CASE DIGEST SUCCESS1.doc

7/26/2019 CASE DIGEST SUCCESS1.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-digest-success1doc 1/26

G.R. No. 559 March 14, 1903

MANUEL BARRIOS Y BARREDO,

plaintiff-appellant, vs. MARIA PASCUALA

DOLOR, ET AL., defendants-appellees

Facts:

-plaintiff has brought an action for the recovery

from the defendants, heirs of the late Don

Ciriaco Demonteverde, of one-half of a sugarestate and the stock thereon, which he claims to

have purchased from the said Don Ciriaco

-stipulation is made for a contract of partnershipfor the operation of the said estate

-Doña aria !ascuala Dolor raised an

incidental issue : instrument referred to be ruledout of evidence on the ground that it had not

been recorded in the registry of property,

-and that it be returned to the plaintiff without

leaving in the record any transcript or copy

thereof or e"tract therefrom, resting thiscontention upon article #$% of the ortgage

&aw.

!o"#o$ %a& 'ra$"() *+ "h( -)'(.

PLAINTI a//(a&

-the 'uestion has been raised in this incidentalissue whether the defendants, as heirs of Don

Ciriaco Demonteverde, can and should be

regarded as third persons for the purposes of

the Mortgage Law

-ortgaged &aw itself, in article (), gives the

definition of a third person, which is, *he whohas not taken part in the act or contractrecorded.*

-parties to a contract are not third persons+conse'uently, Demonteverde was not a third

person with respect to the contract entered into

by him and evidenced by the instrument in'uestion. e not being such a third person,

neither can his heirs be so regarded, nor should

they be so regarded with respect to the same

contract, because they are only the udicialcontinuation of his personality, they having

been subrogated, by virtue of the right of

succession, to all his rights and obligations, inaccordance with provisions of article / of the

Civil Code

-defendants, therefore, are not third persons

with respect to the contract entered into by their

decedent, Don Ciriaco Demonteverde, in theinstrument of February #, /$$#, and they

therefore can not avail themselves of the

prohibition contained in article #$% of theortgage &aw for the purpose of opposing the

admission of this instrument as evidence in the

case

-0his prohibition was established solely and

e"clusively in favor of those who, within the

meaning of that law, are third persons. 1ere itotherwise, the position of the defendants would

be superior to that of the person whom they

derived their rights, because he, not being athird person, could not set up such an e"ception.

0his would certainly be most illogical from a

legal point of view, in view of the fact that theheir is, as above stated, a mere continuation of

the civil personality of his decedent.

-defendants not being third persons, it becomes

unnecessary to decide whether the instrument

referred to is or is not subect to inscription inaccordance with article ( of the ortgage &aw,

because, at all events, and however this may be,the mere failure to record the instrument in the

registry of property can not be a bar to its

admission as evidence in this case,

23&456:

-Conse'uently we reverse and annul the orderof the court below, overruling the motion made

on behalf of Doña aria !ascuala Dolor,

without special condemnation as to the costs ofeither instance

G.R. No. L4 No2(!*(r 11, 190

SUILIONG CO., a& #-#)a"or& o6 Th( Y(7

To$' L#! #r(, Mar#$(, a$) I$&-ra$c( Co.,

L")., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. SIL8INA CIO

TAYSAN, defendant-RANCISCA :OSE,

intervener-appellant.

ac"&;

-7velina Caballero, deceased, owned during her lifetime a certain tract of land, which was duly

inscribed in her name in the land registry of the

city of anila-/%8#, she borrowed from Francisca 9ose, the

intervener and appellant in this action, /,888

pesos, e"ican currency, and turned over hertitle deeds to this tract of land to the lender as

security for the loan, but no entry touching the

transaction was noted in the land registry.-died on the th day of 9une, /%8#, and



thereafter

LO<ER COURT;

-;ilvina Chio-0aysan, the defendant in this

action, instituted in the Court of First 4nstanceof anila an action, known, under the system

of civil procedure in e"istence prior to the

adoption of the present code, as an *action for

the declaration of heirship-the following order d(car#$' h(r "o *( "h(

o$+ a$) (=c-&#2( h(#r of 7velina Caballero,

deceased, was issued-arch %, /%8<, the registrar of deeds of the

city of anila by virtue of this order entered the

following inscription in the land registrywhereby the said ;ilvina Chio-0aysan is made

to appear as the owner

-=n the (th day of ay, /%8<, the said ;ilvina

Chio-0aysan borrowed the sum of !(,88 from

the Fire and arine 4nsurance and &oan Co., ofwhich the plaintiff is the lawfully appointed

li'uidator, and mortgaged the land in 'uestionas security for the repayment of the loan.

-0hereafter the husband of ;ilvina Chio-0aysan

instituted special proceedings under the provisions of the present Code of Civil

!rocedure, for the administration of the estate

of 7velina Caballero, deceased-he was, in accordance with his petition,

appointed administrator+ and thereupon,

submitted as such administrator, an inventory of the property of the estate, in which wasincluded the land in 'uestion+

-on the ($th of 5ovember, /%8, Francisca

9ose, the intervener in this action, submitted her claim to the commissioner appointed in these

proceedings, for the sum of /,888 pesos,

e"ican currency, loaned the deceased, asabove set out, on the ($th day of arch, /%8<,

-which claim was duly approved on the #/st of

7ugust, /%8.

-=n the /8th day of =ctober, /%8, the plaintiffin this action filed its complaint against the

defendant, ;ilvina Chio-0aysan, praying for

udgment for the amount loaned her as aboveset out, and the foreclosure of its mortgage upon

the land.

-defendant, ;ilvina Chio-0aysan, filed heranswer, admitting the facts alleged in the

complaint and declining to interpose any

obection to the prayer of the complaint+-but on the #8th of =ctober, /%8), Francisca

9ose was permitted to intervene and file her

separate *complaint in intervention* whereinshe set out the facts touching the loan made by

her to 7velina Caballero, deceased, and prayed

that the court declare the mortgage e"ecuted by;ilvina Chio-0aysan rescinded and of no effect+

and further that it annul the inscription in the

land registry of the title of ;ilvina Chio-0aysan

to the land in 'uestion+ and declare this landsubect to her claim against the estate of 7velina

Caballero, deceased.

0247& C=320 23&456:

-trial court entered udgment in favor of the

plaintiff and against both the defendant and theintervener in conformity with the prayer of the

complaint, and the intervener brings that

udgment before this court for review upon her

bill of e"ceptions duly signed and certified.

;C =!454=5:

-1e do not think that the udgment of the trialcourt can be sustained in so far as it wholly

denies relief to the intervener, Francisca 9ose.

