wife, Dona Fausta Nepomuceno, one-half of all his real and personal properties, giving the other half to his brother Don Fausto Villaflor.
Clause 6th, containing the institution of heirs, reads as follows: .
SEXTO — En virtud de las facultades que me conceden las leyes, instituyo per mis unicos y universales herederos de todos mis derechos y acciones a mi hermano D. Fausto Villaflor y a mi esposa Da. Fausta Nepomuceno para que partan todos mis bienes que me pertenescan, en iguales partes, para despues de mi muerte, exceptuando las donaciones y legados que, abajo mi mas expontanea voluntad, lo hago en la forma siguiente: .
SEPTIMO: — Lego para dispues de mi muerte a mi esposa Da. Fausta Nepomuceno, en prueba de mi amor y carino, los bienes, alhajas y muebles que a continuacion se expresan; .
OCTAVO: — Que estos legades disfrutaria mi referida esposa Da. Fausta Nepomuceno su uso y posesion mientras viva y no se case en segundas nupcias, de la contrario, pasara a ser propiedad estos dichos legados de mi sobrina nieta Leonor Villaflor.
The 12th clause of the will provided, however, that Clauses 6th and 7th thereof would be deemed annulled from the moment he bore any child with Doña Fausta Nepomuceno. Said Clause 12th reads as follows: .
DUODECIMO: — Quedan anulados las parrafos 6.0 y 7.0 de este testamento que tratan de institucion de herederos y los legados que se haran despues de mi muerte a favor de mi esposa, en el momento que podre tener la dicha de contrar con hijo y hijos legitimos o legitimados, pues estos, conforme a ley seran mis herederos.
Don Nicolas Villaflor died on March 3, 1922, without begetting any child with his wife Doña Fausta Nepomuceno. The latter, already a widow, thereupon instituted Special Proceeding No. 203 of the Court of First Instance of
Zambales, for the settlement of her husband's estate and in that proceeding, she was appointed judicial administratrix. In due course of administration, she submitted a project of partition, now Exhibit "E". In the order of November 24, 1924, now exhibit "C", the probate court approved the project of partition and declared the proceeding closed. As the project of partition, Exhibit "E", now shows Doña Fausta Nepomuceno received by virtue thereof the ownership and possession of a considerable amount of real and personal estate. By virtue also of the said project of partition, she received the use and possession of all the real and personal properties mentioned and referred to in Clause 7th of the will. The order approving the project of partition (Exh. "C"), however, expressly provided that approval thereof was "sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en la clausula 8.o del testamento de Nicolas Villaflor." .
On May 1, 1956, Doña Fausta Nepomuceno died without having contracted a second marriage, and without having begotten any child with the deceased Nicolas Villaflor. Her estate is now being settled in Special Proceeding No. Q-1563 in the lower court, with the defendant Delfin N. Juico as the duly appointed and qualified judicial administrator.
The plaintiff Leonor Villaflor Vda. de Villanueva is admitted to be the same Leonor Villaflor mentioned by Don Nicolas Villaflor in his will as his "sobrina nieta Leonor Villaflor".
Plaintiff Leonor Villaflor instituted the present action against the administrator of the estate of the widow Fausta Nepomuceno, on February 8, 1958, contending that upon the widow's death, said plaintiff became vested with the ownership of the real and personal properties bequeathed by the late Nicolas Villaflor to clause 7 of his will, pursuant to its eight (8th) clause. Defendant's position, adopted by the trial court, is that the title to the properties aforesaid became absolutely vested in the widow upon her death, on account of the fact that she never remarried.
We agree with appellant that the plain desire and intent of the testator, as manifested in clause 8 of his testament, was to invest his widow with only a usufruct or life tenure in the properties described in the seventh clause, subject to the further condition (admitted by the appellee) that if the widow remarried, her rights would thereupon cease, even during her own lifetime. That the widow was meant to have no more than a life interest in those properties, even if she did not remarry at all, is evident from the expressions used by the deceased "uso y posesion mientras viva" (use and possession while alive) in which the first half of the phrase "uso y posesion" instead of "dominio" or "propiedad") reinforces the second ("mientras viva"). The testator plainly did not give his widow the full ownership of these particular properties, but only the right to their possession and use (or enjoyment) during her lifetime. This is in contrast with the remainder of the estate in which she was instituted universal heir together with the testator's brother (clause 6). 1äwphï1.ñët
SEXTO: — En virtud de las facultades que me conceden las leyes, instituyo por mis unicos y universales herederos de todos mis derechos y acciones a mi hermano D. Fausto Villaflor y a mi esposa Da. Fausta Nepomuceno para que parten todos mis bienes que me pertenescan, en iguales partes, para despues de mi muerte, exceptuando las donaciones y legados que, abajo mi mas expontanea voluntad, lo hago en la forma siguiente.
The court below, in holding that the appellant Leonor Villaflor, as reversionary legatee, could succeed to the properties bequeathed by clause 7 of the testament only in the event that the widow remarried, has unwarrantedly discarded the expression "mientras viva," and considered the words "uso y posesion" as equivalent to "dominio" (ownership). In so doing, the trial court violated Article 791 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, as well as section 59 of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court.
ART. 791. The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some effect, rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting a will, that one is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy." .
SEC. 59. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. — In the construction of an instrument where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all." .
Speculation as to the motives of the testator in imposing the conditions contained in clause 7 of his testament should not be allowed to obscure the clear and unambiguous meaning of his plain words, which are over the primary source in ascertaining his intent. It is well to note that if the testator had intended to impose as sole condition the non-remarriage of his widow, the words "uso y posesion mientras viva" would have been unnecessary, since the widow could only remarry during her own lifetime.
The Civil Code, in Article 790, p. 1 (Article 675 of the Code of 1889), expressly enjoins the following: .
