Succession Inheritance: Obligations - Art. 776
Succession Inheritance: Obligations - Art. 776
Succession Inheritance: Obligations - Art. 776
Viardo vs. Belmonte The highest bidder at the auction sale was the judgment creditor,
Leon C. Viardo, who paid P2,125.64 for the interest sold and
G.R. No. L-14127 August 21, 1962 P83.15 for the land tax corresponding to such interest (Exhibit
B). When the judgment debtors failed to redeem the property
ISIDORO M. MERCADO, plaintiff-appellee, within the statutory period of one year from the date of sale (21
vs. February 1941), the provincial sheriff of Nueva Ecija executed on
LEON C. VIARDO and PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NUEVA 12 May 1943 a Final Bill of Sale of the property described in
ECIJA, defendants-appellants. Exhibit B in favor of Leon C. Viardo (Exhibit C). On 3 May 1943 a
co-owner's copy of the certificate of title was issued to Leon C.
----------------------------- Viardo (Exhibit A, p. 3).
G.R. No. L-14128 August 21, 1962 On 28 December 1945 the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija, in Land Registration Case No. 918, G.L.R.O. Record No.
LEON C. VIARDO, plaintiff-appellant, 17910, acting upon a verified petition of Leon C. Viardo, ordered
vs. the Registrar of Deeds in and for Nueva Ecija —
PILAR BELMONTE, PATRICIA DRIZ, JOAQUINA DRIZ,
ISIDORO MERCADO, to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. 3484 and to issue
TRINIDAD ISIDRO, ZACARIAS BELMONTE, TERESITA another in lieu thereof in the name of and in the proportion as
FLORES, follows: LEONOR BELMONTE ¼ share; FELISA BELMONTE, ¼
PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, share; PILAR BELMONTE, ¹/8 share; LEON C. VIARDO, ¹/8
INC. and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, defendants-appellees. share; and INES DE GUZMAN, ¼ share, upon the payment of
the corresponding fees (Exhibit D).
No. L-14127:
Agustin C. Bagasao for plaintiff-appellee. However, it appears from Original Certificate of Title No. 3484
Manuel A. Concordia for defendants-appellants. (Exhibit A) that the above-mentioned order was not carried out
and that said original certificate of title was not cancelled.
No. L-14128:
Manuel A. Concordia for plaintiff-appellant. On 27 May 1946 Bartolome Driz and Pilar Belmonte filed in the
E. A. Bello, M. Y. Macias and A. A. Reyes for defendant-appellee Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija a complaint against Leon
Philippine American General Insurance Company, Inc. C. Viardo (civil case No. 161) praying that judgment be rendered
Cecilio F. Wycoco for defendants-appellees Pilar Belmonte and against the defendant:
Teresita Flores.
Carlos M. Ferrer for defendants-appellees Patricia Driz, et al. (a) Ordering the defendant to reconvey the property in question
in favor of plaintiffs herein upon payment by the latter of the
PADILLA, J.: lawful redemption price in accordance with law, or the sum of
P2,125.64 with interest at the rate of one per centum (1%) per
In civil case No. 7611 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva month for twelve (12) months from February 27, 1941 to
Ecija, entitled Leon C. Viardo vs. Bartolome Driz and Pilar February 27, 1942. (Exhibit E.)
Belmonte, a writ of execution was issued and levy was made
"upon all the rights, interest and participation which the spouses On 4 June 1946 Patricia Blando, attorney for the plaintiffs
Bartolome Driz and Pilar Belmonte have or might have" in a Bartolome Driz and Pilar Belmonte, requested the Registrar of
parcel of land covered by original certificate of title No. 3484 of Deeds in and for Nueva Ecija for —
the Registrar of Deeds in and for the province of Nueva Ecija
(Exhibit A, p.3). This certificate of title covers a parcel of land the annotation of a Notice of LIS PENDENS on the back of
(Lot No. 1, Psu-14371) in the barrios of Nieves and Santo ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 3484 of the Office of
Rosario, municipality of Zaragoza, province of Nueva Ecija, the Register of Deeds for the Province of Nueva Ecija, affecting
containing an area of 1,192,775 square meters, more or less. the undivided one-half (½) portion of the property of the plaintiffs
The land is registered in the names of "Leonor Belmonte, Felisa in the above-entitled cause, situated in the Sitio of Valdez, Barrio
Belmonte, Pilar Belmonte and Ines de Guzman, subject . . . to of Sto. Rosario, Municipality of Zaragoza, which is involved in the
the condition that ¼ share [that] belongs to Ines de Guzman is said controversy against the defendant LEON C. VIARDO, and
usufructuary "correspondiendo la nuda propiedad a sus tres hijas which is more particularly described under paragraph (4) of the
arriba citadas en participaciones iguales quienes se consolidara plaintiffs' complaint a copy of which is hereby presented,
el dominio despues del fallecimiento de su madre' " (Exhibit A, p. hereunto attached. (Exhibit F.)
2).
On 6 June 1946 the Registrar of Deeds made the following
On 25 February 1941, by virtue of the writ of execution above annotation on the back of original certificate of title No. 3484:
mentioned, the provincial sheriff of Nueva Ecija sold at public
auction one-half (½) of the following property: Entry No. 3347/0-3484: Kind — Lis Pendens — Executed in
favor of Bartolome Driz and Pilar Belmonte; Conditions — Al the
TAX DECLARATION NO. 11313 OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF rights, interests, and participation of Leon C. Viardo in this title is
ZARAGOZA, PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA AND COVERED the subject of a complaint filed in Civil Case No. 16 of the C.F.I.
BY ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 3484 OF THE of N.E. now pending for action. Date of the instrument — June 4,
LAND RECORDS OF NUEVA ECIJA. 1946; Date of the inscription — June 6, 1946 at 3:18 (?) p.m.
(Sgd.) F.C. Cuizon, Acting Register of Deeds. (Exhibit A, p. 3.)
A parcel of land, situated in the sitio of Valdez, barrio Sto.