-0he trial udge denied the relief prayed for bythe intervener, on the ground that her

intervention in this action was for the purpose

of the written title deeds on the land, and that,since she admitted that she had admitted her

claim against the estate of 7velina Caballero,

deceased, to the committee appointed in theadministration proceedings, she must be takento have abandoned, whatever lien she may have

held as security therefor, in accordance with the

provisions of section )8$ of the Code of Civil!rocedure

-0he prayer of her complaint in intervention,

however, is merely for the rescission andannulment of the mortgage contract between the

loan company and the defendant and of the

inscription in the land registry of the title of the

defendant, and a declaration that as a creditor of the estate she has a superior right to that of the

plaintiff company in the proceeds of any sale of

the land in 'uestion.-;he does not seek to enforce her claim and

recover her debt in this proceeding, but merely

to prevent the plaintiff from securing a udgment in this action which would take out of

the estate property which she believes to be

subect to her claim set up in the administration proceedings.



-4f her contentions are well founded, and if the

estate of the deceased is subect to the paymentof the debts of the deceased in such form that

the heirs of the deceased could not alienate this

land free of the claims of the creditors of thedeceased against the land, for the payment of

their claims against the deceased, the intervener

is clearly entitled to at least so much of the

relief she seeks in this action as will have theeffect of preventing the sale of this land under

the plaintiff>s foreclosure proceedings, free of

the claims of creditors of the deceased, because,if the plaintiffs in this action were permitted to

foreclosure their mortgage and to recover their

debt from the sale of the land in 'uestion, itmight well be that there would not be sufficient

property in the estate to pay the amount of the

claim of the intervener against the estate.

-ad the transactions above set out in taken

place under the system of law in force in these4slands immediately prior to the /st day of

=ctober, /%8/, when the new Code of Civil!rocedure went into effect, there would be no

difficulty in determining the respective rights of

the various parties to this action.-7rticle ) of the Civil Code provides that 0he

rights to the succession of another are

transmitted from the moment of his death-and article / provides that eirs succeed the

deceased by the mere fact of his death, in all

rights and obligations-0he property of the deceased, both real and personal, became the property of the heir by the

mere fact of death of his prodecessor in interest,

and he could deal with it in precisely the sameway in which the deceased could have dealt

with it, subect only to the limitations which by

law or by contract were imposed upon thedeceased himself.

-e could alienate or mortgage it with the same

freedom as could the deceased in his lifetime+

the unsecured debts and other personalobligations of the deceased becoming the

unsecured debts and personal obligations of the

heir for which he was held personallyresponsible in precisely the same manner as the

deceased, save only, as has been said before,

where he availed himself of the privilege oftaking the estate *%#"h "h( *($(6#" o6 a$

#$2($"or+,> in which case the e"tent of his

liability was limited to the value of the estatewhich came into his hands,

-;panish procedural law provided an action

known as an action for the declaration ofheirship ?declaracion de herederos@ whereby

one claiming the status of heir could have his

right thereto udicially declared-B-" *o"h "h( &-*&"a$"#2( a$) /roc()-ra a%

"o-ch#$' r#'h"& o6 &-cc(&&#o$ a$) "h(#r

($6orc(!($", %h#ch %(r( #$ 6orc( #$ "h(&(

I&a$)& %h($ "h( $(% Co)( o6 C#2#Proc()-r( %($" #$"o (66(c", ha2(, "o a 'r(a"(r

or (&& )('r((, *(($ r(/(a() or modified by

its enactment+

SC OPINION;

we are of opinion that, under the provisions ofthe new code, the heir is not a such personally

responsible for the debts of the deceased, in

whole or in part+ and on the other hand, the

property of the deceased comes to him charged

with the debts of the deceased, so that he cannot alienate or charge it free of such debts, until

and unless they are e"tinguished either by payment, prescription, or satisfaction in one or

other of the modes recogniAed by law.

-5B1 C=DB =F C4 !2=: 4t substantiallyrepeals in toto the proceedings prescribed under

the old law for the administration of estates of

deceased persons, and substitutes therefor asystem similar to that generally adopted in the

3nited ;tates+

-7n e"amination more especially of sections%), <<, %, )(), )(%, )#/, )##, and )<% ofthe Code of Civil !rocedure, read together with

the remaining provisions for the administration

of the estates of deceased persons, clearlyindicates that the provisions of articles 8 and

/ of the Civil Code have been abrogated.

-0hese provisions of the new code clearlydemonstrate that the terms heredero and

legatario, as defined in the Civil Code ?art.

8@, are not synonymous with the words *heir*

and *legatee,* as used in the new code+-the word >h(#r> in the new code being

technically and applicable only to a relative

taking property of an intestate by virtue of thelaws of descent, devisee and legatee being

reserved for all persons whether relatives or not,

taking respectively real or personal property byvirtue of a will

-while heredero in the Civil Code was

applicable not only to one who would be calledan *heir,* under the provisions of the new code,



but also to one, whether relative or not, who

took what might be called *a residuary estateunder a will*

-new code having provided a remedy whereby

the property of the deceased may always besubected to the payment of his debts in

whatever hands it may be found, the right of a

creditor to a lien upon the property of the

deceased, for the payment of the debts of thedeceased, created by the mere fact of his death,

may be said to be recogniAed and created by the

provisions of the new code.

C=320 23&456:

-it is evident that her death created a lien uponher property in favor of the intervener Francisca

9ose, for the payment of the debt contracted by

her during her lifetime, and that this lien ought

to have and has priority to any lien created upon

this property by the heir of the deceased+ thatthe udicial declaration of heirship in favor of

;ilvina Chio-0aysan, could not and did notfurnish a basis for an entry in the land registry

of the name of ;ilvina Chio-0aysan as the

absolute owner of the property of 7velinaCaballero+ that such entry, improperly made,

could not and did not preudice the lien of the

intervener, Francisca 9ose, for the debt due her by the deceased ?ortgage &aw, art. ##@+ and

that the mortgage of the property of the

deceased by her heir, ;ilvina Chio-0aysan, wassubect to the prior lien of the intervener,Francisca 9ose, for the payment of her debt.

-the other relief prayed for by her may properly

be denied, since a provision subecting the landin 'uestion to the payment of her claim against

the estate of 7velina Caballero, deceased, fully

and sufficiently protects her rights in the premises, and her rights having been secured,

she has no proper interest in the rescission of

the mortgage contract between plaintiff and

defendant, or the cancellation of the inscriptionof the defendant>s title as heir in the land

registry.

-23&456:0he udgment of the trial court should,

therefore, be modified in accordance with the

foregoing principles, and the record will bereturned to the trial court where udgment will

be entered modifying the udgment, by

providing that the proceeds of the sale of theland under the foreclosure proceedings will be

deposited with the clerk of the court, where it

will be retained until the amount of the debt duethe intervener and unpaid in the course of the

administration of the estate of 7velina Caballero

shall have been ascertained, whereupon the saidfunds shall be applied: first, to e"tinguish the

unpaid residue, if any, of the claim of the

intervener+ second, to pay the debt due the

plaintiff in this action+ and finally, the residue, if any, to be paid to the estate of the deceased+ the

intervener to have her costs in this action in

both instances.

G.R. No. L443 No2(!*(r ?3, 193

SOCORRO LEDESMA a$) ANA @UITCO

LEDESMA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs.

CONCITA MCLACLIN, ET AL.,

defendants-appellants.

