Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Palacios V Ramirez

    Uploaded by

    Nina Castillo
    1) The case involved a will that established fideicommissary substitutions for the estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez. 2) Jorge and Roberto Ramirez contested the substitutions, arguing that the first and second heirs were not related within the first degree as required by law. 3) The Supreme Court agreed, finding the substitutions invalid because Wanda, the first heir, was not related within one generation to the substitutes, Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez. The estate was distributed differently with half going outright to the widow and half in naked ownership to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Palacios V Ramirez

    Uploaded by

    Nina Castillo
    52 views3 pages
    1) The case involved a will that established fideicommissary substitutions for the estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez. 2) Jorge and Roberto Ramirez contested the substitutions, arguing that the first and second heirs were not related within the first degree as required by law. 3) The Supreme Court agreed, finding the substitutions invalid because Wanda, the first heir, was not related within one generation to the substitutes, Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez. The estate was distributed differently with half going outright to the widow and half in naked ownership to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez.

    Original Description:

    Wills and Succession

    Original Title

    Palacios v Ramirez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved a will that established fideicommissary substitutions for the estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez. 2) Jorge and Roberto Ramirez contested the substitutions, arguing that the first and second heirs were not related within the first degree as required by law. 3) The Supreme Court agreed, finding the substitutions invalid because Wanda, the first heir, was not related within one generation to the substitutes, Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez. The estate was distributed differently with half going outright to the widow and half in naked ownership to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views3 pages

    Palacios V Ramirez

    Uploaded by

    Nina Castillo
    1) The case involved a will that established fideicommissary substitutions for the estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez. 2) Jorge and Roberto Ramirez contested the substitutions, arguing that the first and second heirs were not related within the first degree as required by law. 3) The Supreme Court agreed, finding the substitutions invalid because Wanda, the first heir, was not related within one generation to the substitutes, Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez. The estate was distributed differently with half going outright to the widow and half in naked ownership to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Palacios v.

    Ramirez
    TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, MARIA LUISA PALACIOS,
    Administratrix, petitioner-appellee,
    vs.
    MARCELLE D. VDA. DE RAMIREZ, ET AL., oppositors, JORGE and ROBERTO
    RAMIREZ, legatees, oppositors- appellants.

    DOCTRINE: Some commentators of the Civil Code have expressed the opinion that a
    fideicommissary substitution is in fact a disguised case of successive institutions. This is because
    both the first and the second heirs inherit from the testator and not from one another. The
    beneficial use and possession of the inheritance are first given to the first heir for a lifetime at
    most, and thereafter transferred to the second heir. The law requires that the first and second
    heirs must be one degree apart from each other. This limitation became the objective of two
    divergent views. One view holds that the one degree apart rule refers to one transfer. Ramirez
    settled the controversy by holding the more restrictive view.

    In an obiter, the Court opined that the constitutional prohibition against alien ownership
    of land does not permit an alien to acquire the same by testamentary succession. Would such a
    ruling apply to a case where the foreign beneficiary is both a testamentary and a compulsory
    heir?

    FACTS: Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain on December 11, 1964, with
    only a widow as compulsory heir. His will was admitted to probate by the CFI of Manila
    1. The widow Marcelle is a French who lives in Paris, while the companion Wanda is an
    Austrian who lives in Spain
    2. The administratrix submitted a project of partition as follows: the property of the
    deceased is to be divided into two parts. One part shall go to the widow en pleno
    dominio in satisfaction of her legitimee; the other part or free portion shall go to Jorge
    and Roberto Ramirez en nuda propriedad. Furthermore, 1/3 of the free portion is
    charged with the widows usufruct and the remaining 2/3 with a usufruct in favor of
    Wanda.

    3. Jorge and Roberto opposed the project of partition on the ground that the
    fideicommissary substitutions are invalid because the first heirs are not related to the
    second heirs or substitutes within the first degree, as provided in Art. 863 of the Civil
    Code.

    ISSUE: WON the fideicommissary substitutions are invalid.

    HELD: Yes, the appellants are correct in their claim that it is void.
    The substitutes (Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez) are not related to Wanda, the heir
    originally instituted. Art. 863 of the Civil Code validates a fideicommissary substitution
    provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted.

    The word degree was construed as generation and this interpretation has been followed in the
    present Code, by providing that the substitution shall not go beyond one degree from the heir
    originally instituted. The Code this clearly indicates that the second heir must be related to and
    be one generation from the first heir. It follows that the fideicommissary can only be either a
    child or a parent of the first heir. These are the only relatives who are one generation or degree
    from the fiduciary.

    There is no absolute duty imposed on Wanda to transmit the usufruct to the substitutes as
    required by Arts. 865 and 867 of the Civil Code. In fact, the appellee admits that the testator
    contradicts the establishment of a fideicommissary substitution when he permits the properties of
    the subject of the usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement of the usufructuaries and the naked
    owners.

    The Court ordered to distribute the estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez as follows:
    thereof to his widow as her legitime;

    thereof which is the free portion to Roberto and Jorge Ramirez in naked ownership and the
    usufruct to Wanda de Wrobleski with a simple substitution in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and
    Horace V. Ramirez.

    You might also like