G.R. No. L-22036 April 30, 1979 TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE REVEREND FATHER PASC AL R!GOR.

THE PAR!SH PR!EST OF THE RO"AN CATHOL!C CH RCH OF V!CTOR!A, TARLAC, petitionerappellant, vs. #EL!NA R!GOR, NESTORA R!GOR, FRANC!SCA ESCO#AR DE R!GOR $%& 'OV!TA ESCO#AR DE FA STO,respondents-appellees. D. Taedo, Jr. for appellants. J. Palanca, Sr. for appellee. This case is about the efficaciousness or enforceability of a devise of ricelands located at Guimba, Nueva Ecija, with a total area of around forty- four hectares That devise was made in the will of the late Father Pascual i!or, a native of "ictoria Tarlac, in favor of his nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood. The parish priest of "ictoria, who claimed to be a trustee of the said lands, appealed to this #ourt from the decision of the #ourt of $ppeals affirmin! the order of the probate court declarin! that the said devise was inoperative % i!or vs. Parish Priest of the oman #atholic #hurch of "ictoria, Tarlac, #$-G. . No. &'()*- , $u!ust ), )*+(,. The record discloses that Father i!or, the parish priest of Pulilan, -ulacan, died on $u!ust *, )*(., leavin! a will e/ecuted on 0ctober &*, )*(( which was probated by the #ourt of First 1nstance of Tarlac in its order of 2ecember ., )*(.. Named as devisees in the will were the testators nearest relatives, namely, his three sisters3 Florencia i!or-Escobar, -elina i!or4analoto and Nestora i!or-5uiambao. The testator !ave a devise to his cousin, Fortunato Gamalinda. 1n addition, the will contained the followin! controversial be6uest %para!raphin! supplied to facilitate comprehension of the testamentary provisions,3 2oy y dejo como le!ado #7$T 0 %', P$ #E8$9 de terreno palayeros situados en el municipiooo de Guimba de la provinciaaa de N7E"$ E#1:$, cuyo num. de #E T1F1#$20 2E T $N9FE EN#1$ 2E T1T780 90N; < Titulo Num. +.(=, mide )+,&'* m. cuadrados de superficie Titulo Num. +.'>, mide &'&,**> m. cuadrados de superficie y annual +.&., mide +&,++. m. cuadrados de superficie; y Titulo Num. +.&), mide ))*,&.) m. cuadrados de superficie; a cualquier pariente mio varon mas cercano que estudie la carrera eclesiatica hasta ordenarse de Presbiterado o sea Sacerdote; las condiciones de estate le!ado son; %).a, Prohibe en absoluto la venta de estos terrenos arriba situados objectos de este le!ado; %&.a, 5ue el le!atario pariente mio mas cercano tendra derecho de empe?ar a !o?ar y administrar de este le!ado al principiar a cur?ar la 9a!rada Teolo!io, y

ordenado de 9acerdote, hasta su muerte; pero 6ue pierde el le!atario este derecho de administrar y !o?ar de este le!ado al dejar de continuar sus estudios para ordenarse de Presbiterado %9acerdote,. 5ue el le!atario una ve? 9acerdote ya estara obli!ado a celebrar cada a@o "E1NTE %&=, 4isas re?adas en sufra!io de mi alma y de mis padres difuntos, y si el actual le!atario, 6uedase e/comul!ado, 1P90 F$#T0 se le despoja este le!ado, y la administracion de esto pasara a car!o del actual Parroco y sus sucesores de la 1!lecia #atolica de "ictoria, Tarlac. A en intervalo de tiempo 6ue no haya le!atario acondicionado se!un lo arriba 6ueda e/presado, pasara la administracion de este le!ado a car!o del actual Parroco #atolico y sus sucesores, de "ictoria, Tarlac. El Parroco administrador de estate le!ado, acumulara, anualmente todos los productos 6ue puede tener estate le!ado, !anando o sacando de los productos anuales el #1N#0 %., por ciento para su administracion, y los derechos correspondientes de las "E1NTE %&=, 4isas re?adas 6ue debiera el Parroco celebrar cada a@o, depositando todo lo restante de los productos de estate le!ado, en un banco, a nombre de estate le!ado. To implement the fore!oin! be6uest, the administrati/ in )*'= submitted a project containin! the followin! item3 .. 8EG$#A 0F TBE #B7 #B That it be adjudicated in favor of the le!acy purported to be !iven to the nearest male relative who shall taCe the priesthood, and in the interim to be administered by the actual #atholic Priest of the oman #atholic #hurch of "ictoria, Tarlac, Philippines, or his successors, the real properties hereinbelow indicated, to wit3

Ti tl e N o.

8ot No.

$rea in Bas. ).+&' *

Ta/ 2ec.