F7C0;:

-case is before us by virtue of an appeal taken by the defendants Conchita c&achlin,

&orenAo uitco, 9r., ;abina uitco, 2afael

uitco and arcela uitco, from the decisionof the Court of First 4nstance of =ccidental

5egros

-D4;!=;404B !=204=5: court renders udgment in this case declaring 7na uitco

&edesma an acknowledged natural daughter of

the deceased &orenAo . uitco, for legal purposes, but absolving the defendants as to the prayer in the first cause of action that the said

7na uitco &edesma be declared entitled to

share in the properties left by the deceasedBusebio uitco.

-7s to the second cause of action, the said

defendants are ordered to pay to the plaintiff;ocorro &edesma, ointly and severally, only

the sum of one thousand five hundred

pesos?!/,88@, with legal interest thereon from

the filing of this complaint until fully paid

4;;3B;:

-4n support of their appeal, the appellants assignthe following errors allegedly committed by the

trial court

0hat the trial court erred in holding, that theaction for the recovery of the sum of !/,88,

representing the last installment of the note

B"hibit C has not yet prescribed.(. 0hat the trial court erred in holding that the



property inherited by the defendants from their

deceased grandfather by the right ofrepresentation is subect to the debts and

obligations of their deceased father who died

without any property whatsoever.lawphi1.net#. 0hat the trial court erred in condemning the

defendants to pay ointly and severally the

plaintiff ;ocorro &edesma the sum of !/,88

+

;C =5&E C=5;4DB2BD 0B FF 7; 0B

F7C0;-4n the year /%/, the plaintiff ;ocorro &edesma

lived maritally with &orenAo . uitco, while

the latter was still single, of which relation,lasting until the year /%(/, was born a daughter

who is the other plaintiff 7na uitco &edesma.

4n /%(/, it seems hat the relation between

;ocorro &edesma and &orenAo . uitco came

to an end, but the latter e"ecuted a deed?B"hibit 7@, acknowledging the plaintiff 7na

uitco &edesma as his natural daughter and on9anuary (/, /%((, he issued in favor of the

plaintiff ;ocorro &edesma a promissory note

-;ubse'uently, &orenAo . uitco married thedefendant Conchita c&achlin, with whom he

had four children, who are the other defendants.

-=n arch %, /%#8, &orenAo . uitco died?B"hibit @, and, still later, that is, on December

/, /%#(, his father Busebio uitco also died,

and as the latter left real and personal propertiesupon his death, administration proceedings ofsaid properties were instituted in this court, the

said case being known as the *4ntestate of the

deceased Busebio uitco,* civil case 5o. /#of this court.

-

!2=CBBD456; BF=2B 0B C=400BB=5 C&74;:

-3pon the institution of the intestate of the

deceased Busebio uitco and the appointment

of the committee on claims and appraisal, the plaintiff ;ocorro &edesma, on 7ugust (, /%#,

filed before said committee the afore'uoted

promissory note for payment,-and the commissioners, upon receipt of said

promissory note, instead of passing upon it,

elevated the same to this court en consulta?B"hibit F@,

-and as the onorable 9ose &opeA ito,

presiding over the First ranch, returned saidconsulta and refrained from giving his opinion

thereon ?B"hibit C@, the aforesaid

commissioners on claims and appraisal,alleging lack of urisdiction to pass upon the

claim, denied the same

- =n 5ovember /<, /%## ?B"hibit 4@, the courtissued an order of declaration of heirs in the

intestate of the deceased Busebio uitco, and as

7na uitco &edesma was not included among

the declared heirs, ;ocorro &edesma, as motherof 7na uitco &edesma, asked for the

reconsideration of said order, a petition which

the court denied. From the order denying thesaid petition no appeal was taken, and in lieu

thereof there was filed the complaint which

gives rise to this case.

4;;3B;:

/-whether or not the action to recover the sum

of !/,88, representing the last installment for

the payment of the promissory note B"hibit C,has prescribed

GGG7ccording to the promissory note B"hibit C,

e"ecuted by the deceased &orenAo . uitco,

on 9anuary (/, /%((, the last installment of!/,88 should be paid two years from the date

of the e"ecution of said promissory note, that is,

on 9anuary (/, /%(<.-0he complaint in the present case was filed on

9une (, /%#<, that is, more than ten years after

he e"piration of the said period.-0he fact that the plaintiff ;ocorro &edesmafiled her claim, on 7ugust (, /%##, with the

committee on claims and appraisal appointed in

the intestate of Busebio uitco, does notsuspend the running of the prescriptive period

of the udicial action for the recovery of said

debt, *(ca-&( "h( ca#! 6or "h( -$/a#)

*aa$c( o6 "h( a!o-$" o6 "h( /ro!#&&or+ $o"(

&ho-) $o" ha2( *(($ /r(&($"() #$ "h(

#$"(&"a"( o6 E-&(*#o @-#"co, "h( &a#) )(c(a&()

$o" *(#$' "h( o$( %ho (=(c-"() "h( &a!(, butin the intestate of &orenAo . uitco

-ore than ten years having thus elapsed from

the e"piration of the period for the payment ofsaid debt of !/,88, the action for its recovery

has prescribed under section <#, 5o. /, of the

Code of Civil !rocedure.

(. that the trial court erred in holding that the

properties inherited by the defendants fromtheir deceased grandfather by representation are



subect to the payment of debts and obligations

of their deceased father, who died withoutleaving any property,

GGGarticles %(< to %() of the Civil Code, a

children presents his father or mother who died before him in the properties of his grandfather

or grandmother, this right of representation does

not make the said child answerable for the

obligations contracted by his deceased father ormother, because, as may be seen from the

provisions of the Code of Civil !rocedure

referring to partition of inheritances, theinheritance is received with the benefit of

inventory, that is to say, the heirs only answer

with the properties received from their predecessor.

-0he herein defendants, as heirs of Busebio

uitco, in representation of their father &orenAo

. uitco, ar( $o" *o-$) "o /a+ "h(

#$)(*"()$(&& o6 "h(#r &a#) 6a"h(r 6ro! %ho!"h(+ )#) $o" #$h(r#" a$+"h#$'.

;C 23&456 75D C=5C&3;4=5:

-?/@ 0hat the filing of a claim before the

committee on claims and appraisal, appointed inthe intestate of the father, for a monetary

obligation contracted by a son who died before

him, does not suspend the prescriptive period of the udicial action for the recovery of said

indebtedness+

?(@ that the claim for the payment of anindebtedness contracted by a deceased personcannot be filed for its collection before the

committee on claims and appraisal, appointed in

the intestate of his father, and the propertiesinherited from the latter by the children of said

deceased do not answer for the payment of the

indebtedness contracted during the lifetime ofsaid person.