ART. 790. The words of a will are to be taken in their ordinary and grammatical sense, unless a clear intention to use them in another sense can be gathered, and that other can be ascertained." .
Technical words in a will are to be taken in their technical sense, unless the context clearly indicates a contrary intention, or unless it satisfactorily appears that the will was drawn solely by the testator, and that he was unacquainted with such technical sense. (675a)
In consonance with this rule, this Supreme Court has laid the doctrine in In re Estate of Calderon, 26 Phil., 233, that the intention and wishes of the testator, when clearly expressed in his will, constitute the fixed law of interpretation, and all questions raised at the trial, relative to its execution and fulfillment, must be settled in accordance therewith, following the plain and literal meaning of the testator's words, unless it clearly appears that his intention was otherwise. The same rule is adopted by the Supreme Court of Spain (TS. Sent. 20 Marzo 1918; 28 Mayo 1918; 30 Abril 1913; 16 Enero 1915; 23 Oct. 1925).
La voluntad del testador, clara, precisa y constantemente expresada al ordenar su ultimo voluntad, es ley unica, imperativa y obligatoria que han de obedecer y cumplir fieldmente albaceas, legatarios y heredera, hoy sus sucesores, sin que esa voluntad patente, que no ha menester de interpretaciones, pues no ofrece la menor duda, pueda sustituirse, pues no ofrece la menor duda, pueda sustituirse por ningun otro criterio de alguna de los interesados, ni tampoco por el judicial. (Tribunal Supremo of Spain, Sent. 20 March 1918) .
The American decisions invoked by appellee in his brief inapplicable, because they involve cases where the only condition imposed on the legatee was that she should remain a widow. As already shown, the testament of Don Nicolas Villaflor clearly and unmistakably provided that his widow should have the possession and use of the legacies while alive and did not remarry. It necessarily follows that by the express provisions of the 8th clause of his will, the legacies should pass to the testator's "sobrinanieta", appellant herein, upon the widow's death, even if the widow never remarried in her lifetime. Consequently, the widow had no right to retain or dispose of the aforesaid properties, and her estate is accountable to the reversionary legatee for their return, unless they had been lost due to fortuitous event, or for their value should rights of innocent third parties have intervened.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the appellant Leonor Villaflor Vda. de VILLANUEVA is declared entitled to the ownership and fruits of the properties described in clause 7 of the will or testament, from the date of the death of Doña Fausta Nepomuceno. The records are ordered remanded to the court of origin for liquidation, accounting and further proceedings conformably to this decision. Costs against the Administrator-appellee.
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-29264 August 29, 1969
BARBARA RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division, composed of JUSTICES JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR. and EDILBERTO SORIANO), ATANACIO VALENZUELA, MAXIMINA VICTORIO, LIBERATA SANTOS, NIEVES CRUZ, substituted by her heirs, ARSENIO, JAYME, ANDRES, NELO and AMANDA, all surnamed NERY, and CARMEN and ARSENIA, both surnamed MENDOZA, respondents.
Fortunato de Leon for petitioner.Sycip, Salazar, Luna, Manalo and Feliciano for respondent Atanacio Valenzuela.San Juan, Africa, Gonzales and San Agustin for respondent Nieves Cruz.
CASTRO, J.:
For a clear understanding of the issues posed by the present petition for mandamus and certiorari with preliminary injunction, we hereunder quote the statement of the case and the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals in its decision dated October 4, 1967 in CA-G.R. 35084-R, as well as the dispositive portion of the said decision:
On December 31, 1958, in Parañaque, Rizal, by virtue of a document denominated "Kasunduan" written in the vernacular and ratified before Notary Public Lazaro C. Ison of that locality, Nieves Cruz, now deceased, authorized the spouses Atanacio Valenzuela, and Maximina Victorio and Liberate Santos to sell a certain parcel of land of about 44,634 square meters belonging to her and situated in Sitio Matatdo, Barrio San Dionisio, Parañaque, Rizal, the identity of which is not now in dispute. Among, the anent conditions of this authority were that the price payable to Nieves Cruz for the land would be P1.60 per square meter and any overprice would pertain to the agents; that Nieves Cruz would receive from said agents, by way of advance payment on account of the purchase price to be paid by whomsoever may buy the land, the sum of P10,000.00 upon the execution of the agreement aforesaid, and another P10,000.00 on January 5, 1959; that the balance on the total purchase price would be payable to Nieves Cruz upon the issuance of the Torrens title over the property, the obtention of which was undertaken by the agents who also were bound to advance the expense therefor in the sum of P4,000.00 which would be deductible from the last amount due on the purchase price; and that should the agent find no buyer by the time that Torrens title is issued, Nieves Cruz reserved the right to look for a buyer herself although all sums already received from the agents would be returned to them without interest.
As confirmed by Nieves Cruz in a "recibo", Exhibit 2, bearing the date "... ng Enero ng 1959," the stipulated "advance payment (paunang bayad)" of P20,000.00 was duly made to her. Contrary to the agreement that the balance on the purchase price would be paid upon the issuance of the Torrens title over the land (September 9, 1960), Nieves Cruz and her children, however, collected from the agents, either thru Maximina Victorio or thru Salud G. de Leon, daughter of Liberate Santos, various sums of money during the period from July 3, 1959 up to September 3, 1961, all of which were duly receipted for by Nieves Cruz and/or her children and in which receipts it is expressly stated that said amounts were "bilang karagdagan sa ipinagbili naming lupa sa kanila (additional payments for the land we sold to them)", Exhibits 12, 12-a to 12-z-1. These totalled P27,198.60 which with the P20,000.00 previously paid amounted to P47,198.60.