Rosario, municipality of Zaragoza, Province of Nueva Ecija. While the above-mentioned case was pending in the Court of
Bounded on the North by property of Felisa Belmonte; on the First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Pilar Belmonte, one of the
East by Sapang Dalagot; on the Southeast by Ines de Guzman; plaintiffs, entered into the following contracts involving her
on the South by the property of Felisa Belmonte; and on then interest or rights over the parcel of land covered by original
West by the property of Cirilo Acosta; containing an area of certificate of title No. 3484:
THIRTY (30) HECTARES, more or less. Declared under tax No.
11313 in the name of Pilar Belmonte with an assessed value of (1) Entry No. 10984: Kind — Sale; Executed in favor of — Isidro
P8,400.00. M. Mercado & Trinidad Isidro; Conditions--Pilar Belmonte sold a
portion of Seven and One-Half (7-½) hectares of the property
Page 1 of 11
Succession
Inheritance: Obligations | Art. 776
Page 2 of 11
Succession
Inheritance: Obligations | Art. 776
we hereby order them to vacate the same and restore products which had been levied upon by the Provincial Sheriff.
possession thereof to defendant. (Exhibit H.) No damages are awarded. The parties in civil case 2004 shall
come to an amicable settlement with respect to the partition.
This judgment of the Court of Appeals became final and Upon their failure to arrive at an amicable settlement,
executory and the records were remanded to the lower court. On commissioner shall be appointed by this Court in accordance
16 December 1954 the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija with a law to make the partition.
issued a writ of execution (Exhibit W). The return made by Chief
of Police of the Municipality of Zaragoza on 14 February 1955 With costs against the defendants in both cases.
states that Leon C. Viardo had been placed in possession of the
parcel of land referred to in the writ and that levy was made on a Only Leon C. Viardo, plaintiff in civil case No. 2004 and
total of 86 cavans and 74 kilos of palay, and that the same were defendant in civil case No. 1718, appealed to the Court of
deposited in a warehouse (Exhibit X). Appeals. On 21 May 1958 the latter certified and forwarded the
appeals to this Court because the facts are not in dispute and
On or about 4 January 1955 Isidoro M. Mercado filed a third "the questions raised by appellant in his brief are purely legal in
party claim with the Provincial Sheriff of Nueva Ecija (Exhibit Y). nature."
The affidavit attached to the claim states that Isidoro M. Mercado
and his wife purchased from Pilar Belmonte on 28 June 1948 In his first assignment of error the appellant contends that the
seven and one-half hectares of her undivided share in the land trial court "erred in not annulling the sale executed by Pilar
described in original certificate of title No. 3484, that on the same Belmonte to Isidoro M. Mercado, marked as Exhibit I, and to
day the deed of sale was registered, that a transfer certificate of Dominador Asuncion and Teresita Bansil (Exhibit J) and the sale
title was issued in their names, and that since 1948 up to the by Dominador Asuncion to Zacarias Belmonte and Teresita
time of the levy on execution he had been in actual possession Flores in a Deed of Sale marked Exhibit M." In support thereof
of the parcel of land, paying the corresponding taxes thereon he argues that the three sales took place and were registered
and had exclusively benefited from the harvests therein, (Exhibit after he had become the absolute owner of an undivided one-
Y-1). The sheriff was requested not to continue with the levy on half interest in the parcel of land owned by Pilar Belmonte and
the harvest in the parcel of land they were claiming. after notice of lis pendens had been recorded on the title of Pilar
Belmonte.
On 2 February 1955 Isidoro M. Mercado filed in the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija a complaint docketed as civil case No. The argument is without merit. It is true that the appellant
1718, against Leon C. Viardo and the Provincial Sheriff. The became the absolute owner of an undivided one-half interest in
complaint alleged that improper levy had been made on the the undivided one-fourth interest owned by Pilar Belmonte in the
harvest in plaintiff's parcel of land and prayed that judgment be parcel of land described in original certificate of title No. 3484;
rendered ordering the defendants to return the palay levied that before Pilar Belmonte sold parts of her undivided share in
upon, together with damages. On 26 February 1955 the the parcel of land to Isidoro M. Mercado and Dominador
defendants answered that plaintiffs' purchase of the parcel of Asuncion and the last in turn sold his part to Zacarias Belmonte,
land in question from Pilar Belmonte was subject to whatever there was notice of lis pendens recorded on the certificate of title;
judgment the courts might render in civil case No. 161 between and that this notice is binding upon all who should acquire an
Pilar Belmonte and Leon C. Viardo. On 17 October 1955 the interest in the property subsequent to the record of the lis
Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija entered an order pendens. The notice of lis pendens (Exhibit A), however, was
suspending the trial of the case, in view of the information by limited to one-half interest acquired by Leon C. Viardo from Pilar
counsel for the defendant that his client Leon C. Viardo would file Belmonte. The other one-half undivided interest of the latter was
a complaint against all persons claiming ownership of or interest not in litigation and therefore the trial court correctly held that
in the parcel of land covered by original certificate of title No. Pilar Belmonte, as the owner of this undivided one-half interest,
3484 (Record on Appeal, pp. 2-11). had a right to sell it and could convey absolute title thereto or to
parts thereof. Of course, the deeds of sale executed by Pilar
On 5 December 1955 civil case No. 2004 was filed by Leon V. Belmonte appears to convey definite or segregated parts of her
Viardo against Pilar Belmonte, Patricia Driz, Joaquina Driz, remaining interest in the parcel of land described in original
Isidoro Mercado, Trinidad Isidro, Zacarias Belmonte, Teresita certificate of title No. 3484, which she could not do, because this
Flores, Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. and the one-fourth in interest had not yet been subdivided to show the
Philippine National Bank, as parties claiming some right, interest acquired by Leon C. Viardo, amounting to one-half of the
participation, share or interest in the parcel of land covered by said one-fourth interest. This defect, however, does not result in
original certificate of title No. 3484 or by trader certificates of title the nullity of the deeds of sale she had executed relating to her
derived therefrom. The defendants filed their answers. After remaining interest of one-eighth. The sales were valid, subject
trial,1 on 24 August 1956 the trial court rendered judgment in only to the condition that the interests acquired by the vendees
civil cases Nos. 1718 and 2004, the dispositive part of which were limited to the parts which might be assigned to them in the
reads as follows: division upon the termination of the co-ownership (Article 493,
Civil Code).