GGGGGGthe a//(a() -)'!($" #& r(2(r&(),

and the )(6($)a$"& ar( a*&o2() 6ro! "h(co!/a#$", with the costs to the appellees

G.R. No. L493 :a$-ar+ ?9, 1953

MARIA USON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIA

DEL ROSARIO, CONCEPCION

NEBREDA, CONRADO NEBREDA,

DOMINADOR NEBREDA, AND

AUSTINO NEBREDA, :r., defendants-

appellants.

action for recovery of the ownership and

possession of five ?@ parcels of land situated inthe unicipality of &abrador, !rovince of

!angasinan, filed by aria 3son against aria

del 2osario and her four children namedConcepcion, Conrado, Dominador, and

Faustino, surnamed 5ebreda, who are all of

minor age,

F7C0;:

-aria 3son was the lawful wife of Faustino

5ebreda who upon his death in /%< left thelands involved in this litigation. Faustino

5ebreda left no other heir e"cept his widow

aria 3son. owever, plaintiff claims thatwhen Faustino 5ebreda died in /%<, his

common-law wife aria del 2osario took

possession illegally of said lands thus depriving

her of their possession and enoyment.

C=320 !2=CBBD456;:

-Defendants in their answer set up as specialdefense that on February (/, /%#/, aria 3son

and her husband, the late Faustino 5ebreda,

e"ecuted a public document whereby theyagreed to separate as husband and wife and, in

consideration of their separation, aria 3son

was given a parcel of land by way of alimonyand in return she renounced her right to inherit

any other property that may be left by her

husband upon his death-7fter trial, at which both parties presented their respective evidence, the court rendered decision

ordering the defendants to restore to the

plaintiff the ownership and possession of thelands in dispute without special pronouncement

as to costs

-Defendants interposed the present appeal-I" #7(%#&( a//(ar& "ha" a-&"#$o N(*r()a

)#() #$ 1945 !-ch /r#or "o "h( (66(c"#2#"+ o6

"h( $(% C#2# Co)(.

-1ith this background, it is evident that whenFaustino 5ebreda died in /%< the five parcels

of land he was seiAed of at the time passed from

the moment of his death to his only heir, hiswidow aria 3son ?7rticle ), old Civil

Code@

-*0he property belongs to the heirs at themoment of the death of the ancestor as

completely as if the ancestor had e"ecuted and

delivered to them a deed for the same before hisdeath* ?4lustre vs. 7laras Frondosa, /) !hil.,



#(/@.

-From that moment, therefore, the rights ofinheritance of aria 3son over the lands in

'uestion became vested.

-Th( ca#! o6 "h( )(6($)a$"& "ha" Mar#a

U&o$ ha) r(#$-#&h() h(r r#'h" o2(r "h(

a$)& #$ -(&"#o$ *(ca-&( &h( (=/r(&&+

r($o-$c() "o #$h(r#" a$+ 6-"-r( /ro/(r"+

"ha" h(r h-&*a$) !a+ ac-#r( a$) (a2(-/o$ h#& )(a"h #$ "h( )(() o6 &(/ara"#o$ "h(+

ha) ($"(r() #$"o o$ (*r-ar+ ?1, 1931,

ca$$o" *( ($"(r"a#$() 6or "h( &#!/( r(a&o$

"ha" 6-"-r( #$h(r#"a$c( ca$$o" *( "h( &-*(c"

o6 a co$"rac" $or ca$ #" *( r($o-$c()

defendants contend that, while it is true that thefour minor defendants are illegitimate children

of the late Faustino 5ebreda and under the old

Civil Code are not entitled to any successional

rights, however, under the new Civil Code

which became in force in 9une, /%8, they aregiven the status and rights of natural children

and are entitled to the successional rights whichthe law accords to the latter ?article ((< and

article ($), new Civil Code@, and because these

successional rights were declared for the firsttime in the new code, they shall be given

retroactive effect even though the event which

gave rise to them may have occurred under the prior legislation ?7rticle ((#, new Civil Code@.

Th(r( #& $o !(r#" #$ "h#& ca#!.

-7rticle ((# above referred to provides indeedthat rights which are declared for the first timeshall have retroactive effect even though the

event which gave rise to them may have

occurred under the former legislation, but this isso only when the new rights do not preudice

any vested or ac'uired right of the same origin.

-0he new right recogniAed by the new CivilCode in favor of the illegitimate children of the

deceased cannot, therefore, be asserted to the

impairment of the vested right of aria 3son

over the lands in dispute.23&456: the decision appealed from is

affirmed, without costs

G.R. No. L43? :-+ ?4, 194?

GENEROSA TE8ES DE :AOSALEM,

plaintiff-appellant, vs. NICOLASA RAOLS,

ET ALS., defendants-appellees

F7C0;:-0he land in 'uestion described in the appealed

in the decision originally belonged to 9uan

elgar.-0he latter died at the udicial administration of

his estate was commenced in /%/ and came to

a close on December (, /%(<, only-During the pendency of the said

administration, that is, on 9uly , /%/), ;usana

elgar, daughter of the deceased 9uan elgar,

sold the land with the right of repurchase to!edro Cui, subect to the stipulation that during

the period for the repurchase she would

continue in possession of the land as lessee ofthe purchaser

-=n December /(, /%(8, the partition of the

estate left by the deceased 9uan elgar wasmade, and the land in 'uestion was adudicated

to ;usana elgar.

-/%(/, she conveyed, in payment of

professional fees, one-half of the land in favor

of the defendant-appellee 5icolasa 2afols, who,entered upon the portion thus conveyed and has

been in possession thereof up to the present.-=n 9uly (#, /%(/, !edro Cui brought an action

to recover said half of the land from 5icolas

2afols and the other half from the otherdefendants

-while that case was pending, or about 7ugust

<, /%(, !edro Cui donated the whole land in'uestion to 6enerosa 0eves, the herein plaintiff-

appellant.

&=1B2 C=320 23&456:-7fter trial, the lower court rendered a decision

a*&o2#$' N#coa& Ra6o& a& "o "h( o$(ha6 o6

"h( a$) co$2(+() "o h#! *+ S-&a$a M('ar,

and )(car#$' "h( /a#$"#66 o%$(r o6 "h( o"h(r

ha6 *-" (=/r(&& ac7$o%('!($" o6 "h( o"h(r

)(6($)a$"&.

-0he plaintiff appealed from that part of the

udgment which is favorable to 5icolas 2afols.

-0he lower court absolved 5icolas 2afols upon

the theory that ;usana elgar could not haveanything to !edro Cui because the a land was

then in custodia legis, that is, under udicial

administration.

;C: Th#& #& (rror

-0hat the land could not ordinarily be leviedupon while in custodia legis, does not mean that

one of the heirs may not sell the right, interest

or participation which he has or might have inthe lands under administration.



-7rticle <<8 of the Civil Code provides that *the

possession of hereditary property is deemed to be transmitted to the heir without interruption

from the instant of the death of the decedent, in

case the inheritance be accepted.*-7nd according to article #%% of the Civil Code,

every part owner may assign or mortgage his

part in the common property, and the effect of

such assignment or mortgage shall be limited tothe portion which may be alloted him in the

partition upon the dissolution of the community.

-I" r(&-"& "h(r(6or( "ha" "h( &a( !a)( *+

S-&a$a M('ar #$ 6a2or o6 P()ro C-# %a&

2a#), *-" #" %o-) *( (66(c"#2( o$+ a& "o "h(

/or"#o$ "o *( a)-)#ca"() to the vendor uponthe partition of the property left by her deceased

father 9uan elgar.