Meanwhile, proceedings to place the land under the operation of the Torrens system were initiated. In due season, the registration court — finding a registrable title in the name of the applicants, Emilio Cruz and Nieves Cruz, but that —
"... the applicant Nieves Cruz has likewise sold her one-half (1/2) undivided share to the spouses Atanacio Valenzuela and Maxima (Maximina) Victorio and to Liberata Santos from whom she had received partial payments thereof in the sum of P22,000.00;" (Exhibit 4-a).
decreed, on July 15, 1960, the registration of the land in the names of the applicants aforesaid —
"Subject ... to the rights of the spouses Atanacio Valenzuela and Maximina Victorio and to Liberata Santos over the one-half share of Nieves Cruz of the parcel of land for which the latter was paid P22,000.00 as partial payment thereof." (Exhibit 4).
The judgment aforesaid having become final, the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. 2488 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal was, on September 9, 1960, duly entered and issued to the applicants aforesaid, subject, amongst others, to the limitation heretofore stated.
Eventually, pursuant to a partition between Nieves Cruz and her brother, Emilio Cruz, by virtue of which the entire land was subdivided into two lots of 48,260 square meters each, Original Transfer of Title No. 2488 was cancelled and superseded by two new transfer certificates respectively covering the two sub-divided lots, that which pertained to Nieves Cruz, Lot A (LRC) Psd-13106, being covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 80110 issued on October 3, 1960. Said title carried over the annotation heretofore mentioned respecting the rights of Atanacio Valenzuela and Maximina Victorio and Liberata Santos over the portion covered thereby. (Exhibits 6 and 6-a).
Then, on September 15, 1961, Nieves Cruz sold the property in question to Barbara Lombos Rodriguez, her "balae" because the latter's son was married to her daughter, for the sum of P77,216.00 (Exhibit J). In consequence, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 80110 in the name of Nieves Cruz was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 91135 was issued in the name of Barbara Lombos Rodriguez (Exhibit I) which likewise carried over the annotation respecting the rights of Atanacio Valenzuela, Maximina Victorio and Liberata Santos over the property covered thereby.
Forthwith, on September 16, 1961, Nieves Cruz, through counsel, gave notice to Atanacio Valenzuela, Maximina Victorio and Liberata Santos of her decision to rescind the original agreement heretofore adverted to, enclosing with said notice Bank of America check for P48,338.60, representing sums advanced by the latter which were tendered to be returned. Atanacio Valenzuela, Maximina Victorio and Liberata Santos, through counsel, balked at the attempt at rescission, denying non-compliance with their undertaking inasmuch as, per agreement, the balance on the purchase price for the land was not due until after the 1962 harvest. They, accordingly, returned Nieves Cruz' check.
Thus rebuffed, plaintiff Nieves Cruz hailed defendants Atanacio Valenzuela, Maximina Victorio and Liberate Santos before the Rizal Court in the instant action for rescission of the "Kasunduan" heretofore adverted to, the cancellation of the annotation on the title to the land respecting defendant's right thereto, and for damages and attorney's fees. In their return to the complaint, defendants traversed the material averments thereof, contending principally that the agreement sought to be rescinded had since been novated by a subsequent agreement whereunder they were to buy the property directly. They also impleaded Barbara Lomboa Rodriguez on account of the sale by the plaintiff to her of the subject property and interposed a counterclaim against both plaintiff and Rodriguez for the annulment of the sale of the land to the latter, as well as the transfer certificate of title issued in her favor consequent thereto and the reconveyance of the land in their favor, and also for damages and attorney's fees.
Pending the proceedings below, plaintiff Nieves Cruz died and was, accordingly, substituted as such by her surviving children, to wit: Arsenio, Nelo, Jaime, Andres and Amanda, all surnamed Nery, and Carmen and Armenia both surnamed Mendoza.
In due season, the trial court — finding for plaintiff Nieves Cruz and her buyer, Barbara Lombos Rodriguez, and against defendants — rendered judgment thus —
"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered (1) Ordering the cancellation at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 91135 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, stating that the land covered thereby was sold to the defendants; (2) Ordering the defendants to pay to the plaintiff, jointly and severally the sum of P67,564.00 as actual damages and P5,000.00 by way of attorney's fees; (3) Dismissing the defendants counterclaim; and (4) Ordering the defendants to pay the costs of this suit jointly and severally."
x x x x x x x x x
We find no obstacle to appellants' purchase of the land in the prohibition against an agent buying the property of his principal entrusted to him for sale. With the agreement of Nieves Cruz to sell the land directly to said appellants, her agents originally, it cannot seriously be contended that the purchase of the land by appellants was, without the express consent of the principal Nieves Cruz. Accordingly, that purchase is beyond the coverage of the prohibition.
By and large, we are satisfied from a meticulous assay of the evidence at bar that the contract of sale over the land subsequently made by Nieves Cruz in favor of appellants was duly and satisfactorily proved. No showing having been made by appellees to warrant the rescission of that contract, the attempt of such rescission is legally untenable and necessarily futile. The specific performance of that contract is under the circumstances, legally compellable.
Considering that the rights of appellants, as such purchasers of the portion corresponding to Nieves Cruz, is a matter of official record in the latter's certificate of title over the land — the annotation of which was authorized by the decision of the registration court and which annotation was duly carried over in the subsequent titles issued therefor, including that issued in the name of appellee Rodriguez — said appellee must be conclusively presumed to have been aware, as indeed she was, of the prior rights acquired by appellants over the said portion. Said appellee's acquisition of the land from Nieves Cruz remains subject, and must yield, to the superior rights of appellants. Appellee Rodriguez cannot seek refuge behind the protection afforded by the Land Registration Act to purchasers in good faith and for value. Aware as she was of the existence of the annotated prior rights of appellants, she cannot now be heard to claim a right better than that of her grantor, Nieves Cruz. Her obligation to reconvey the land to the appellants is thus indubitable.
x x x x x x x x x
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED in toto, and, in lieu thereof, another is hereby rendered:
(1) Setting aside and annulling the deed of sale, Exhibit J, executed by plaintiff in favor of Barbara Lombos Rodriguez;
(2) Declaring defendant-appellee Barbara Lombos Rodriguez divested of title over the property covered by TCT No. 91135 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal and title thereto vested in defendants-appellants upon payment of the latter to appellee Rodriguez of the sum of P28,877.40, representing the balance of the agreed purchase price due on the property minus P13,000.00 awarded under paragraph (4) within 90 days after this decision shall have become final, and ordering the Register of Deeds of Rizal to cancel TCT No.