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, in Civil
Case 2004, Leon C. Viardo, Isidoro M. Mercado, Zacarias In the second assignment of error the appellant contends that
Belmonte and Patricia Driz are hereby declared CO-OWNERS the trial court "erred in not annulling the sales executed by Pilar
PRO-INDIVISO of lots 1-A PSD-16864, which is the ¼ share of Belmonte in favor of her daughters Joaquina and Patricia Driz of
Pilar Belmonte in Lot 1, PSU 14371, OCT No. 3484 in the lots 1-B and 1-A, Exhibits U and V of Plan PSD 36340."
following proportions: ONE-HALF for LEON C. VIARDO; 7½
hectares for Isidoro M. Mercado; 7 hectares for Zacarias Lots 1-B and 1-A of Plan PSD-36340 are taken, not from the
Belmonte, and the remainder for Patricia Driz, it being original one-fourth interest of Pilar Belmonte in the parcel of land
understood that whatever is adjudicated to Patricia Driz in the covered by original certificate of title No. 3484, which interest
partition shall be subject to the mortgage in favor of the was levied upon and thereafter acquired by Leon C. Viardo to
Philippine National Bank; the deeds of sale executed by Pilar the extent of one-half, but from another one-fourth interest in the
Belmonte in favor of Patricia Driz, Exhibits R and S are declared same parcel of land, which belonged originally to Ines de
NULL AND VOID; the deeds of partition Exhibits L and N, are set Guzman, the mother of Pilar Belmonte. This one-fourth interest
aside, and the certificates of title issued in favor of Zacarias subsequently devolved upon Pilar Belmonte and her two sisters.
Belmonte, Isidoro M. Mercado and Patricia Driz, Exhibits P, Q, The three sisters partitioned this one-fourth interest among
R-1 and S-1 are ordered cancelled. And in civil case 1718 themselves and lots 1-A and 1-B were assigned to Pilar
Isidoro M. Mercado is hereby declared to be entitled to the Belmonte who, in turn, sold them to her daughters. These sales,
Page 3 of 11
Succession
Inheritance: Obligations | Art. 776
Page 4 of 11
Succession
Inheritance: Obligations | Art. 776
Asuncion she had only one-half hectare left and therefore could This is a petition for certiorari by way of appeal from the decision
not sell another fifteen hectares. of the Court of Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. No. 35962-R, entitled
"Vivencio Moreto, et al., Plaintiff-Appellees vs. Cornelio
The trial court, however, did not completely annul the sales Pamplona, et al., Defendants-Appellants," affirming the decision
made by Pilar Belmonte in favor of her daughter. It merely of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch I at Biñan.
reduced the sale of fifteen hectares to a sale of one-half hectare,
obviously in the belief that the sales should be sustained to the The facts, as stated in the decision appealed from, show that:
extent of Pilar Belmonte's remaining interest. The record shows
that both Pilar Belmonte and her daughter Patricia Driz knew that Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega were husband and wife.
one-half hectare only remained as the former's property, but they During their marriage, they acquired adjacent lots Nos. 1495,
nevertheless proceeded to sell and purchase more than fifteen 4545, and 1496 of the Calamba Friar Land Estate, situated in
hectares. When it is considered further that the final judgment in Calamba, Laguna, containing 781-544 and 1,021 square meters
civil case No. 161 awarded damages to Leon C. Viardo respectively and covered by certificates of title issued in the
amounting to 225 cavans of palay from 1946 (Exhibit H) and that name of "Flaviano Moreto, married to Monica Maniega."
when this judgment was executed in 1954 no property of Pilar
Belmonte could be found to satisfy the damages (p. 11, t.s.n.), it The spouses Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega begot during
is evident that Pilar Belmonte and her daughter Patricia Driz had their marriage six (6) children, namely, Ursulo, Marta, La Paz,
conspired to dispose of all the property of Pilar Belmonte in order Alipio, Pablo, and Leandro, all surnamed Moreto.
to frustrate any award of damages the Court of Appeals might
make in favor of Leon C. Viardo and that this conspiracy must Ursulo Moreto died intestate on May 24, 1959 leaving as his
have taken place at the latest on 9 September 1954 when Pilar heirs herein plaintiffs Vivencio, Marcelo, Rosario, Victor, Paulina,
Belmonte proceeded to sell to her daughter Patricia Driz parcels Marta and Eligio, all surnamed Moreto.
of land which no longer belonged to her.
Marta Moreto died also intestate on April 30, 1938 leaving as her
The judgment appealed from is modified by holding and heir plaintiff Victoria Tuiza.
declaring that (1) Leon C. Viardo, Isidoro M. Mercado, Zacarias
Belmonte and Pilar Belmonte (not Patricia Driz) are the co- La Paz Moreto died intestate on July 17, 1954 leaving the
owners pro-indiviso of lot 1-A, Plan PSD-16864, which is the following heirs, namely, herein plaintiffs Pablo, Severina, Lazaro,
one-fourth share of Pilar Belmonte in lot 1, PSD-14371, original and Lorenzo, all surnamed Mendoza.
certificate of title No. 3484, in the following proportion: one-half
or fifteen hectares owned by Leon C. Viardo, seven and one-half Alipio Moreto died intestate on June 30, 1943 leaving as his heir
hectares by Isidoro M. Mercado, seven hectares by Zacarias herein plaintiff Josefina Moreto.