$ss. "alue

T + . ( = T +

(++ (

)>D '=

P ('=.==

('' .-#

&'.&* *>

)>D (=

D,&*=. ==

. ' > T + . & . T + . & ) (+D = +.&++ . )>D (+ ),>>=. ==

(++ +

)).*& .)

)>D ((

(,.>=. ==

Total amount and value < ''.))+( P)(,=*=.== :ud!e oman $. #ru? in his order of $u!ust )., )*'=, approvin! the project of partition, directed that after payment of the obli!ations of the estate %includin! the sum of P(,)(&.&+ due to the church of the "ictoria parish, the administratri/ should deliver to the devisees their respective shares. 1t may be noted that the administratri/ and :ud!e #ru? did not bother to analy?e the meanin! and implications of Father i!orEs be6uest to his nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood. 1nasmuch as no nephew of the testator claimed the devise and as the administratri/ and the le!al heirs believed that the parish priest of "ictoria had no ri!ht to administer the ricelands, the same were not delivered to that ecclesiastic. The testate proceedin! remained pendin!. $bout thirteen years after the approval of the project of partition, or on February )*, )*.', the parish priest of "ictoria filed in the pendin! testate proceedin! a petition prayin! for the appointment of a new administrator %succeedin! the deceased administration Florencia i!or,, who should deliver to the church the said ricelands, and further prayin! that the possessors thereof be ordered to render an accountin! of the fruits. The probate court !ranted the petition. $ new administrator was appointed. 0n :anuary (), )*.D the parish priest filed another petition for the delivery of the ricelands to the church as trustee. The intestate heirs of Father i!or countered with a petition dated 4arch &., )*.D prayin! that the be6uest be d inoperative and that they be adjud!ed as the persons entitled to the said ricelands since, as admitted by the parish priest of "ictoria, Fno nearest male relative ofF the testator Fhas ever studied for the priesthoodF %pp. &. and (., ecord on $ppeal,. That petition was opposed by the parish priest of "ictoria.

Findin! that petition to be meritorious, the lower court, throu!h :ud!e -ernabe de $6uino, declared the be6uest inoperative and adjudicated the ricelands to the testatorEs le!al heirs in his order of :une &>, )*.D. The parish priest filed two motions for reconsideration. :ud!e 2e $6uino !ranted the respond motion for reconsideration in his order of 2ecember )=, )*.D on the !round that the testator had a !randnephew named Ed!ardo G. #unanan %the !randson of his first cousin, who was a seminarian in the 9an :ose 9eminary of the :esuit Fathers in 5ue?on #ity. The administrator was directed to deliver the ricelands to the parish priest of "ictoria as trustee. The le!al heirs appealed to the #ourt of $ppeals. 1t reversed that order. 1t held that Father i!or had created a testamentary trust for his nearest male relative who would taCe the holy orders but that such trust could e/ist only for twenty years because to enforce it beyond that period would violate Fthe rule a!ainst perpetuities. 1t ruled that since no le!atee claimed the ricelands within twenty years after the testatorEs death, the same should pass to his le!al heirs, citin! articles >>> and *)&%&, of the old #ivil #ode and article >D= of the new #ivil #ode. The parish priest in this appeal contends that the #ourt of $ppeals erred in not findin! that the testator created a public charitable trust and in not liberally construin! the testamentary provisions so as to render the trust operative and to prevent intestacy. $s refutation, the le!al heirs ar!ue that the #ourt of $ppeals d the be6uest inoperative because no one amon! the testatorEs nearest male relatives had studied for the priesthood and not because the trust was a private charitable trust. $ccordin! to the le!al heirs, that factual findin! is bindin! on this #ourt. They point out that appellant priestEs chan!e of theory cannot be countenanced in this appeal . 1n this case, as in cases involvin! the law of contracts and statutory construction, where the intention of the contractin! parties or of the lawmaCin! body is to be ascertained, the primary issue is the determination of the testatorEs intention which is the law of the case %dicat testor et erit lex. 9antos vs. 4anaran!, &D Phil. &=*, &).; odri!ue? vs. #ourt of $ppeals, 8-&>D(', 4arch &>, )*+*, &D 9# $ .'+,. The will of the testator is the first and principal law in the matter of testaments. Ghen his intention is clearly and precisely e/pressed, any interpretation must be in accord with the plain and literal meanin! of his words, e/cept when it may certainly appear that his intention was different from that literally e/pressed %In re Estate of #alderon, &+ Phil. (((,. The intent of the testator is the cardinal rule in the construction of wills.F 1t is Fthe life and soul of a will 1t is Fthe first !reatest rule, the soverei!n !uide, the polestar, in !ivin! effect to a willF. %9ee 2issent of :ustice 4oreland in 9antos vs. 4anaran!, &D Phil. &=*, &&(, &(D->., 0ne canon in the interpretation of the testamentary provisions is that Fthe testatorEs intention is to be ascertained from the words of the wilt taCin! into consideration the circumstances under which it was madeF, but e/cludin! the testatorEs oral declarations as to his intention %$rt. D>*, #ivil #ode of the Philippines,.

