704

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramirez vs. Vda. de Ramirez
*

No. L27952. February 15, 1982.

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,
oppositorsappellants.
Testate Succession, The testator cannot impose any lien,
substitution, or condition on his widows legitime.The
appellants do not question the legality of giving Marcelle onehalf
of the estate in full ownership. They adroit that the testators
dispositions impaired his widows legitime. Indeed, under Art. 900
of the Civil Code
_______________
*

SECOND DIVISION

705

VOL. 111, FEBRUARY 15, 1982

Ramirez vs. Vda. de Ramirez

705

If the only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be

entitled to onehalf of the hereditary estate. And since Marcelle
alone survived the deceased, she is entitled to onehalf of his
estate over which he could impose no burden, encumbrance,
condition or substitution of any kind whatsoever. (Art. 904, par. 2,
Civil Code.)
Same; The proposed creation by the administratrix in favor of
the testators widow of a usufruct over 113 of the free portion of the
testators estate cannot be made where it will run counter to
testators express will.It is the onethird usufruct over the free

portion which the appellants question and justifiably so. It

appears that the court a quo approved the usufruct in favor of
Marcelle because the testament provides for a usufruct in her
favor of onethird of the estate. The court a quo erred for Marcelle
who is entitled to onehalf of the estate en pleno dominio as her
legitime and which is more than what she is given under the will
is not entitled to have any additional share in the estate. To give
Marcelle more than her legitime will run counter to the testators
intention for as stated above his dispositions even impaired her
legitime and tended to favor Wanda.
Same; A vulgar substitution of heirs is valid even if the heir
designated survives the testator inasmuch us vulgar substitution
can take place also by refusal or incapacity to inherit of the first
heir.They allege that the substitution in its vulgar aspect is
void because Wanda survived the testator or stated differently
because she did not predecease the testator. But dying before the
testator is not the only case for vulgar substitution for it also
includes refusal or incapacity to accept the inheritance as
provided in Art. 859 of the Civil Code, supra. Hence, the vulgar
substitution is valid.
Same; A fideicommissary substitution is void if first heir is
not related in the 1st degree to the second heir.As regards the
substitution in its fideicommissary aspect, the appellants are
correct in their claim that it is void for the following reasons: 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.
Same; Constitutional Law; The Constitutional provision
which allows aliens to acquire lands by succession does not apply
to testamentary succession.We are of the opinion that the
Constitutional provision which enables aliens to acquire private
lands
706

706

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramirez vs. Vda. de Ramirez

does not extend to testamentary succession for otherwise the

prohibition will be for naught and meaningless. Any alien would
be able to circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a
Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land.

Same; Same; An alien may be bestowed usufructuary rights

over a parcel of land in the Philippines.We uphold the usufruct
in favor of Wanda because a usufruct, albeit a real right, does not
vest title to the land in the usufructuary and it is the vesting of
title to land in favor of aliens which is proscribed by the
Constitution.

APPEAL from the decision of the Court of First Instance of

Manila, Branch X.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
The main issue in this appeal is the manner of partitioning
the testate estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez among the
principal beneficiaries, namely: his widow Marcelle
Demoron de Ramirez; his two grandnephews Roberto and
Jorge Ramirez; and his companion Wanda de Wrobleski.
The task is not troublefree because the widow Marcelle
is a French who lives in Paris, while the companion Wanda
is an Austrian who lives in Spain. Moreover, the testator
provided for substitutions.
Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain
on December 11, 1964, with only his widow as compulsory
heir. His will was admitted to probate by the Court of First
Instance of Manila, Branch X, on July 27, 1965. Maria
Luisa Palacios was appointed administratrix of the estate.
In due time she submitted an inventory of the estate as
follows:
INVENTARIO
Una sexta parte (1/6) proindivisa de un
terreno, con sus mejoras y edificaciones,
situado en la Escolta, Manila
...........................................................
Una sexta parte (1/6) proindivisa de dos
parcelas de terreno situadas en Antipolo,
Rizal. ..............