Belmonte, and one-half hectares by Pilar Belmonte, subject to
the rights of Leon C. Viardo to the balance of his judgment credit Pablo Moreto died intestate on April 25, 1942 leaving no issue
against Pilar Belmonte; and (2) Leon C. Viardo is awarded and as his heirs his brother plaintiff Leandro Moreto and the
damages of P1,000 against Pilar Belmonte. In all other respects, other plaintiffs herein.
the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
appellees Pilar Belmonte and Patricia Driz. On May 6, 1946, Monica Maniega died intestate in Calamba,
Laguna.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., On July 30, 1952, or more than six (6) years after the death of
concur. his wife Monica Maniega, Flaviano Moreto, without the consent
of the heirs of his said deceased wife Monica, and before any
FOOTNOTES liquidation of the conjugal partnership of Monica and Flaviano
could be effected, executed in favor of Geminiano Pamplona,
On 30 June 1956 the complaint against the Philippine American married to defendant Apolonia Onte, the deed of absolute sale
General Insurance Company. Inc. was dismissed because the (Exh. "1") covering lot No. 1495 for P900.00. The deed of sale
company no longer had any interest in the parcel of and in (Exh. "1") contained a description of lot No. 1495 as having an
dispute. It was made a defendant because it was the mortgagee area of 781 square meters and covered by transfer certificate of
of a part of the land. When the mortgage debt was paid, it title No. 14570 issued in the name of Flaviano Moreto, married to
released the mortgage. Monica Maniega, although the lot was acquired during their
marriage. As a result of the sale, the said certificate of title was
Pamplona vs. Moreto cancelled and a new transfer certificate of title No. T-5671 was
issued in the name of Geminiano Pamplona married to Apolonia
[G.R. No. L-33187 March 31, 1980 Onte (Exh. "A").
CORNELIO PAMPLONA alias GEMINIANO PAMPLONA and After the execution of the above-mentioned deed of sale (Exh.
APOLONIA ONTE, petitioners, "1"), the spouses Geminiano Pamplona and Apolonia Onte
vs. constructed their house on the eastern part of lot 1496 as
VIVENCIO MORETO, VICTOR MORETO, ELIGIO MORETO, Flaviano Moreto, at the time of the sale, pointed to it as the land
MARCELO MORETO, PAULINA MORETO, ROSARIO which he sold to Geminiano Pamplona. Shortly thereafter, Rafael
MORETO, MARTA MORETO, SEVERINA MENDOZA, PABLO Pamplona, son of the spouses Geminiano Pamplona and
MENDOZA, LAZARO MENDOZA, VICTORIA TUIZA, JOSEFINA Apolonia Onte, also built his house within lot 1496 about one
MORETO, LEANDRO MORETO and LORENZO MENDOZA, meter from its boundary with the adjoining lot. The vendor
respondents. Flaviano Moreto and the vendee Geminiano Pamplona thought
all the time that the portion of 781 square meters which was the
E.P. Caguioa for petitioners. subject matter of their sale transaction was No. 1495 and so lot
No. 1495 appears to be the subject matter in the deed of sale
Benjamin C. Yatco for respondents. (Exh. "1") although the fact is that the said portion sold thought of
by the parties to be lot No. 1495 is a part of lot No. 1496.
GUERRERO, J.: From 1956 to 1960, the spouses Geminiano Pamplona and
Apolonio Onte enlarged their house and they even constructed a
Page 5 of 11
Succession
Inheritance: Obligations | Art. 776
piggery corral at the back of their said house about one and one-
half meters from the eastern boundary of lot 1496. With costs against the defendants. 2
On August 12, 1956, Flaviano Moreto died intestate. In 1961, the The defendants-appellants, not being satisfied with said
plaintiffs demanded on the defendants to vacate the premises judgment, appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
where they had their house and piggery on the ground that judgment, hence they now come to this Court.
Flaviano Moreto had no right to sell the lot which he sold to
Geminiano Pamplona as the same belongs to the conjugal The fundamental and crucial issue in the case at bar is whether
partnership of Flaviano and his deceased wife and the latter was under the facts and circumstances duly established by the
already dead when the sale was executed without the consent of evidence, petitioners are entitled to the full ownership of the
the plaintiffs who are the heirs of Monica. The spouses property in litigation, or only one-half of the same.
Geminiano Pamplona and Apolonia Onte refused to vacate the
premises occupied by them and hence, this suit was instituted by There is no question that when the petitioners purchased the
the heirs of Monica Maniega seeking for the declaration of the property on July 30, 1952 from Flaviano Moreto for the price of
nullity of the deed of sale of July 30, 1952 above-mentioned as P900.00, his wife Monica Maniega had already been dead six
regards one-half of the property subject matter of said deed; to years before, Monica having died on May 6, 1946. Hence, the
declare the plaintiffs as the rightful owners of the other half of conjugal partnership of the spouses Flaviano Moreto and Monica
said lot; to allow the plaintiffs to redeem the one-half portion Maniega had already been dissolved. (Article 175, (1) New Civil
thereof sold to the defendants. "After payment of the other half of Code; Article 1417, Old Civil Code). The records show that the
the purchase price"; to order the defendants to vacate the conjugal estate had not been inventoried, liquidated, settled and
portions occupied by them; to order the defendants to pay actual divided by the heirs thereto in accordance with law. The
and moral damages and attorney's fees to the plaintiffs; to order necessary proceedings for the liquidation of the conjugal
the defendants to pay plaintiffs P120.00 a year from August 1958 partnership were not instituted by the heirs either in the testate or
until they have vacated the premises occupied by them for the intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse pursuant to Act
use and occupancy of the same. 3176 amending Section 685 of Act 190. Neither was there an
extra-judicial partition between the surviving spouse and the
The defendants claim that the sale made by Flaviano Moreto in heirs of the deceased spouse nor was an ordinary action for
their favor is valid as the lot sold is registered in the name of partition brought for the purpose. Accordingly, the estate became
Flaviano Moreto and they are purchasers believing in good faith the property of a community between the surviving husband,
that the vendor was the sole owner of the lot sold. Flaviano Moreto, and his children with the deceased Monica
Maniega in the concept of a co-ownership.
After a relocation of lots 1495, 1496 and 4545 made by
agreement of the parties, it was found out that there was mutual The community property of the marriage, at the dissolution of this
error between Flaviano Moreto and the defendants in the bond by the death of one of the spouses, ceases to belong to the
execution of the deed of sale because while the said deed legal partnership and becomes the property of a community, by
recited that the lot sold is lot No. 1495, the real intention of the operation of law, between the surviving spouse and the heirs of
parties is that it was a portion consisting of 781 square meters of the deceased spouse, or the exclusive property of the widower
lot No. 1496 which was the subject matter of their sale or the widow, it he or she be the heir of the deceased spouse.
transaction. Every co-owner shall have full ownership of his part and in the
fruits and benefits derived therefrom, and he therefore may
After trial, the lower court rendered judgment, the dispositive part alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another
thereof being as follows: person in its enjoyment, unless personal rights are in question.