7nd as on December /(, /%(8, upon the

partition of said property, the land in 'uestion

was adudicated to ;usana elgar, the sale ofthe whole land which the latter made in favor of

!edro Cui was entirely confirmed.3pon the confirmation of the sale of December

/(, /%(8 in favor of !edro Cui, the conveyance

by ;usana elgar in favor of 5icolasa 2afols in/%(/ could no longer be done.

-5icolasa 2afols may not allege prescription of

action, for !edro Cui filed the first complaint in/%(/, or the year following the confirmation of

the sale in his favor. 7nd as 5icolas 2afols

deprived !edro Cui of the possession and theenoyment of one-half of the land since /%(/ tothe present, it is only ust that he should pay an

indemnity therefor. ;i" per cent of !/,88,

which is the price of one-half of the land, may be considered as the reasonable amount of this

indemnity.

-1herefore, the appealed decision is reversed,and 5icolas 2afols is sentenced to deliver to the

plaintiff 6enerosa 0eves de 9akosalem, one-half

of the land conveyed to him by ;usana elgar,

and to pay by way of damages the sum of !%8 ayear from the filing of the complaint that is,

from 9uly (#, /%(/, until the delivery of the

land, with the cost of both instances againsthim.

G.R. No. L1544 March 30, 19?1

LEONARDO OSORIO, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

TOMASA OSORIO, a)!#$#&"ra"r#= o6 "h(

(&"a"( o6 P("ro$a R(+(&, a$) TE

YNCAUSTI STEAMSIP CO., defendants-

appellants

-0he plaintiff seeks to recover /8 shares of

stock of *Enchausti ;teamship Co.* and the

dividends corresponding to them, which wereincluded in the inventory of the properties of

the deceased Da. aria !etrona 2eyes, whose

estate is administered by the defendant.

F7C0;:-D. 7ntonio =sorio had formed with Enchausti

H Co., a oint account association for the

e"ploitation of the shipping business, he beingthe owner of the one-third of the company>s

capital. 0his capital amounted to !88,888, of

which !/,., that is, one-third belongedto D. 7ntonio =sorio.

-3pon his death, his heirs agreed to authoriAe

the defendant Da. 0omasa =sorio, then

administratri" of the estate of the deceased, to

present a proect of partition, and saidadministrati" inserted in the proect with the

consent of all the heirs, among the propertieswhich belonged to the widow Da. !etrona

2eyes, the sum of !%<,888 as her part in the

*share of the estate in the shipping business ofEnchausti H Co.,* that is, a little over

!/,.

-0he proect of partition was approved on ay/8, /%/, with the consent of the heirs, by the

Court of First 4nstance of Cavite,

-=n February ($, /%/<, the widow of D.7ntonio =sorio, Da. !etrona 2eyes, now alsodeceased, e"ecuted before the notary D.

Florencio 6onAales DieA a document of gift in

favor of her son D. &eonardo =sorio, the plaintiff giving to him one-half of her share in

the one-third part which belonged to her

husband in the shipping business of EnchaustiH Co., a donation which was duly accepted by

the donee D. &eonardo =sorio, who signed said

document with the plaintiff.

-=n that date, February ($, /%/<, the estate ofD. 7ntonio =sorio was not yet distributed

among his heirs, and the donor Da. !etrona

2eyes in order to correct the error in saiddocument, wherein it was stated that said half

was adudicated to her as part of her conugal

property, when the partition was yet beingeffected, e"ecuted another document dated 9uly

#, /%/, maintaining said donation in effect in

the sense that she ceded and donated to her sonD. &eonardo =sorio, for the same reasons stated



in the document of February ($, /%/<, al

interest or participation in said shipping business of Enchausti H Co., which was

adudicated to her in the division of the estate of

D. 7ntonio =sorio, which division wasapproved by the Court of First 4nstance of

Cavite

-A6"(r "h( )(a"h o6 D. A$"o$#o O&or#o a$)

*(6or( "h( )#&"r#*-"#o$ o6 "h( (&"a"(,Y$cha-&"# Co. /-rcha&() "h( &"(a!(r

Go2(r$or or*(& a$) r(co'$#() "h( h(#r& o6

D. A$"o$#o O&or#o a& ha2#$' a$ #$"(r(&" "o

"h( (="($" o6 o$("h#r) #$ "h( o%$(r&h#/ a$)

*-&#$(&& o6 &a#) &"(a!(r

-4t was agreed upon by all the interested partiesthat the share of Da. !etrona 2eyes, widow of

=sorio, in the vessel 6overnor Forbes, at the

time of the incorporation of *0he Enchausti

;teamship Co.* was !/,888, e'uivalent to /8

shares of stock of said corporation.-;aid sum was deposited with the ;teamship

Co. until the final settlement of the 'uestion thathad arisen between the heirs of Da. !etrona

2eyes as to the ownership thereof for, while the

plaintiff alleges that, by virtue of the donationmade in his favor by Da. !etrona 2eyes, he is

the owner of said shares and of their value

which is !/,888+ the defendant on the otherhand contends that said shares are not included

in the donation in 'uestion and belong to the

heirs of Da. !etrona 2eyes.

23&456 =F 0B 0247& C=320

-0he trial court rendered udgment in the case,

declaring that the /8 shares of stock in disputeand their dividends belong to the plaintiff, and

ordered the defendant Da. 0omasa =sorio,

administratri" of the estate of Da. !etrona2eyes, to e"clude them from the inventory and

her accounts, and the other defendant *0he

Enchausti ;teamship Co.* to inscribe them in

the name of the plaintiff D. &eonardo =sorio,delivering to him the dividends corresponding

thereto, and denied the counterclaim for the

sum of !<,888, on the ground that said sumrepresents the dividends corresponding to the

!%<,888 adudicated to Da. !etrona 2eyes, in

the partition of the estate of D. 7ntonio =sorio,and donated by her to the defendant in the

counterclaim.

4;;3B;:

-/. 0he donation made by Da. !etrona 2eyes in

favor of the plaintiff was of no value and effect+and

(. 0hat, supposing said donation valid, the /8

shares of stock, the value of which is !/,888,cannot be considered as included among them.

4n support of the first proposition, the appellant

invokes as the legal provision violated, article# of the Civil Code, which says:

-7 donation can not include future property

-y future property is understood that of whichthe donor can not dispose at the time of making

the donation.

-0his definition in reality includes all propertieswhich belong to others at the time of the

donation, although they may or may not later

belong to the donor, thus connecting two ideas

which, although lacking apparently in relation,

are merged in reality in the subect which wee"amine and which gives assurance to their

application-7rticle # refers to the properties of third

persons but it may be said that id does so in

relation to a time to come+ there can be properties which may latter belong to the donor+

but these properties cannot be donated, because

they are not at present his properties, because hecannot dispose of them at the moment of

making the donation.

-4t is alleged that the donation made by Da.!etrona 2eyes is void because she donated onFebruary ($, /%/<, a future property, such as

the share in the business of the deceased =sorio,

which was adudicated to her on ay /8, /%/,and because in /%/< she did not have the right

to all or part of the share which her deceased

husband had in the shipping business ofEnchausti H Co.