P500,000.00

658.34
707

VOL. 111, FEBRUARY 15, 1982

707

Ramirez vs. Vda. de Ramirez

Cuatrocientos noventa y uno (491)
acciones de la Central Azucarera de la
Carlota a P17.00 por accion .........................

Diez mil ochocientos seiz (10,806)

acciones de la Central Luzon Milling Co.,
disuelta y en liquidation, a P0.15 por accion
..............
Cuenta de Ahorros en el Philippine Trust
Co. ..............
TOTAL ................................................

2,350.73
P512,976.97

MENOS:
Deuda al Banco de las Islas Filipinas,
garantizada con prenda de las acciones de La
Carlota ......
VALOR LIQUIDO ........................

P507,976.97

The testamentary dispositions are as follows:

A.En nuda propiedad, a D. Roberto y D. Jorge Ramirez, ambos
menores de edad, residentes en Manila, I.F., calle Wright, No.
1818, Malate, hijos de su sobrino D. Jose Ma. Ramirez, con
sustitucion vulgar a favor de sus respectivos descendientes, y, en
su defecto, con sustitucion vulgar reciproca entre ambos.
El precedente legado en nuda propiedad de la participation
indivisa de la finca SantaCruz Building, lo ordena el testador a
favor de los legatarios nombrados. en atencion a que dicha
propiedad fue creation del querido padre del otorgante y por ser
aquellos continuadores del apellido Ramirez.
B.Y en usufructo a saber:
a En cuanto a una tercera parte, a favor de la esposa del
testador Da. Marcelle Ramirez, domiciliada en IE PECO,
calle del General Gallieni. No. 33. Seine, Francia. con
sustitucion vulgar u fideicomisaria a favor de Da. Wanda
de Wrobleski, de Palma de Mallorca, Son Rapina, Avenida
de los Reyes 13.
b. Y en cuanto a las dos terceras partes restantes, a favor
de la nombrada Da. Wanda de Wrobleski, con sustitucion
vulgar y fideicomisaria, a saber:
En cuanto a la mitad de dichas dos terceras partes, a favor de
D. Juan Pablo Jankowski, de Son Rapina, Palma de Mallorca; y
en
708

708

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramirez vs. Vda. de Ramirez

cuanto a la mitad restante, a favor de su sobrino, D. Horace V.

Ramirez, San Luis Building, Florida St. Ermita, Manila, I.F.
A pesar de las sustituciones fideicomisarias precedentemente
ordinadas, las usufructuarias nombradas conjuntamente con los
nudo propietarios, podran en cualquier momento vender a tercero
los bienes objeto delegado, sin intervencion alguna de los titulares
fideicomisarios.

On June 23, 1966, the administratrix submitted a project of

partition as follows: the property of the deceased is to be
divided into two parts. One part shall go to the widow en
pleno dominio in satisfaction of her legitime; the other
part or free portion shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez
en nuda propriedad. Furthermore, one third (1/3) of the
free portion is charged with the widows usufruct and the
remaining twothird (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of
Wanda.
Jorge and Roberto opposed the project of partition on the
grounds: (a) that the provisions for vulgar substitution in
favor of Wanda de Wrobleski with respect to the widows
usufruct and in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio
V. Ramirez, with respect to Wandas usufruct are invalid
because the first heirs (Marcelle and Wanda) survived the
testator; (b) that the provisions for fideicommissary
substitutions are also invalid because the first heirs are not
related to the second heirs or substitutes within the first
degree, as provided in Article 863 of the Civil Code; (c) that
the grant of a usufruct over real property in the Philippines
in favor of Wanda Wrobleski, who is an alien, violates
Section 5, Article III of the Philippine Constitution; and
that (d) the proposed partition of the testators interest in
the Santa Cruz (Escolta) Building between the widow
Marcelle, and the appellants, violates the testators express
will to give this property to them. Nonetheless, the lower
court approved the project of partition in its order dated
May 3, 1967. It is this order which Jorge and Roberto have
appealed to this Court.
1. The widows legitime.
The appellants do not question the legality of giving
Marcelle onehalf of the estate in full ownership. They
admit
709