91135 and issue in lieu thereof a new certificate of title in favor of appellants, upon payment of corresponding fees;
(3) Ordering plaintiffs and defendant Barbara Lombos Rodriguez to deliver to the defendants-appellants possession of the property aforementioned; and
(4) Ordering appellees jointly and severally to pay to defendants-appellants the sum of P5,000.00 as temperate damages, P3,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 as attorney's fees plus costs. These amounts shall be deducted from the P28,877.40 appellants are required to pay to Rodriguez under paragraph (2) hereof.
This case is before us for the second time. In L-28462, the heirs of Nieves Cruz and the present petitioner (Barbara Lombos Rodriguez) filed a joint petition for certiorari — as an original action under Rule 65 and, simultaneously, as an appeal under Rule 45. As the former, it sought redress against the refuse of the respondent Court of Appeals to consider a motion for reconsideration filed beyond the reglementary period. As the latter, it sought a review of the respondent Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. On January 3, 1968 we denied the joint petition; the joint petition was thereafter amended, and this amended petition we likewise denied on January 26, 1968; on February 20, 1968 we denied the motion for reconsideration filed solely by Rodriguez.
On July 20, 1968, Rodriguez alone filed the present petition for mandamus and certiorari. She prays for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the respondents from enforcing the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. 35084-R and from entering into any negotiation or transaction or otherwise exercising acts of ownership over the parcel of land covered by transfer certificate of title 91135 issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal. She also prays that preliminary injunction issue to restrain the Register of Deeds of Rizal from registering any documents affecting the subject parcel of land. No injunction, however, was issued by us.
The petition in the present case, L-29264, while again assailing the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the respondent Court, adds two new grounds. The first is the allegation that the land involved in CA-G.R. 35084-R has a value in excess of P200,000. The petitioner complains that the Court of Appeals should have certified the appeal to us, pursuant to section 3 of Rule 50 in relation to section 17(5) of the Judiciary Act of 1948,1 as she had asked the said Court to do in her supplemental motion of June 14, 1968. The second ground is the claim that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying her May 14, 1968 motion for new trial, based on alleged newly discovered evidence.
In their answer, Atanacio Valenzuela, Maximina Victorio and Liberata Santos allege that the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals in its decision of October 4, 1967 are substantiated by the record and the conclusions of law are supported by applicable laws and jurisprudence, and, moreover, that these findings are no longer open to review inasmuch as the said decision has become final and executory, the period of appeal provided in Rule 45 having expired. Atanacio Valenzuela, et al. also maintain that the land in litigation had a value of less than P200,000, according to the records of the case, when their appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in civil case 6901 was perfected; that the petitioner's motion for new trial in the Court of Appeals was filed out of time; and that the petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in the matter of the value of the land in controversy. Two grounds for the defense of estoppel are offered by Atanacio Valenzuela, et al. One is that the petitioner speculated in obtaining a favorable judgment in the Court of Appeals by submitting herself to the jurisdiction of the said Court and she cannot now therefore be allowed to attack its jurisdiction when the judgment turned out to be unfavorable. The other is that the petitioner's laches made possible the sale in good faith by Atanacio Valenzuela, et al., of the land in litigation to Emilio and Isidro Ramos, in whose names the land is at present registered under transfer certificate of title 229135 issued on September 25, 1968 by the Register of Deeds of Rizal.
The heirs of Nieves Cruz filed an answer unqualifiedly admitting the basic allegations of the petition, except as to the value of the land, as to which they are non-committal.
It is our considered view that the petitioner's claim of grave abuse by the respondent Court in denying her motion for new trial is devoid of merit. It is not disputed that, on the assumption that the respondent Court had jurisdiction over the appeal, the petitioner had already lost her right to appeal from the decision of October 4, 1967 when the petition in L-28462 was filed in January 1968. It logically follows that the case had passed the stage for new trial on newly discovered evidence when the petitioner filed her motion for new trial on May 14, 1968.
Two issues remain, to wit, (1) the value of the land in controversy; and (2) estoppel.
At the time appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals. section 17(5) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, provided:
The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse modify or affirm on appeal, certiorari or writ of error, as the law or rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts as herein provided, in —
x x x x x x x x x
(5) All civil cases in which the value in controversy exceeds two hundred thousand pesos, exclusive of interests and costs or in which the title or possession of real estate exceeding in value the sum of two hundred thousand pesos to be ascertained by the oath of a party to the cause or by other competent evidence, is involved or brought in question. The Supreme Court shall likewise have exclusive jurisdiction over all appeals in civil cases, even though the value in controversy, exclusive of interests and costs, is two hundred thousand pesos or less, when the evidence involved in said cases is the same as the evidence submitted in an appealed civil case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided herein.