To ascertain Father i!orEs intention, it may be useful to maCe the followin! re-statement of the provisions of his will. ). that he be6ueathed the ricelands to anyone of his nearest male relatives who would pursue an ecclesiastical career until his ordination as a priest. &. That the devisee could not sell the ricelands. (. That the devisee at the inception of his studies in sacred theolo!y could enjoy and administer the ricelands, and once ordained as a priest, he could continue enjoyin! and administerin! the same up to the time of his death but the devisee would cease to enjoy and administer the ricelands if he discontinued his studies for the priesthood. '. That if the devisee became a priest, he would be obli!ated to celebrate every year twenty masses with prayers for the repose of the souls of Father i!or and his parents. .. That if the devisee is e/communicated, he would be divested of the le!acy and the administration of the riceland would pass to the incumbent parish priest of "ictoria and his successors. +. That durin! the interval of time that there is no 6ualified devisee as contemplated above, the administration of the ricelands would be under the responsibility of the incumbent parish priest of "ictoria and his successors, and D. That the parish priest-administrator of the ricelands would accumulate annually the products thereof, obtainin! or !ettin! from the annual produce five percent thereof for his administration and the fees correspondin! to the twenty masses with prayers that the parish priest would celebrate for each year, depositin! the balance of the income of the devise in the banC in the name of his be6uest. From the fore!oin! testamentary provisions, it may be deduced that the testator intended to devise the ricelands to his nearest male relative who would become a priest, who was forbidden to sell the ricelands, who would lose the devise if he discontinued his studies for the priesthood, or havin! been ordained a priest, he was e/communicated, and who would be obli!ated to say annually twenty masses with prayers for the repose of the souls of the testator and his parents. 0n the other hand, it is clear that the parish priest of "ictoria would administer the ricelands only in two situations3 one, durin! the interval of time that no nearest male relative of the testator was studyin! for the priesthood and two, in case the testatorEs nephew became a priest and he was e/communicated. Ghat is not clear is the duration of Fel intervalo de tiempo 6ue no haya le!atario acondicionadoF, or how lon! after the testatorEs death would it be determined that he had a nephew who would pursue an ecclesiastical vocation. 1t is that patent ambi!uity that has brou!ht about the controversy between the parish priest of "ictoria and the testatorEs le!al heirs.

1nterwoven with that e6uivocal provision is the time hen the nearest male relative ho ould stud! for the priesthood should be determined. 2id the testator contemplate only his nearest male relative at the time of his death" 0r did he have in mind any of his nearest male relatives at an!time after his death" Ge hold that the said be6uest refers to the testatorEs nearest male relative livin# at the time of his death and not to an! indefinite time thereafter. F1n order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or le!atee must be livin! at the moment the succession opens, e/cept in case of representation, when it is properF %$rt. )=&., #ivil #ode,. The said testamentary provisions should be sensibly or reasonably construed. To construe them as referrin! to the testatorEs nearest male relative at an!time after his death would render the provisions difficult to apply and create uncertainty as to the disposition of his estate. That could not have been his intention. 1n )*(., when the testator died, his nearest lea!al heirs were his three sisters or secondde!ree relatives, 4rs. Escobar, 4rs. 4analoto and 4rs. 5uiambao. 0bviously, when the testator specified his nearest male relative, he must have had in mind his nephew or a son of his sister, who would be his third-de!ree relative, or possibly a !randnephew. -ut since he could not pro!nosticate the e/act date of his death or state with certitude what cate!ory of nearest male relative would be livin! at the time of his death, he could not specify that his nearest male relative would be his nephew or !randnephews %the son of his nephew or niece, and so he had to use the term Fnearest male relativeF. 1t is contended by the le!al heirs that the said devise was in reality intended for amon 5uiambao, the testatorEs nephew and !odchild, who was the son of his sister, 4rs. 5uiambao. To prove that contention, the le!al heirs presented in the lower court the affidavit of -eatri? Gamalinda, the maternal !randmother of Ed!ardo #unanan, who deposed that after Father i!orEs death her own son, "alentin Gamalinda, :r., did not claim the devise, althou!h he was studyin! for the priesthood at the 9an #arlos 9eminary, because she %-eatri?, Cnew that Father i!or had intended that devise for his nearest male relative belonin# to the $i#or famil! %pp. )=.-))', ecord on $ppeal,. 4rs. Gamalinda further deposed that her own !randchild, Ed!ardo G. #unanan, was not the one contemplated in Father i!orEs will and that Ed!ardoEs father told her that he was not consulted by the parish priest of "ictoria before the latter filed his second motion for reconsideration which was based on the !round that the testatorEs !randnephew, Ed!ardo, was studyin! for the priesthood at the 9an :ose 9eminary. Parenthetically, it should be stated at this juncture that Ed!ardo ceased to be a seminarian in )*+). For that reason, the le!al heirs apprised the #ourt of $ppeals that the probate courtEs order adjudicatin! the ricelands to the parish priest of "ictoria had no more le! to stand on %p. >', $ppellantEs brief,. 0f course, 4rs. GamalindaEs affidavit, which is tantamount to evidence aliunde as to the testatorEs intention and which is hearsay, has no probative value. 0ur opinion that the said be6uest refers to the testatorEs nephew who was livin! at the time of his death, when his