VOL. 111, FEBRUARY 15, 1982

Ramirez vs. Vda. de Ramirez

709

that the testators dispositions impaired his widows

legitime. Indeed, under Art. 900 of the Civil Code If the
only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be
entitled to onehalf of the hereditary estate. And since
Marcelle alone survived the deceased, she is entitled to
onehalf of his estate over which he could impose no
burden, encumbrance, condition or substitution of any kind
whatsoever. (Art. 904, par. 2, Civil Code.)
It is the onethird usufruct over the free portion which
the appellants question and justifiably so. It appears that
the court a quo approved the usufruct in favor of Marcelle
because the testament provides for a usufruct in her favor
of onethird of the estate. The court a quo erred for
Marcelle who is entitled to onehalf of the estate en pleno
dominio as her legitime and which is more than what she
is given under the will is not entitled to have any
additional share in the estate. To give Marcelle more than
her legitime will run counter to the testators intention for
as stated above his dispositions even impaired her legitime
and tended to favor Wanda.
2. The substitutions.
It may be useful to recall that Substitution is the
appointment of another heir so that he may enter into the
inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted.
(Art. 857, Civil Code.) And that there are several kinds of
substitutions, namely: simple or common, brief or
compendious, reciprocal, and fideicommissary. (Art. 858,
Civil Code.) According to Tolentino, Although the Code
enumerates four classes, there are really only two principal
classes
of
substitutions:
the
simple
and
the
fideicommissary. The others are merely variations of these
two. (III Civil Code, p. 185 [1973].)
The simple or vulgar is that provided in Art. 859 of the
Civil Code which reads:
ART. 859. The testator may designate one or more persons to
substitute the heir or heirs instituted in case such heir or heirs
should die before him, or should not wish, or should be
incapacitated to accept the inheritance.
710

710

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramirez vs. Vda. de Ramirez

A simple substitution, without a statement of the cases to which

it refers, shall comprise the three mentioned in the preceding
paragraph, unless the testator has otherwise provided.

The fideicommissary substitution is described in the Civil

Code as follows:
ART. 863. A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the
fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation to
preserve and to transmit to a second heir the whole or part of
inheritance, shall be valid and shall take effect, provided such
substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir
originally instituted, and provided further that the fiduciary or
first heir and the second heir are living at time of the death of the
testator.

It will be noted that the testator provided for a vulgar

substitution in respect of the legacies of Roberto and Jorge
Ramirez, the appellants, thus: con sustitucion vulgar a
favor de sus respectivos descendientes, y, en su defecto, con
substitution vulgar reciproca entre ambos. The appellants
do not question the legality of the substitution so provided.
The appellants question the sustitucion vulgar y
fideicomisaria a favor de Da. Wanda de Wrobleski in
connection with the onethird usufruct over the estate
given to the widow Marcelle. However, this question has
become moot because as We have ruled above, the widow is
not entitled to any usufruct.
The appellants also question the sustitucion vulgar y
fideicomisaria in connection with Wandas usufruct over
twothirds of the estate in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski
and Horace V. Ramirez.
They allege that the substitution in its vulgar aspect as
void because Wanda survived the testator or stated
differently because she did not predecease the testator. But
dying before the testator is not the only case for vulgar
substitution for it also includes refusal or incapacity to
accept the inheritance as provided in Art. 859 of the Civil
Code, supra. Hence, the vulgar substitution is valid.
As regards the substitution in its fideicommissary
aspect, the appellants are correct in their claim that it is
void for the following reasons:
711

VOL. 111, FEBRUARY 15, 1982

Ramirez vs. Vda. de Ramirez

711

(a) 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.
What is meant by one degree from the first heir is
explained by Tolentino as follows:
Scaevola, Maura, and Traviesas construe degree as designation,
substitution, or transmission. The Supreme Court of Spain has
decidedly adopted this construction. From this point of view, there
can be only one transmission or substitution, and the substitute
need not be related to the first heir. Manresa, Morell, and
Sanchez Roman, however, construe the word degree as
generation, and the present Code has obviously followed this
interpretation, by providing that the substitution shall not go
beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted. The Code
thus clearly indicates that the second heir must be related to and
be one generation from the first heir.
From this, 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.
(Op cit, pp. 193194.)