The petitioner would have us believe that, other than a realtor's sworn statement dated June 14, 1968, which was filed with the respondent Court together with her supplemental motion, there is nothing in the records that would indicate the value of the litigated parcel. We disagree. The "Kasunduan" (annex A to the petition) dated December 31, 1958 executed by and between Nieves Cruz and Atanacio Valenzuela, et al. fixed the value of the land (of an area of 44,634 square meters) at P1.60 per square meter. The decision (annex B) of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dated August 12, 1964 assessed the value of the land at P3.00 per square meter. The decision (annex D) dated October 4, 1967 of the respondent Court of Appeals pointed out that the consideration stated in the deed of sale of the land executed by Nieves Cruz in favor of Rodriguez, the petitioner herein, is P77,216. Moreover, until June 14, 1968, no party to the cause questioned the valuation of P3.00 per square meter made by the trial court. The records, therefore, overwhelmingly refute the petitioner's allegation. They also prove that the value of the entire parcel of land had been impliedly admitted by the parties as being below P200,000.
Granting arguendo, however, that the value of the land in controversy is in excess of P200,000, to set aside at this stage all proceedings had before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. 35084-R, and before this Court in L-28462, would violate all norms of justice and equity and contravene public policy. The appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal was pending before the respondent Court during the period from 1964 until October 4, 1967, when on the latter date it was decided in favor of the appellants and against the petitioner herein and the heirs of Nieves Cruz. Yet, the appellees therein did not raise the issue of jurisdiction. The joint petition in L-28462 afforded the petitioner herein the opportunity to question the jurisdiction of the respondent Court. Again, the value of the land in controversy, was not questioned by the petitioners, not even in their amended joint petition. It was not until June 14, 1968 that the petitioner herein filed with the respondent Court a supplemental motion wherein she raised for the first time the issue of value and questioned the validity of the final decision of the respondent Court on the jurisdictional ground that the real estate involved has a value in excess of P200,000. That the petitioner's present counsel became her counsel only in May, 1968 provides no excuse for the petitioner's failure to exercise due diligence for over three years to discover that the land has a value that would oust the respondent Court of jurisdiction. The fact remains that the petitioner had allowed an unreasonable period of time to lapse before she raised the question of value and jurisdiction, and only after and because the respondent Court had decided the case
against her. The doctrine of estoppel by laches bars her from now questioning the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
The learned disquisition of Mr. Justice Arsenio P. Dizon, speaking for this Court in Serafin Tijam, et al. vs. Magdaleno Sibonghanoy, et al. (L-21450, April 15, 1968), explained, in unequivocal terms, the reasons why, in a case like the present, a losing party cannot be permitted to belatedly raise the issue of jurisdiction.
A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, of estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches.
Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitation is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction (Dean vs. Dean, 136 Or. 694, 86 A. L. R. 79). In the case just cited, by way of explaining the rule, it was further said that the question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject matter of the action or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice cannot be tolerated — obviously for reasons of public policy.
Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court (Pease vs. Rathbun-Jones, etc., 243 U.S. 273, 61 L. Ed. 715, 37 S. Ct. 283; St. Louis, etc. vs. McBride, 141 U.S. 127, 35 L. Ed. 659). And in Littleton vs. Burgess, 16 Wyo 58, the Court said that it is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.
Upon this same principle is what We said in the three cases mentioned in the resolution of the Court of Appeals of May 20, 1963 (supra) — to the effect that we frown upon the "undesirable practice" of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse — as well as in Pindañgan etc. vs. Dans, et al., G.R. L-14591, September 26, 1962; Montelibano, et al. vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., G.R. L-15092; Young Men Labor Union, etc. vs. The Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-20307, Feb. 26, 1965; and Mejia vs. Lucas, 100 Phil. p. 277.
We do not here rule that where the pleadings or other documents in the records of a case state a value of a real estate in controversy, a party to the cause may not show that the true value thereof is more or is less than that stated in the records. Section 17(5) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 precisely allows a party to submit a sworn statement of such higher or lower value. This is not to say, of course, that the court is bound by a party's sworn statement, for where more than one party submit materially differing statements of value, or where a party's sworn statement conflicts with other competent evidence, the true value is to be determined by the trial court as an issue of fact before it.
The time when the issue of the value of a real estate in controversy is to be resolved is prior to, or simultaneously with, the approval of the record on appeal and appeal bond, for it is upon the perfection of the appeal that the appellate court acquires jurisdiction over the case (Rule 41, section 9). It is at this time that a party to the cause, be he the intended appellant or the intended appellee, must raise the issue of value before the trial court, for said court
to allow appeal involving a question of fact either to this Court or to the Court of Appeals, depending on its finding on the value of the realty. Failure to raise this issue before the trial court amounts to a submission of the issue solely on the basis of the pleadings and evidence a quo and is equivalent to a waiver of the right to present the statement under oath or to adduce the other competent evidence referred to in section 17(b) of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
A contrary rule would be disastrous. For one thing, to allow a party to present proof of value before an appellate court would be to convert the said court to a trial court. For another thing, the value of real estate may change between the perfection of an appeal and the receipt of the record or the payment of the appellate court docket fee; hence, it is best, for stability, to have the value determined at the precise instant when the trial court must decide to which appellate court the appeal should be made and not at some uncertain time thereafter. Worse yet, to permit a party to prove before the Court of Appeals or before us, after a decision on the merits has been rendered, that a real estate in controversy exceeds, or does not exceed P200,000 in value, would be to encourage speculation by litigants; for, a losing party can be expected to raise the issue of value of the realty to show that it is in excess of P200,000 if the unfavorable judgment is rendered by the Court of Appeals, or to show that it does not exceed P200,000 if the unfavorable judgment is rendered by this Court, in an attempt to litigate the merits of the case all over again. 2
In the case at bar, the records — as of the perfection of the appeal on August 12, 1964 — show that the litigated real estate had a value not in excess of P200,000. Conformably with the Judiciary Act of 1948, therefore, the appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in civil case 6901 was within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
Other issues, both of fact and of law, are raised in the pleadings. Considering our conclusion that the respondent Court had jurisdiction over the appeal, it is not necessary to discuss, much less resolve, any of those other issues. However, because the petitioner and the heirs of Nieves Cruz have hammered on the twin issues of the existence of an oral contract of sale and of the efficacy of an oral novatory contract of sale, a brief discussion of these issues would not be amiss.