(Marigsa vs. Macabuntoc, 17 Phil. 107)
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs
declaring the deed of absolute sale dated July 30, 1952 In Borja vs. Addision, 44 Phil. 895, 906, the Supreme Court said
pertaining to the eastern portion of Lot 1496 covering an area of that "(t)here is no reason in law why the heirs of the deceased
781 square meters null and void as regards the 390.5 square wife may not form a partnership with the surviving husband for
meters of which plaintiffs are hereby declared the rightful owners the management and control of the community property of the
and entitled to its possession. marriage and conceivably such a partnership, or rather
community of property, between the heirs and the surviving
The sale is ordered valid with respect to the eastern one-half husband might be formed without a written agreement." In
(1/2) of 1781 square meters of Lot 1496 measuring 390.5 square Prades vs. Tecson, 49 Phil. 230, the Supreme Court held that
meters of which defendants are declared lawful owners and "(a)lthough, when the wife dies, the surviving husband, as
entitled to its possession. administrator of the community property, has authority to sell the
property withut the concurrence of the children of the marriage,
After proper survey segregating the eastern one-half portion with nevertheless this power can be waived in favor of the children,
an area of 390.5 square meters of Lot 1496, the defendants shall with the result of bringing about a conventional ownership in
be entitled to a certificate of title covering said portion and common between the father and children as to such property;
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9843 of the office of the Register and any one purchasing with knowledge of the changed status of
of Deeds of Laguna shall be cancelled accordingly and new titles the property will acquire only the undivided interest of those
issued to the plaintiffs and to the defendants covering their members of the family who join in the act of conveyance.
respective portions.
It is also not disputed that immediately after the execution of the
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 5671 of the office of the Register sale in 1952, the vendees constructed their house on the eastern
of Deeds of Laguna covering Lot No. 1495 and registered in the part of Lot 1496 which the vendor pointed out to them as the
name of Cornelio Pamplona, married to Apolonia Onte, is by area sold, and two weeks thereafter, Rafael who is a son of the
virtue of this decision ordered cancelled. The defendants are vendees, also built his house within Lot 1496. Subsequently, a
ordered to surrender to the office of the Register of Deeds of cemented piggery coral was constructed by the vendees at the
Laguna the owner's duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. back of their house about one and one-half meters from the
5671 within thirty (30) days after this decision shall have become eastern boundary of Lot 1496. Both vendor and vendees
final for cancellation in accordance with this decision. believed all the time that the area of 781 sq. meters subject of
the sale was Lot No. 1495 which according to its title (T.C.T. No.
Let copy of this decision be furnished the Register of Deeds for 14570) contains an area of 781 sq. meters so that the deed of
the province of Laguna for his information and guidance. sale between the parties Identified and described the land sold
Page 6 of 11
Succession
Inheritance: Obligations | Art. 776
as Lot 1495. But actually, as verified later by a surveyor upon boundaries over which the fences were to be erectd without
agreement of the parties during the proceedings of the case objection, protest or complaint by the other co-owners, on the
below, the area sold was within Lot 1496. contrary they acquiesced and tolerated such alienation,
occupation and possession, We rule that a factual partition or
Again, there is no dispute that the houses of the spouses termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created,
Cornelio Pamplona and Apolonia Onte as well as that of their and barred not only the vendor, Flaviano Moreto, but also his
son Rafael Pamplona, including the concrete piggery coral heirs, the private respondents herein from asserting as against
adjacent thereto, stood on the land from 1952 up to the filing of the vendees-petitioners any right or title in derogation of the
the complaint by the private respondents on July 25, 1961, or a deed of sale executed by said vendor Flaiano Moreto.
period of over nine (9) years. And during said period, the private
respondents who are the heirs of Monica Maniega as well as of Equity commands that the private respondents, the successors
Flaviano Moreto who also died intestate on August 12, 1956, of both the deceased spouses, Flaviano Moreto and Monica
lived as neighbors to the petitioner-vendees, yet lifted no finger Maniega be not allowed to impugn the sale executed by Flaviano
to question the occupation, possession and ownership of the Moreto who indisputably received the consideration of P900.00
land purchased by the Pamplonas, so that We are persuaded and which he, including his children, benefitted from the same.
and convinced to rule that private respondents are in estoppel by Moreover, as the heirs of both Monica Maniega and Flaviano
laches to claim half of the property, in dispute as null and void. Moreto, private respondents are duty-bound to comply with the
Estoppel by laches is a rule of equity which bars a claimant from provisions of Articles 1458 and 1495, Civil Code, which is the
presenting his claim when, by reason of abandonment and obligation of the vendor of the property of delivering and
negligence, he allowed a long time to elapse without presenting transfering the ownership of the whole property sold, which is
the same. (International Banking Corporation vs. Yared, 59 Phil. transmitted on his death to his heirs, the herein private
92) respondents. The articles cited provide, thus:
We have ruled that at the time of the sale in 1952, the conjugal Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties
partnership was already dissolved six years before and obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a
therefore, the estate became a co-ownership between Flaviano determinate thing, and the other part to pay therefore a price
Moreto, the surviving husband, and the heirs of his deceased certain in money or its equivalent.
wife, Monica Maniega. Article 493 of the New Civil Code is
applicable and it provides a follows: A contract of sale may be absolute or conditionial.
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part Art. 1495. The vendor is bound to transfer the ownership of and
and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may deliver, as well as warrant the thing which is the object of the
therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute sale.
another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are
involve. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with Under Article 776, New Civil Code, the inheritance which private
respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which respondents received from their deceased parents and/or
may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the predecessors-in-interest included all the property rights and
co-ownership. obligations which were not extinguished by their parents' death.