SUPREME COURT OPINION; RE; ART

35 O CC-we believe that the future properties, the

donation of which is prohibited by said article,

are those belonging to other, which, as such,cannot be the obect of the disposal by the

donor+ but the properties of an e"isting

inheritance as those of the case at bar, cannot beconsidered as another>s property with relation to

the heirs who through a fiction of law continue

the personality of the owner. 5or do they havethe character of future property because the died



before /%/(, his heirs ac'uired a right to

succeed him from the moment of his death, because of the principle announced in article

) and applied by article / of the Civil

Code, according to which the heirs succeed thedeceased by the mere fact of his death. ore of

less time may elapse before the heirs enter into

the possession of the hereditary property, but

this is not an obstacle, for the ac'uisition of said property retroacts in any event to the moment of

death, according to article %$% of the Civil

Code. 0he right is ac'uired although subect tothe adudication of the corresponding hereditary

portion.

-an inheritance already e"isting, which is nolonger future from the moment of death of the

predecessor, may legally be the obect of

contract.

-which may be the obect of contract may also

be the obect of a donation-1e conclude that the donor Da. !etrona 2eyes,

on February ($, /%/(, and could legally disposeof her right through an act of liberality, as she

had done.

4;;3B: 1ith respect to the point that Da.

!etrona 2eyes did not have in /%/< any right toall or part of the share of her deceased husband

in the shipping business of Enchausti and Co., it

must be observed that in the proect of partitionof the property of D. 7ntonio =sorio :

-1e do not have before us the will of D.

7ntonio =sorio but supposing that he had leftno property but the share which he had in the

shipping business of Enchausti H Co., can it be

denied that the donor by law had the right tohalf of said share as her part of the conugal

propertyI Clearly not.

-0hat Da. aria !etrona 2eyes did not donate

to the plaintiff more that her share in theshipping business of the firm Enchausti H Co.

which was adudicated to her in the partition of

the property of D. 7ntonio =sorio and that saidshare amounts to !%<,888.

0his admission of the defendant is conclusive,

and makes it unnecessary for us to enter intoanother discussion in order to deduce that Da.

!etrona 2eyes had in /%/< a right to a certain

part of the interest of the deceased =sorio in theshipping business of the firm Enchausti H Co.,

and could donate it, as she did, to her son D.

&eonardo =sorio.0he allegation that the document of 9uly #,

/%/, is void, because it does not show the

acceptance of the donee, is of no importance, because of the conclusion we have reached in

discussing the document of donation of

February ($, /%/<.

-4n the second document, the donor only tried to

correct what she believed to be an error in the

first, wherein it is stated that in the partition ofthe property of her husband there was

adudicated to her the part of the interest in the

shipping business of Enchausti H Co. whichshe donated to her son &eonardo, when in fact

said partition was yet pending.

-7fter its approval by the Court of First

4nstance of Cavite, the donor e"ecuted thedocument of /%/, ratifying and correcting the

document of donation. ;he did not make a newdonation. ;he e"ecuted a personal act which did

not re'uire the concurrence of the donee.

-0he wills of the donor and of the donee havingconcurred, the donation, as a mode of

transferring ownership, becomes perfect,

according to article (# of the Civil Code.

-0he 'uestion whether the steamer Governor

Forbes was or was not purchased with moneyfurnished by Enchausti and the heirs of =sorio,indepedently of that former partnership in

which the deceased =sorio had an interest, is

one of the fact and must be resolved in view ofthe evidence adduced at the trial.

-7ll of the above shows that the estate of =sorio

had a one-third part of the steamer Forbesrepresented by the capital which was distributed

among the heirs, there accruing to the widow,

by agreement of the interested parties, the sum

of !/,888. 7nd this sum being part of the one-half of one-third of the shipping business of

Enchausti H Co., which one-half part accrued

to the widow in the distribution of the properties of =sorio+ and the widow Da.

!etrona 2eyes having disposed of this half,

donating it to her son D. &eonardo =sorio, itclearly results, in our opinion, that the sum of

/,888, or the corresponding shares of the new

corporation *0he Enchausti ;teamship Co.* areincluded in said donation, and therefore belong



to the plaintiff-appellee.

-1ith respect to the counterclaim of

!<,8%,%/, we are of the opinion that the

evidence ustifies the conclusion of the trialcourt that they are the profits or dividends

accruing to the !%<,888, which were

adudicated to the widow Da. !etrona 2eyes in

the distribution of the estate of the deceased=sorio and which were donated by her to the

plaintiff, and as such profits they belong to the

latter, upon the principle of law that ownershipof property gives right by accession to all that it

produces, or is united or incorporated thereto,

naturally or artificially. ?7rt. ## of the CivilCode.@

SUPREME COURT RULING;

4n view of what has been said, the udgment

appealed from should be, as it is hereby,affirmed, with costs against the appellant. ;o

ordered.

G.R. No. L?31? March 1, 19?5

I$ "h( !a""(r o6 #$"(&"a"( (&"a"( o6 "h(

)(c(a&() :-a$a S(r2a$)o. :OSE P. TINSAY,

administrator-appellee, vs. :O8ITA YUSAY

a$) PETRA YUSAY, heirs-appellants

-4t appears from the record that one 9uan Eusay

died some time before the year /%8%, leaving awidow 9uana ;ervando and five children,Candido, 5umeriana, 9ovito, 9ovita and !etra.

-7s far as the record shows his estate consistedof his interest in a track of land situated in the

town of 4loilo, divided into two lots by Calle

7ldeguer and which was community propertyof his marriage to 9uana ;ervando.

-I$ 1909 :o2#"o Y-&a+ &o$ /-rcha&() "h(

#$"(r(&"& o6 *ro"h(r a$) &#&"(r Ca$)#)o a$)

N-!(r#a$a #$ "h( a$), "h-& ac-#r#$' a"hr(( 6#6"h& #$"(r(&" #$ "h( &a!(.

-:o2#"o Y-&a+ appears to have )#() some time

between the years /%8% and /%//, (a2#$' a

%#)o%, P(r/("-a S#a$, and five minor

children, 9uana, Blena, 7urea, Blita and 7ntonia

Eusay.

AGREEMENT BET<EEN PERPETUA

AND :O8ITA AND PETRA;

4n /%// !erpetua ;ian for herself and in

representation of her children entered into an

agreement in writing ?B"hibit /@ with 9ovita and!etra Eusay which purported to provide for the

partition of the land mentioned and whereby

!erpetua ;ian and her children were to occupythe portion to the northeast of Calle 7ldeguer

and 9ovita and !etra were to have the portion or

lot to the southwest of this street.