The agency agreement of December 31, 1958 is not impugned by any of the parties. Nieves Cruz, however, asserted that the agency remained in force until she rescinded it on September 16, 1961 by notice to that effect to Atanacio Valenzuela, et al., tendering with the said notice the return, in check, of the sum of P48,338.60 which she had received from Atanacio Valenzuela, et al. The defendants, upon the other hand, contend that the agency agreement was novated by a contract of sale in their favor and that the balance of the purchase price was not due until after the 1962 harvest. Rodriguez, when impleaded by Atanacio Valenzuela, et al., denied that she was a buyer in bad faith from Nieves Cruz.
The parties and the lower courts are agreed that Nieves Cruz had received P20,000 from Atanacio Valenzuela, et al., by January 5, 1959 and that the payment of this total sum was in accordance with the agency agreement. The parties and the lower courts, however, are at variance on the basis or reason for the subsequent payments. The petitioner herein, the heirs of Nieves Cruz and the Court of First Instance of Rizal take the position that the payments after January 5, 1959 were received by Nieves Cruz as partial or installment payments of the purchase price on the representations of Atanacio Valenzuela, et al., that they had a buyer for the property from whom these payments came, all pursuant to the agency agreement. The respondents Atanacio Valenzuela, et al., on the other hand, assert that those amounts were paid by them, as disclosed buyers, to Nieves Cruz and her children, pursuant to a novatory verbal contract of sale entered into with Nieves Cruz, subsequent to the agency agreement and prior to the issuance of the decree of registration of July 15, 1960.
It is thus clear that the decisive issues are (a) whether or not Nieves Cruz did agree to sell to Atanacio Valenzuela, et al., the litigated parcel of land sometime after January 5, 1959, and (b) whether or not the said agreement is enforceable or can be proved under the law. The fact that Atanacio Valenzuela, et al. were agents of Nieves Cruz under the agency agreement of December 31, 1958 is not material, for if it is true that Nieves Cruz did agree to sell to her agents the real estate subject of the agency, her consent took the transaction out of the prohibition contained in article 1491(2) of the Civil Code. Neither are articles 1874 and 1878(5) and (12) of the Civil Code relevant, for they refer to sales made by an agent for a principal and not to sales made by the owner personally to another, whether that other be acting personally or through a representative.
Was there a novatory oral contract to sell entered into by Nieves in favor of Atanacio Valenzuela, et al.? In resolving this question, the respondent Court pointed to significant facts and circumstances sustaining an affirmative answer.
Cited by the Court of Appeals is the testimony of Andres Nery, a successor-in-interest of Nieves Cruz and a substitute plaintiff upon Nieves Cruz' death, to the effect that after they had gone to the defendants several times, they were told that the buyer was Salud de Leon. This witness also said, according to the transcript cited by the respondent Court, that they were paid little by little and had been paid a grand total of P48,000. The respondent Court likewise adverted to the receipts (exhibits L-12 to L-22, exhibit L-24, exhibit L-26, and exhibits 12, 12-a to 12-z-1) signed by Nieves Cruz and/or her children and concluded that on the faces of these receipts it is clear that the amounts therein stated were in payment by Atanacio Valenzuela, et al. of the land which the recipients had sold to them ("ipinagbile naming lupa sa kanila"). Of incalculable significance is the notation in the original certificate of title and in the transfer certificate of title in the name of Nieves Cruz which, in unambiguous language, recorded Nieves Cruz' sale of her interest in the land to Atanacio Valenzuela, et al. If that notation were inaccurate or false, Nieves Cruz would not have remained unprotesting for over a year after the entry of the decree of registration in July, 1960, nor would she and her children have received 13 installment payments totalling P19,963 during the period from September 9, 1960 to September 3, 1961.
Salud de Leon, it should be borne in mind, is the husband of Rogaciano F. de Leon and the daughter of the defendant Liberata Santos. It should likewise be remembered that, as remarked by the trial court, Salud de Leon testified that it was she who had the oral agreement with Nieves Cruz for the purchase by Atanacio Valenzuela, et al. of the litigated property and, as found by the respondent Court, Salud de Leon was the representative of Atanacio Valenzuela, et al., not of Nieves Cruz.
We conclude, therefore, that there is substantial evidence in the record sustaining the finding of the respondent Court that the parties to the agency agreement subsequently entered into a new and different contract by which the landowner, Nieves Cruz, verbally agreed to sell her interest in the litigated real estate to Atanacio Valenzuela, et al.
A legion of receipts there are of payments of the purchase price signed by Nieves Cruz. True, these receipts do not state all the basic elements of a contract of sale, for they do not expressly identify the object nor fix a price or the manner of fixing the price. The parties, however, are agreed — at least the plaintiff has not questioned the defendants' claim to this effect — that the object of the sale referred to in the receipts is Nieves Cruz' share in the land she co-owned with her brother Emilio and that the price therefor is P1.60 per square meter. At all events, by failing to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the sale and by accepting from the defendants a total of P27,198.60 after January 5, 1959, the plaintiff thereby ratified the oral contract, conformably with article 1405 of the Civil Code, and removed the partly executed agreement from the operation of the Statute of Frauds. And, finally, the sale was established and recognized in the land registration proceedings wherein the land court, in its decision, categorically stated:
[T]he applicant Nieves Cruz has likewise sold her one-half (½) undivided share to the spouses Atanacio Valenzuela and Maximina Victorio and Liberata Santos from whom she had received partial payment thereof in the sum of P22,000.00.