And under Art. 1311, paragraph 1, New Civil Code, the contract
We agree with the petitioner that there was a partial partition of of sale executed by the deceased Flaviano Moreto took effect
the co-ownership when at the time of the sale Flaviano Moreto between the parties, their assigns and heirs, who are the private
pointed out the area and location of the 781 sq. meters sold by respondents herein. Accordingly, to the private respondents is
him to the petitioners-vendees on which the latter built their transmitted the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole
house and also that whereon Rafael, the son of petitioners area of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners (which was the original
likewise erected his house and an adjacent coral for piggery. obligation of their predecessor Flaviano Moreto) and not only
one-half thereof. Private respondents must comply with said
Petitioners point to the fact that spouses Flaviano Moreto and obligation.
Monica Maniega owned three parcels of land denominated as
Lot 1495 having an area of 781 sq. meters, Lot 1496 with an The records reveal that the area of 781 sq. meters sold to and
area of 1,021 sq. meters, and Lot 4545 with an area of 544 sq. occupied by petitioners for more than 9 years already as of the
meters. The three lots have a total area of 2,346 sq. meters. filing of the complaint in 1961 had been re-surveyed by private
These three parcels of lots are contiguous with one another as land surveyor Daniel Aranas. Petitioners are entitled to a
each is bounded on one side by the other, thus: Lot 4545 is segregation of the area from Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
bounded on the northeast by Lot 1495 and on the southeast by 9843 covering Lot 1496 and they are also entitled to the
Lot 1496. Lot 1495 is bounded on the west by Lot 4545. Lot issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in their name
1496 is bounded on the west by Lot 4545. It is therefore, clear based on the relocation survey.
that the three lots constitute one big land. They are not separate
properties located in different places but they abut each other. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment
This is not disputed by private respondents. Hence, at the time of appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in the
the sale, the co-ownership constituted or covered these three sense that the sale made and executed by Flaviano Moreto in
lots adjacent to each other. And since Flaviano Moreto was favor of the petitioners-vendees is hereby declared legal and
entitled to one-half pro-indiviso of the entire land area or 1,173 valid in its entirely.
sq. meters as his share, he had a perfect legal and lawful right to
dispose of 781 sq. meters of his share to the Pamplona spouses. Petitioners are hereby declared owners in full ownership of the
Indeed, there was still a remainder of some 392 sq. meters 781 sq. meters at the eastern portion of Lot 1496 now occupied
belonging to him at the time of the sale. by said petitioners and whereon their houses and piggery coral
stand.
We reject respondent Court's ruling that the sale was valid as to
one-half and invalid as to the other half for the very simple The Register of Deeds of Laguna is hereby ordered to segregate
reason that Flaviano Moreto, the vendor, had the legal right to the area of 781 sq. meters from Certificate of Title No. 9843 and
more than 781 sq. meters of the communal estate, a title which to issue a new Transfer Certificate of Title to the petitioners
he could dispose, alienate in favor of the vendees-petitioners. covering the segregated area of 781 sq. meters.
The title may be pro-indiviso or inchoate but the moment the co-
owner as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the No costs.
Page 7 of 11
Succession
Inheritance: Obligations | Art. 776
In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his wife
Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in-interest of the Rufina and children Johnny (petitioner), Aurora, Ofelia and
herein petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as a Zenaida, all surnamed Rabadilla.
devisee of 511, 855 square meters of that parcel of land
surveyed as Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre. The said On August 21, 1989, Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza
Codicil, which was duly probated and admitted in Special Villacarlos brought a complaint, docketed as Civil Case No.
Proceedings No. 4046 before the then Court of First Instance of 5588, before Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court in Bacolod
Negros Occidental, contained the following provisions: City, against the above-mentioned heirs of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,
to enforce the provisions of subject Codicil. The Complaint
"FIRST alleged that the defendant-heirs violated the conditions of the
Codicil, in that:
I give, leave and bequeath the following property owned by me
to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla resident of 141 P. Villanueva, Pasay City: 1. Lot No. 1392 was mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank
and the Republic Planters Bank in disregard of the testatrix's
(a) Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer specific instruction to sell, lease, or mortgage only to the near
Certificate of Title No. RT-4002 (10942), which is registered in descendants and sister of the testatrix.
my name according to the records of the Register of Deeds of
Negros Occidental. 2. Defendant-heirs failed to comply with their obligation to deliver
one hundred (100) piculs of sugar (75 piculs export sugar and 25
(b) That should Jorge Rabadilla die ahead of me, the piculs domestic sugar) to plaintiff Maria Marlena Coscolluela y
aforementioned property and the rights which I shall set forth Belleza from sugar crop years 1985 up to the filing of the
hereinbelow, shall be inherited and acknowledged by the complaint as mandated by the Codicil, despite repeated
children and spouse of Jorge Rabadilla. demands for compliance.
xxx 3. The banks failed to comply with the 6th paragraph of the
Codicil which provided that in case of the sale, lease, or
FOURTH mortgage of the property, the buyer, lessee, or mortgagee shall
likewise have the obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar per
(a)....It is also my command, in this my addition (Codicil), that crop year to herein private respondent.
should I die and Jorge Rabadilla shall have already received the
ownership of the said Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, The plaintiff then prayed that judgment be rendered ordering
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4002 (10942), defendant-heirs to reconvey/return-Lot No. 1392 to the surviving
and also at the time that the lease of Balbinito G. Guanzon of the heirs of the late Aleja Belleza, the cancellation of TCT No. 44498
said lot shall expire, Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation in the name of the deceased, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, and the
until he dies, every year to give to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y issuance of a new certificate of title in the names of the surviving
Belleza, Seventy (75) (sic) piculs of Export sugar and Twenty heirs of the late Aleja Belleza.
Five (25) piculs of Domestic sugar, until the said Maria Marlina
Coscolluela y Belleza dies. On February 26, 1990, the defendant-heirs were declared in
default but on March 28, 1990 the Order of Default was lifted,
FIFTH with respect to defendant Johnny S. Rabadilla, who filed his
Answer, accordingly.