(b) 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 subject of the usufruct to be sold upon mutual
agreement of the usufructuaries and the naked owners.
(Brief, p. 26.)
3. The usufruct of Wanda.
The appellants claim that the usufruct over real properties
of the estate in favor of Wanda is void because it violates
the constitutional prohibition against the acquisition of
lands by aliens.
The 1935 Constitution which is controlling provides as
follows:
712

712

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramirez vs. Vda. de Ramirez

SEC. 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private

agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to
individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or
hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines. (Art. XIII.)

The court a quo upheld the validity of the usufruct given to

Wanda on the ground that the Constitution covers not only
succession by operation of law but also testamentary
succession. We are of the opinion that the Constitutional
provision which enables aliens to acquire private lands
does not extend to testamentary succession for otherwise
the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless. Any
alien would be able to circumvent the prohibition by paying
money to a Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise
of a piece of land.
This opinion notwithstanding, We uphold the usufruct
in favor of Wanda because a usufruct, albeit a real right,
does not vest title to the land in the usufructuary and it is
the vesting of title to land in favor of aliens which is
proscribed by the Constitution.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the estate of Jose
Eugenio Ramirez is hereby ordered distributed as follows:
Onehalf (1/2) thereof to his widow as her legitime;
Onehalf (1/2) 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.
The distribution herein ordered supersedes that of the
court a quo. No special pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., De Castro,
Ericta and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., took no part.
Estate ordered distributed.
713

VOL. 111, FEBRUARY 15, 1982

713

Ramirez vs. Vda. de Ramirez

Notes.Will of testator is the first and principal law in

the matter of testaments. (Rigor vs. Rigor, 89 SCRA 493).
One canon in the interpretation of the testamentary
provisions is that the testators intention is to be
ascertained from the words of the will, taking into
consideration the circumstances as to his intention. (Rigor
vs. Rigor, 89 SCRA 493).

It is presumed that a witness to a will has the

qualifications prescribed by law, unless the contrary is
established by the oppositor. (Gonzales vs. Court of
Appeals, 90 SCRA 183).
Decree of adjudication in a testate proceedings is
binding on the whole world. (Gallanosa vs. Arcangel, 83
SCRA 676).
When an order of partition of the estate of the deceased
becomes final, the appealed decision declaring that
appellee as the legitimate children of the deceased and
entitled to the annulment of the institution of heirs made
in the probated will of the latter becomes final and
executory likewise and hence the case on appeal is moot
and academic. (Ventura vs. Ventura, 77 SCRA 159).
Where submission of project of partition and
distribution, with final accounting, to probate court deemed
substantial compliance with Civil Code provisions on
liquidation of conjugal partnership. (Divinagracia vs.
Rovira, 72 SCRA 307).
The rule that a legitimate child cannot succeed to the
estate of an illegitimate child is applicable in other cases.
(Corpus vs. Corpus, 85 SCRA 567). Thus, a halfbrother
who is legitimate cannot succeed to the estate of an
illegitimate child under the rules of intestacy. (Ibid.)
Although attesting witnesses testified against the due
execution of the last testament, the will may be allowed
probate if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other
witness that it was executed and attested as required by
law. (Vda. de Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 393).
In order that the right of a forced heir may be limited to
the completion of his legitime (instead of the annulment of
the institution of heirs), it is not necessary that what has
been left to him in the will by any title as by legacy, be
granted to him in his capacity as heir. (Aznar vs. Duncan,
17 SCRA 590).
714

714

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tintero

A parcel of land, which was invalidly donated by the

husband to his future spouse, remained as his property
and, upon his death, should be inherited by his children of
the 1st and 2nd marriages, subject to the right of the
surviving spouse. (Pacio vs. Billon, 1 SCRA 384).
Nephews and nieces alone do not inherit by right of
representation (i.e., per stirpes), unless concurring with

brothers or sisters of the deceased. (AbellanaBacayo vs.

FerrarisBorromeo, 14 SCRA 986).
o0o

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.