The pertinent certificates of title bear the annotation of the aforesaid right of Atanacio Valenzuela, et al. The final decision of the land court — to the effect that Nieves Cruz had sold her undivided share to Atanacio Valenzuela, et al., and had received a partial payment of P22,000 — is now beyond judicial review, and, because a land registration case is a proceeding in rem, binds even Rodriguez.
Rodriguez nevertheless insist that despite the rescission by the Court of Appeals of her purchase from Nieves Cruz, the said respondent Court did not order Nieves Cruz to return the P77,216 which she had received from her. While mutual constitution follows rescission of a contract (article 1385, Civil Code), the respondent Court should not be blamed for omitting to order Nieves Cruz to restore what she had received from the petitioner on account of the rescinded contract of sale. In the first place, in the pleadings filed before the trial court, Rodriguez made no claim for restitution against Nieves Cruz or her heirs. In the second place, Nieves Cruz died in the course of the proceedings
below and was substituted by her heirs who, necessarily, can be held individually liable for restitution only to the extent that they inherited from her.
Nevertheless, inasmuch as rescission of the contract between Nieves Cruz and the petitioner herein was decreed by the respondent Court, the latter should be entitled to restitution as a matter of law. It is of no moment that herein petitioner did not file any cross-claim for restitution against the plaintiff, for her answer was directed to the defendants' claim which was in the nature of a third-party complaint. She was neither a co-defendant nor a co-third-party defendant with Nieves Cruz; nor were Nieves Cruz and the herein petitioner opposing parties a quo, for they joined in maintaining the validity of their contract. Section 4 of Rule 9, therefore, has no application to the petitioner's right to restitution.
We declare, consequently, that the estate of Nieves Cruz is liable to Barbara Lombos Rodriguez for the return to the latter of the sum of P77,216, less the amount which Atanacio Valenzuela, et al. had deposited with the trial court in accordance with the decision of respondent Court. We cannot order the heirs of Nieves Cruz to make the refund. As we observed above, these heirs are liable for restitution only to the extent of their individual inheritance from Nieves Cruz. Other actions or proceedings have to be commenced to determine the liability accruing to each of the heirs of Nieves Cruz.
ACCORDINGLY, the present petition for mandamus and certiorari is denied, at petitioner's cost.
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-15737 February 28, 1962
LEONOR VILLAFLOR VDA. DE VILLANUEVA, plaintiff-appellant, vs.DELFIN N. JUICO, in his capacity as Judicial Administrator of the testate estate of FAUSTA NEPOMUCENO, defendant-appellee.
Amado G. Salazar for plaintiff-appellant.Sycip, Salazar, Luna and Associates for defendant-appellee.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Subject to this direct appeal to us on points of law is the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, in its Civil Case No. Q-2809, dismissing plaintiff-appellant's complaint for the recovery of certain properties that were originally owned by the plaintiff's granduncle, Nicolas Villaflor, and which he granted to his widow, Doña Fausta Nepomuceno, bequeathing to her "su uso y posesion mientras viva y no se case en segundas nupcias".
The following facts appear of record: On October 9, 1908, Don Nicolas Villaflor, a wealthy man of Castillejos, Zambales, executed a will in Spanish in his own handwriting, devising and bequeathing in favor of his wife, Dona Fausta Nepomuceno, one-half of all his real and personal properties, giving the other half to his brother Don Fausto Villaflor.
Clause 6th, containing the institution of heirs, reads as follows: .
SEXTO — En virtud de las facultades que me conceden las leyes, instituyo per mis unicos y universales herederos de todos mis derechos y acciones a mi hermano D. Fausto Villaflor y a mi esposa Da. Fausta Nepomuceno para que partan todos mis bienes que me pertenescan, en iguales partes, para despues de mi muerte, exceptuando las donaciones y legados que, abajo mi mas expontanea voluntad, lo hago en la forma siguiente: .
SEPTIMO: — Lego para dispues de mi muerte a mi esposa Da. Fausta Nepomuceno, en prueba de mi amor y carino, los bienes, alhajas y muebles que a continuacion se expresan; .
OCTAVO: — Que estos legades disfrutaria mi referida esposa Da. Fausta Nepomuceno su uso y posesion mientras viva y no se case en segundas nupcias, de la contrario, pasara a ser propiedad estos dichos legados de mi sobrina nieta Leonor Villaflor.
The 12th clause of the will provided, however, that Clauses 6th and 7th thereof would be deemed annulled from the moment he bore any child with Doña Fausta Nepomuceno. Said Clause 12th reads as follows: .
DUODECIMO: — Quedan anulados las parrafos 6.0 y 7.0 de este testamento que tratan de institucion de herederos y los legados que se haran despues de mi muerte a favor de mi esposa, en el momento que podre tener la dicha de contrar con hijo y hijos legitimos o legitimados, pues estos, conforme a ley seran mis herederos.
Don Nicolas Villaflor died on March 3, 1922, without begetting any child with his wife Doña Fausta Nepomuceno. The latter, already a widow, thereupon instituted Special Proceeding No. 203 of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, for the settlement of her husband's estate and in that proceeding, she was appointed judicial administratrix. In due course of administration, she submitted a project of partition, now Exhibit "E". In the order of November 24, 1924, now exhibit "C", the probate court approved the project of partition and declared the proceeding closed. As the project of partition, Exhibit "E", now shows Doña Fausta Nepomuceno received by virtue thereof the ownership and possession of a considerable amount of real and personal estate. By virtue also of the said project of partition, she received the use and possession of all the real and personal properties mentioned and referred to in Clause 7th of the will. The order approving the project of partition (Exh. "C"), however, expressly provided that approval thereof was "sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en la clausula 8.o del testamento de Nicolas Villaflor." .