(a) Should Jorge Rabadilla die, his heir to whom he shall give Lot
No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer During the pre-trial, the parties admitted that:
Page 8 of 11
Succession
Inheritance: Obligations | Art. 776
On November 15, 1998, the plaintiff (private respondent) and a "Therefore, the evidence on record having established plaintiff-
certain Alan Azurin, son-in-law of the herein petitioner who was appellant's right to receive 100 piculs of sugar annually out of the
lessee of the property and acting as attorney-in-fact of produce of Lot No. 1392; defendants-appellee's obligation under
defendant-heirs, arrived at an amicable settlement and entered Aleja Belleza's codicil, as heirs of the modal heir, Jorge
into a Memorandum of Agreement on the obligation to deliver Rabadilla, to deliver such amount of sugar to plaintiff-appellant;
one hundred piculs of sugar, to the following effect: defendants-appellee's admitted non-compliance with said
obligation since 1985; and, the punitive consequences enjoined
"That for crop year 1988-89, the annuity mentioned in Entry No. by both the codicil and the Civil Code, of seizure of Lot No. 1392
49074 of TCT No. 44489 will be delivered not later than January and its reversion to the estate of Aleja Belleza in case of such
of 1989, more specifically, to wit: non-compliance, this Court deems it proper to order the
reconveyance of title over Lot No. 1392 from the estates of Jorge
75 piculs of 'A' sugar, and 25 piculs of 'B' sugar, or then existing Rabadilla to the estate of Aleja Belleza. However, plaintiff-
in any of our names, Mary Rose Rabadilla y Azurin or Alan appellant must institute separate proceedings to re-open Aleja
Azurin, during December of each sugar crop year, in Azucar Belleza's estate, secure the appointment of an administrator, and
Sugar Central; and, this is considered compliance of the annuity distribute Lot No. 1392 to Aleja Belleza's legal heirs in order to
as mentioned, and in the same manner will compliance of the enforce her right, reserved to her by the codicil, to receive her
annuity be in the next succeeding crop years. legacy of 100 piculs of sugar per year out of the produce of Lot
No. 1392 until she dies.
That the annuity above stated for crop year 1985-86, 1986-87,
and 1987-88, will be complied in cash equivalent of the number Accordingly, the decision appealed from is SET ASIDE and
of piculs as mentioned therein and which is as herein agreed another one entered ordering defendants-appellees, as heirs of
upon, taking into consideration the composite price of sugar Jorge Rabadilla, to reconvey title over Lot No. 1392, together
during each sugar crop year, which is in the total amount of ONE with its fruits and interests, to the estate of Aleja Belleza.
HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P105,000.00).
SO ORDERED."7
That the above-mentioned amount will be paid or delivered on a
staggered cash installment, payable on or before the end of Dissatisfied with the aforesaid disposition by the Court of
December of every sugar crop year, to wit: Appeals, petitioner found his way to this Court via the present
petition, contending that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering
For 1985-86, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED the reversion of Lot 1392 to the estate of the testatrix Aleja
FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on or before December of Belleza on the basis of paragraph 6 of the Codicil, and in ruling
crop year 1988-89; that the testamentary institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla is a modal
institution within the purview of Article 882 of the New Civil Code.
For 1986-87, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on or before December of The petition is not impressed with merit.
crop year 1989-90;
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in resolving
For 1987-88, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED the appeal in accordance with Article 882 of the New Civil Code
FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on or before December of on modal institutions and in deviating from the sole issue raised
crop year 1990-91; and which is the absence or prematurity of the cause of action.
Petitioner maintains that Article 882 does not find application as
For 1988-89, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED there was no modal institution and the testatrix intended a mere
FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on or before December of simple substitution - i.e. the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,
crop year 1991-92."5 was to be substituted by the testatrix's "near descendants"
should the obligation to deliver the fruits to herein private
However, there was no compliance with the aforesaid respondent be not complied with. And since the testatrix died
Memorandum of Agreement except for a partial delivery of 50.80 single and without issue, there can be no valid substitution and
piculs of sugar corresponding to sugar crop year 1988 -1989. such testamentary provision cannot be given any effect.
On July 22, 1991, the Regional Trial Court came out with a The petitioner theorizes further that there can be no valid
decision, dismissing the complaint and disposing as follows: substitution for the reason that the substituted heirs are not
definite, as the substituted heirs are merely referred to as "near
"WHEREFORE, in the light of the aforegoing findings, the Court descendants" without a definite identity or reference as to who
finds that the action is prematurely filed as no cause of action are the "near descendants" and therefore, under Articles 8438
against the defendants has as yet arose in favor of plaintiff. and 8459 of the New Civil Code, the substitution should be
While there maybe the non-performance of the command as deemed as not written.
mandated exaction from them simply because they are the
children of Jorge Rabadilla, the title holder/owner of the lot in The contentions of petitioner are untenable. Contrary to his
question, does not warrant the filing of the present complaint. supposition that the Court of Appeals deviated from the issue
The remedy at bar must fall. Incidentally, being in the category posed before it, which was the propriety of the dismissal of the
as creditor of the left estate, it is opined that plaintiff may initiate complaint on the ground of prematurity of cause of action, there
the intestate proceedings, if only to establish the heirs of Jorge was no such deviation. The Court of Appeals found that the
Rabadilla and in order to give full meaning and semblance to her private respondent had a cause of action against the petitioner.
claim under the Codicil. The disquisition made on modal institution was, precisely, to
stress that the private respondent had a legally demandable right
In the light of the aforegoing findings, the Complaint being against the petitioner pursuant to subject Codicil; on which issue
prematurely filed is DISMISSED without prejudice. the Court of Appeals ruled in accordance with law.