-Th( )oc-!($" #& 2(r+ #!/(r6(c"+ )ra%$a$) #& #$ &o!( r(&/(c"& &o!(%ha" a!*#'-o-&

#$ #"& "(r!& *-" #" #&, $(2(r"h((&&, -#"( c(ar

"ha" #$ #"& 6#$a ca-&( :o2#"a a$) P("ra Y-&a+

(=/r(&&+ r(#$-#&h #$ 6a2or o6 "h( ch#)r($

o6 :o2#"o Y-&a+ a$+ a$) a r#'h"& %h#ch "h(+,

:o2#"a a$) P("ra, !#'h" ha2( #$ "h( a$)

a&&#'$() "o P(r/("-a S#a$ a$) h(r ch#)r($

#$ "h( /ar"#"#o$.

-cadastral survey the portion alloted to !erpetua

;ian and her children was designated as lot 5o.

(</,-0he portion which under the partition of /%//

fell to the share of 9ovita and !etra Eusay wasgiven the lot number ($#+

A" "h( "r#a o6 "h( ca)a&"ra ca&( o"& No&.

?41 a$) 13 %(r( ca#!() *+ P(r/("-a S#a$

o$ *(ha6 o6 h(r ch#)r($ a$) "h( o"& %(r(

a)-)#ca"() "o "h( a""(r %#"ho-" o//o&#"#o$.

Lo"& No&. ?3 a$) 44 %(r( ca#!() *+

:o2#"a a$) P("ra A$) a)-)#ca"() "o "h(!,

a&o %#"ho-" o//o&#"#o$.

REOPENING O TE CASE;

;hortly thereafter, on 7ugust /8, /%/, 9uana

;ervando ?14D=1 =F E3;7E@ filed a

petition in the cadastral case asking for thereopening of the case as to lots 5os. (</ and

)/# on the ground that she was the owner of a

one-half interest in said lots, but that at the timeof the trial of the case !erpetua ;ian had falsely

lead her to believe that a claim had been

presented in her behalf for her interest in the

land.1915RULING O LO<ER COURT: -0he

/("#"#o$ 6or r(o/($#$' %a& 'ra$"(), the

former udgment set aside and the two lots 5os.(</ and )/# were thereupon decreed in favor of

9uana ;ervando and the children of 9ovito

Eusay in the proportions of an undivided halfinterest in favor of 9uana ;ervando and the

remaining one-half interest in favor of the

children of !erpetua ;ian in e'ual shares,

APPEALED TO TE SC; 0he case was



appealed to this court and the decision of the

lower court affirmed

-4t may be noted that 9uana laid no claim to lots

5os. ($# and )<< decreed in favor of 9ovita and!etra Eusay who therefore remained the

registered owners of said lots

YEAR 1919DEAT O :UANA

-=n 7pril /(, /%/%, after the death of 9uana;ervando, the appellee 9ose !. 0insay was

appointed administrator of her estate.

-4n 9uly and =ctober, /%((, 9ovita and !etraEusay sold lot 5o. ($# to one icente 0ad-E for

the sum of !(8,888.

-=n arch ((, /%(<, the administrator of theestate of 9uana ;ervando filed an amended

inventory in which the !(8,888 received by

9ovita and !etra from the sale of lot 5o. ($#

was included as bien colacionable. =n the same

day a scheme for the distribution of the estatewas submitted to the court in which the

aforesaid !(8,888 were brought into collationwith the result that the total value of the estate

being only !($,%88, according to inventory, no

further share in the estate was assigned to 9ovitaand !etra Eusay.

SCEME O PARTITION O :UANA AND

:O8ITA AND PETRA:-0he scheme of partition was opposed by 9ovita

and !etra

-0he court approved the scheme of partition anddeclared the proceeds of the sale of lots 5os.($# and )<< *fictitiously collationable*

-and held that this being in e"cess of their share

of the inheritance, 9ovita and !etra Eusay couldclaim no further participation in the other

property described in the inventory and in the

scheme of partition.-From this order 9ovita and !etra Eusay appeal.

:O8ITA AND PETRA APPEAL TO SC RE;

SCEME O PARTITION ORDER

ISSUES;

<FN the court below erred in taking intoconsideration in its decision evidence which it

had ruled out at the trial of the case J 4t is, of

course, clear that the court below erred in takinginto consideration in its decision evidence

which it had ruled out at the trial of the case

-<FN 4t it was error to e"clude B"hibits /, (and #. B"hibit / is the document of partition

between !erpetua ;ian and 9ovita and !etra

Eusay e"ecuted in /%//+ B"hibits ( and # aredeeds e"ecuted by 5umeriana and Candido

Eusay transferring their interests in all of the

lots above-mentioned to 9ovito Eusay

-1e also agree with counsel for the appellants

that the case involves no 'uestion of this kind of

colacion provided for in articles /8#-/88 ofthe Civil Code, nor are we here dealing with

advancements to lineal heirs under section )8

of the Code of Civil !rocedure in force at thetime of the e"ecution of B"hibit /. 7s far as we

can see, the appellee must rest his case upon

entirely different principles.

;C ;070BD 634DB&45B; F=2 &=1B2

C=320 0= 7=4D F320B2 7!!B7&:

-9uana ;ervando not being a party to the

partition agreement B"hibit /, the agreementstanding alone was, of course, ineffective as

against her. 0he attempt to partition her landamong her heirs, constituting a partition of a

future inheritance was invalid under the second

paragraph of article /()/ of the Civil Code andfor the same reason the renunciation of all

interest in the land which now constitutes lots

5os. (</ and )/# made by the appellants infavor of the children of 9ovito Eusay would

likewise be of no binding force as to the

undivided portion which belonged to 9uana;ervando. ut if the parties entered into the partition agreement in good faith and treated all

of the land as a present inheritance, and if the

appellants on the strength of the agreementobtained their 0orrens title to the land alloted to

them therein, and if !erpetua ;ian in reliance on

the appellants> renunciation of all interestclaimed by her on behalf of her children in the

cadastral case refrained from presenting any

opposition to the appellants> claim to the entire

fee in the land assigned to them in the partitionagreement and if the appellants after the death

of 9uana ;ervando continued to enoy the

benefits of the agreement refusing tocompensate the heirs of 9ovito Eusay for the

latter>s loss of their interest in lots 5os. ($# and

)<< through the registration of the lots in thename of the appellants and the subse'uent

alienation of the same to innocent third parties,

said appellants are now estopped fromrepudiating the partition agreement of /%// and



from claiming any further interest in lots 5os.

(</ and )/#. 0here is, however, no reason whythey should not be allowed to share in the

distribution of the other property left by 9uana

;ervando.-1e may say further that if a case of estoppel

should not be established, the appellants might

still, under article /#8# in relation with article

/8)# of the Civil Code, be compelled to restoreto the estate of 9uana ;ervando one- half of the

amount received by them from the sale of lots

5os. ($# and )<<, unless it is shown that9uana>s interest in the lot was transferred to

them either by sale or by valid donation. 0he

registration of land does not necessarilye"tinguish obligations of that character.

SC RULING; 0he decision appealed from

being based on evidence not properly before the

trial court, must be reversed,-but inasmuch as the errors committed by that

court are of such a character as to have workedwhat amounts to a mistrial, it will be necessary

to remand the case for a new trial.