On May 1, 1956, Doña Fausta Nepomuceno died without having contracted a second marriage, and without having begotten any child with the deceased Nicolas Villaflor. Her estate is now being settled in Special Proceeding No. Q-1563 in the lower court, with the defendant Delfin N. Juico as the duly appointed and qualified judicial administrator.
The plaintiff Leonor Villaflor Vda. de Villanueva is admitted to be the same Leonor Villaflor mentioned by Don Nicolas Villaflor in his will as his "sobrina nieta Leonor Villaflor".
Plaintiff Leonor Villaflor instituted the present action against the administrator of the estate of the widow Fausta Nepomuceno, on February 8, 1958, contending that upon the widow's death, said plaintiff became vested with the ownership of the real and personal properties bequeathed by the late Nicolas Villaflor to clause 7 of his will, pursuant to its eight (8th) clause. Defendant's position, adopted by the trial court, is that the title to the properties aforesaid became absolutely vested in the widow upon her death, on account of the fact that she never remarried.
We agree with appellant that the plain desire and intent of the testator, as manifested in clause 8 of his testament, was to invest his widow with only a usufruct or life tenure in the properties described in the seventh clause, subject to the further condition (admitted by the appellee) that if the widow remarried, her rights would thereupon cease, even during her own lifetime. That the widow was meant to have no more than a life interest in those properties, even if she did not remarry at all, is evident from the expressions used by the deceased "uso y posesion mientras viva" (use and possession while alive) in which the first half of the phrase "uso y posesion" instead of "dominio" or "propiedad") reinforces the second ("mientras viva"). The testator plainly did not give his widow the full ownership of these particular properties, but only the right to their possession and use (or enjoyment) during her lifetime. This is in contrast with the remainder of the estate in which she was instituted universal heir together with the testator's brother (clause 6). 1äwphï1.ñët
SEXTO: — En virtud de las facultades que me conceden las leyes, instituyo por mis unicos y universales herederos de todos mis derechos y acciones a mi hermano D. Fausto Villaflor y a mi esposa Da. Fausta Nepomuceno para que parten todos mis bienes que me pertenescan, en iguales partes, para despues de mi muerte, exceptuando las donaciones y legados que, abajo mi mas expontanea voluntad, lo hago en la forma siguiente.
The court below, in holding that the appellant Leonor Villaflor, as reversionary legatee, could succeed to the properties bequeathed by clause 7 of the testament only in the event that the widow remarried, has unwarrantedly discarded the expression "mientras viva," and considered the words "uso y posesion" as equivalent to "dominio" (ownership). In so doing, the trial court violated Article 791 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, as well as section 59 of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court.
ART. 791. The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some effect, rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting a will, that one is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy." .
SEC. 59. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. — In the construction of an instrument where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all." .
Speculation as to the motives of the testator in imposing the conditions contained in clause 7 of his testament should not be allowed to obscure the clear and unambiguous meaning of his plain words, which are over the primary source in ascertaining his intent. It is well to note that if the testator had intended to impose as sole condition the non-remarriage of his widow, the words "uso y posesion mientras viva" would have been unnecessary, since the widow could only remarry during her own lifetime.
The Civil Code, in Article 790, p. 1 (Article 675 of the Code of 1889), expressly enjoins the following: .
ART. 790. The words of a will are to be taken in their ordinary and grammatical sense, unless a clear intention to use them in another sense can be gathered, and that other can be ascertained." .
Technical words in a will are to be taken in their technical sense, unless the context clearly indicates a contrary intention, or unless it satisfactorily appears that the will was drawn solely by the testator, and that he was unacquainted with such technical sense. (675a)
In consonance with this rule, this Supreme Court has laid the doctrine in In re Estate of Calderon, 26 Phil., 233, that the intention and wishes of the testator, when clearly expressed in his will, constitute the fixed law of interpretation, and all questions raised at the trial, relative to its execution and fulfillment, must be settled in accordance therewith, following the plain and literal meaning of the testator's words, unless it clearly appears that his intention was otherwise. The same rule is adopted by the Supreme Court of Spain (TS. Sent. 20 Marzo 1918; 28 Mayo 1918; 30 Abril 1913; 16 Enero 1915; 23 Oct. 1925).
La voluntad del testador, clara, precisa y constantemente expresada al ordenar su ultimo voluntad, es ley unica, imperativa y obligatoria que han de obedecer y cumplir fieldmente albaceas, legatarios y heredera, hoy sus sucesores, sin que esa voluntad patente, que no ha menester de interpretaciones, pues no ofrece la menor duda, pueda sustituirse, pues no ofrece la menor duda, pueda sustituirse por ningun otro criterio de alguna de los interesados, ni tampoco por el judicial. (Tribunal Supremo of Spain, Sent. 20 March 1918) .
The American decisions invoked by appellee in his brief inapplicable, because they involve cases where the only condition imposed on the legatee was that she should remain a widow. As already shown, the testament of Don Nicolas Villaflor clearly and unmistakably provided that his widow should have the possession and use of the legacies while alive and did not remarry. It necessarily follows that by the express provisions of the 8th clause of his will, the legacies should pass to the testator's "sobrinanieta", appellant herein, upon the widow's death, even if the widow never remarried in her lifetime. Consequently, the widow had no right to retain or dispose of the aforesaid properties, and her estate is accountable to the reversionary legatee for their return, unless they had been lost due to fortuitous event, or for their value should rights of innocent third parties have intervened.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the appellant Leonor Villaflor Vda. de VILLANUEVA is declared entitled to the ownership and fruits of the properties described in clause 7 of the will or testament, from the date of the death of Doña Fausta Nepomuceno. The records are ordered remanded to the court of origin for liquidation, accounting and further proceedings conformably to this decision. Costs against the Administrator-appellee.
![Succession [Legitime Cases]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/55cf94e1550346f57ba51126/succession-legitime-cases.jpg)