succession was opened and the successional ri!hts to his estate became vested, rests on a judicious and unbiased readin! of the terms of the will. Bad the testator intended that the Fcual6uier pariente mio varon mas cercano 6ue estudie la camera eclesiaticaF would include indefinitely anyone of his nearest male relatives born after his death, he could have so specified in his will Be must have Cnown that such a broad provision would suspend for an unlimited period of time the efficaciousness of his be6uest. Ghat then did the testator mean by Fel intervalo de tiempo 6ue no haya le!atario acondicionadoFH The reasonable view is that he was referrin! to a situation whereby his nephew livin! at the time of his death, who would liCe to become a priest, was still in !rade school or in hi!h school or was not yet in the seminary. 1n that case, the parish priest of "ictoria would administer the ricelands before the nephew entered the seminary. -ut the moment the testatorEs nephew entered the seminary, then he would be entitled to enjoy and administer the ricelands and receive the fruits thereof. 1n that event, the trusteeship would be terminated. Followin! that interpretation of the will the in6uiry would be whether at the time Father i!or died in )*(. he had a nephew who was studyin! for the priesthood or who had manifested his desire to follow the ecclesiastical career. That 6uery is cate!orically answered in para!raph ' of appellant priestEs petitions of February )*, )*.' and :anuary (), )*.D. Be une6uivocally alle!ed therein that Fnot male relative of the late %Father, Pascual i!or has ever studied for the priesthoodF %pp. &. and (., ecord on $ppeal,. 1nasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest, the unavoidable conclusion is that the be6uest in 6uestion was ineffectual or inoperative. Therefore, the administration of the ricelands by the parish priest of "ictoria, as envisa!ed in the wilt was liCewise inoperative. The appellant in contendin! that a public charitable trust was constituted by the testator in is favor assumes that he was a trustee or a substitute devisee That contention is untenable. $ readin! of the testamentary provisions re!ardin! the disputed be6uest not support the view that the parish priest of "ictoria was a trustee or a substitute devisee in the event that the testator was not survived by a nephew who became a priest. 1t should be understood that the parish priest of "ictoria could become a trustee only when the testatorEs nephew livin! at the time of his death, who desired to become a priest, had not yet entered the seminary or, havin! been ordained a priest, he was e/communicated. Those two contin!encies did not arise, and could not have arisen in this case because no nephew of the testator manifested any intention to enter the seminary or ever became a priest. The #ourt of $ppeals correctly ruled that this case is covered by article >>> of the old #ivil #ode, now article *.+, which provides that if Fthe be6uest for any reason should be inoperative, it shall be mer!ed into the estate, e/cept in cases of substitution and those in which the ri!ht of accretion e/istsF %Fel le!ado ... por 6ual6uier causa, no ten!a efecto se refundira en la masa de la herencia, fuera de los casos de sustitucion y derecho de acrecerF,.

This case is also covered by article *)&%&, of the old #ivil #ode, now article *+= %&,, which provides that le!al succession taCes place when the will Fdoes not dispose of all that belon!s to the testator.F There bein! no substitution nor accretion as to the said ricelands the same should be distributed amon! the testatorEs le!al heirs. The effect is as if the testator had made no disposition as to the said ricelands. The #ivil #ode reco!ni?es that a person may die partly testate and partly intestate, or that there may be mi/ed succession. The old rule as to the indivisibility of the testatorEs win is no lon!er valid. Thus, if a conditional le!acy does not taCe effect, there will be intestate succession as to the property recovered by the said le!acy %4acrohon 0n! Bam vs. 9aavedra, .) Phil. &+D,. Ge find no merit in the appeal The $ppellate #ourtEs decision is affirmed. #osts a!ainst the petitioner. 90 0 2E E2