Page 9 of 11
Succession
Inheritance: Obligations | Art. 776
are compulsory heirs.11 Thus, the petitioner, his mother and Also, the near descendants' right to inherit from the testatrix is
sisters, as compulsory heirs of the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge not definite. The property will only pass to them should Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla, succeeded the latter by operation of law, without need Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the obligation to deliver part of the
of further proceedings, and the successional rights were usufruct to private respondent.
transmitted to them from the moment of death of the decedent,
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. Another important element of a fideicommissary substitution is
also missing here. Under Article 863, the second heir or the
Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code, inheritance includes all fideicommissary to whom the property is transmitted must not be
the property, rights and obligations of a person, not extinguished beyond one degree from the first heir or the fiduciary. A
by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla fideicommissary substitution is therefore, void if the first heir is
had by virtue of subject Codicil were transmitted to his forced not related by first degree to the second heir.17 In the case
heirs, at the time of his death. And since obligations not under scrutiny, the near descendants are not at all related to the
extinguished by death also form part of the estate of the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.
decedent; corollarily, the obligations imposed by the Codicil on
the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to The Court of Appeals erred not in ruling that the institution of Dr.
his compulsory heirs upon his death. Jorge Rabadilla under subject Codicil is in the nature of a modal
institution and therefore, Article 882 of the New Civil Code is the
In the said Codicil, testatrix Aleja Belleza devised Lot No. 1392 provision of law in point. Articles 882 and 883 of the New Civil
to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, subject to the condition that the usufruct Code provide:
thereof would be delivered to the herein private respondent
every year. Upon the death of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, his Art. 882. The statement of the object of the institution or the
compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and title over the said application of the property left by the testator, or the charge
property, and they also assumed his (decedent's) obligation to imposed on him, shall not be considered as a condition unless it
deliver the fruits of the lot involved to herein private respondent. appears that such was his intention.
Such obligation of the instituted heir reciprocally corresponds to
the right of private respondent over the usufruct, the fulfillment or That which has been left in this manner may be claimed at once
performance of which is now being demanded by the latter provided that the instituted heir or his heirs give security for
through the institution of the case at bar. Therefore, private compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of
respondent has a cause of action against petitioner and the trial anything he or they may receive, together with its fruits and
court erred in dismissing the complaint below. interests, if he or they should disregard this obligation.
Petitioner also theorizes that Article 882 of the New Civil Code Art. 883. When without the fault of the heir, an institution referred
on modal institutions is not applicable because what the testatrix to in the preceding article cannot take effect in the exact manner
intended was a substitution - Dr. Jorge Rabadilla was to be stated by the testator, it shall be complied with in a manner most
substituted by the testatrix's near descendants should there be analogous to and in conformity with his wishes.
noncompliance with the obligation to deliver the piculs of sugar
to private respondent. 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
Again, the contention is without merit. modo or a modal institution. In a modal institution, the testator
states (1) the object of the institution, (2) the purpose or
Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person or application of the property left by the testator, or (3) the charge
persons to take the place of the heir or heirs first instituted. imposed by the testator upon the heir.18 A "mode" imposes an
Under substitutions in general, the testator may either (1) provide obligation upon the heir or legatee but it does not affect the
for the designation of another heir to whom the property shall efficacy of his rights to the succession.19 On the other hand, in a
pass in case the original heir should die before him/her, conditional testamentary disposition, the condition must happen
renounce the inheritance or be incapacitated to inherit, as in a or be fulfilled in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the
simple substitution,12 or (2) leave his/her property to one person testator. The condition suspends but does not obligate; and the
with the express charge that it be transmitted subsequently to mode obligates but does not suspend.20 To some extent, it is
another or others, as in a fideicommissary substitution.13 The similar to a resolutory condition.21
Codicil sued upon contemplates neither of the two.
From the provisions of the Codicil litigated upon, it can be
In simple substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance in gleaned unerringly that the testatrix intended that subject
default of the first heir by reason of incapacity, predecease or property be inherited by Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. It is likewise clearly
renunciation.14 In the case under consideration, the provisions worded that the testatrix imposed an obligation on the said
of subject Codicil do not provide that should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla instituted heir and his successors-in-interest to deliver one
default due to predecease, incapacity or renunciation, the hundred piculs of sugar to the herein private respondent,
testatrix's near descendants would substitute him. What the Marlena Coscolluela Belleza, during the lifetime of the latter.
Codicil provides is that, should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs However, the testatrix did not make Dr. Jorge Rabadilla's
not fulfill the conditions imposed in the Codicil, the property inheritance and the effectivity of his institution as a devisee,
referred to shall be seized and turned over to the testatrix's near dependent on the performance of the said obligation. It is clear,
descendants. though, that should the obligation be not complied with, the
property shall be turned over to the testatrix's near descendants.
Neither is there a fideicommissary substitution here and on this The manner of institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla under subject
point, petitioner is correct. In a fideicommissary substitution, the Codicil is evidently modal in nature because it imposes a charge
first heir is strictly mandated to preserve the property and to upon the instituted heir without, however, affecting the efficacy of
transmit the same later to the second heir.15 In the case under such institution.
consideration, the instituted heir is in fact allowed under the
Codicil to alienate the property provided the negotiation is with Then too, since testamentary dispositions are generally acts of
the near descendants or the sister of the testatrix. Thus, a very liberality, an obligation imposed upon the heir should not be
important element of a fideicommissary substitution is lacking; considered a condition unless it clearly appears from the Will
the obligation clearly imposing upon the first heir the itself that such was the intention of the testator. In case of doubt,
preservation of the property and its transmission to the second the institution should be considered as modal and not
heir. "Without this obligation to preserve clearly imposed by the conditional.22
testator in his will, there is no fideicommissary substitution."16
Page 10 of 11
Succession
Inheritance: Obligations | Art. 776
Neither is there tenability in the other contention of petitioner that Art. 845. Every disposition in favor of an unknown person shall
the private respondent has only a right of usufruct but not the be void, unless by some event or circumstance his identity
right to seize the property itself from the instituted heir because becomes certain. However, a disposition in favor of a definite
the right to seize was expressly limited to violations by the buyer, class or group of persons shall be valid.
lessee or mortgagee.
SO ORDERED.
FOOTNOTES
Art. 843. The testator shall designate the heir by his name and
surname, and when there are two persons having the same
names, he shall indicate some circumstance by which the
instituted heir may be known.
Even though the testator may have omitted the name of the heir,
should he designate him in such manner that there can be no
doubt as to who has been instituted, the institution shall be valid.
Page 11 of 11