-For the reasons stated, the order appealed fromis reversed and the case remanded to the court

below for a new trial upon the issues herein

suggested. 5o costs in this instance. ;o ordered

G.R. No. L430? :-$( 1, 193PABLO LORENO, a& "r-&"(( o6 "h( (&"a"(

o6 Tho!a& a$(+, )(c(a&(), plaintiff-

appellant, vs. :UAN POSADAS, :R.,

Co(c"or o6 I$"(r$a R(2($-(, defendant-appellant.

LO<ER COURT PROCEEDINGS;

-=n =ctober <, /%#(, the plaintiff !ablo

&orenAo, in his capacity as trustee of the estate

of 0homas anley, deceased, brought this

action in the Court of First 4nstance ofKamboanga against the defendant, 9uan

!osadas, 9r., then the Collector of 4nternal

2evenue, for the refund of the amount of!(,8(.)<, paid by the plaintiff as inheritance

ta" on the estate of the deceased,

-and for the collection of interst thereon at therate of per cent per annum, computed from

;eptember /, /%#(, the date when the

aforesaid ta" was Lpaid under protest-0he defendant set up a counterclaim for

!/,/%/.() alleged to be interest due on the ta"

in 'uestion and which was not included in theoriginal assessment.

LO<ER COURT DISMISSED BOT

ACTIONS , BOT PARTIES APPEALED

TO SC.

ACTS;

4t appears that on ay (), /%((, one 0homasanley died in Kamboanga, Kamboanga,

leaving a will ?B"hibit @ and considerable

amount of real and personal properties.-=n une /<, /%((, proceedings for the probate

of his will and the settlement and distribution of

his estate were begun in the Court of First4nstance of Kamboanga. 0he will was admitted

to probate.

COURT APPOINTED TRUSTEE;

-0he Court of First 4nstance of Kamboanga

considered it proper for the best interests of theestate to appoint a trustee to administer the real

properties which, under the will, were to pass toatthew anley ?nephew@ ten years after the

two e"ecutors named in the will, was, on arch

$, /%(<, appointed trustee.-oore was the first trustee and then the

plaintiff replaced after he resigned

CIR INERITANCE TAH;

-During the incumbency of the plaintiff as

trustee, the defendant Collector of 4nternal

2evenue, alleging that the estate left by thedeceased at the time of his death consisted ofrealty valued at !(),%(8 and personalty valued

at !/,<, and allowing a deduction of !<$8.$/,

assessed against the estate an inheritance ta" inthe amount of !/,<#<.(< which, together with

the penalties for deli'uency in payment

consisting of a / per cent monthly interest from9uly /, /%#/ to the date of payment and a

surcharge of ( per cent on the ta", amounted to

!(,8(.)<.

-=n arch /, /%#(, the )(6($)a$" 6#() a!o"#o$ #$ "h( "(&"a!($"ar+ /roc(()#$'&

/($)#$' before the Court of First 4nstance of

Kamboanga ?;pecial proceedings 5o. #8(@ praying that the trustee, /a#$"#66 h(r(#$, *(

or)(r() "o /a+ "o "h( Go2(r$!($" "h( &a#)

&-! o6 P?,05?.4.

LO<ER COURT; 0he motion was granted.

-=n ;eptember /, /%#(, the /a#$"#66 /a#) &a#)

a!o-$" -$)(r /ro"(&", notifying the defendant



at the same time that unless the amount was

promptly refunded suit would be brought for itsrecovery.

-defendant overruled the plaintiff>s protest and

refused to refund the said amount hausted,

plaintiff went to court with the result herein

above indicated.

ISSUES;

?a@ 1hen does the inheritance ta" accrue and

when must it be satisfiedI?b@ ;hould the inheritance ta" be computed on

the basis of the value of the estate at the time of

the testator>s death, or on its value ten yearslaterI

?c@ 4n determining the net value of the estate

subect to ta", is it proper to deduct the

compensation due to trusteesI

?d @ 1hat law governs the case at barI ;houldthe provisions of 7ct 5o. #8 favorable to the

ta"-payer be given retroactive effectI?e@ as there been deli'uency in the payment of

the inheritance ta"I 4f so, should the additional

interest claimed by the defendant in his appeal be paid by the estateI

RULING;

1ST ISSUE

?a@ 0he accrual of the inheritance ta" is distinct

from the obligation to pay the same. ;ection/# as amended, of the 7dministrative Code,imposes the ta" upon *every transmission by

virtue of inheritance, devise, be'uest, gift

mortis causa, or advance in anticipation ofinheritance,devise, or be'uest.* 0he ta"

therefore is upon transmission or the transfer or

devolution of property of a decedent, madeeffective by his death.

-the heirs succeed immediately to all of the

property of the deceased ancestor. 0he property

belongs to the heirs at the moment of the deathof the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor

had e"ecuted and delivered to them a deed for

the same before his death.*-!laintiff, however, asserts that while article

) of the Civil Code is applicable to testate as

well as intestate succession, it operates only inso far as forced heirs are concerned. ut the

language of article ) of the Civil Code is

broad and makes no distinction betweendifferent classes of heirs. 0hat article does not

speak of forced heirs+ it does not even use the

word *heir*. 4t speaks of the rights ofsuccession and the transmission thereof from

the moment of death.

-0he authentication of a will implies its duee"ecution but once probated and allowed the

transmission is effective as of the death of the

testator in accordance with article ) of the

Civil Code. 1hatever may be the time whenactual transmission of the inheritance takes

place, succession takes place in any event at the

moment of the decedent>s death.-Th( "#!( %h($ "h( h(#r& ('a+ &-cc(() "o

"h( #$h(r#"a$c( !a+ )#66(r 6ro! "h( "#!(

%h($ "h( h(#r& ac"-a+ r(c(#2( &-ch

#$h(r#"a$c(

-Tho!a& a$(+ ha2#$' )#() o$ Ma+ ?,

19??, "h( #$h(r#"a$c( "a= accr-() a& o6 "h(

)a"(.

-ro! "h( 6ac", ho%(2(r, "ha" Tho!a& a$(+)#() o$ Ma+ ?, 19??, #" )o(& $o" 6oo% "ha"

"h( o*#'a"#o$ "o /a+ "h( "a= aro&( a& o6 "h(

)a"(. 0he time for the payment on inheritance

ta" is clearly fi"ed by section /<< of the

2evised 7dministrative Code as amended by7ct 5o. #8#/, in relation to section /<# of the

same Code.

;BC. /<#. Exemption of certain acquisitions

and transmissions. M 0he following shall not

be ta"ed:

?a@ 0he merger of the usufruct in the owner ofthe naked title.

b Th( "ra$&!#&&#o$ or )(#2(r+ o6 "h(

#$h(r#"a$c( or ('ac+ *+ "h( 6#)-c#ar+ h(#r or

('a"(( "o "h( "r-&"((&.

?c@ 0he transmission from the first heir, legatee,

or donee in favor of another beneficiary, in

accordance with the desire of the predecessor.4n the last two cases, if the scale of ta"ation

appropriate to the new beneficiary is greater

than that paid by the first, the former must pay

the difference.SEC. 1544. When tax to be paid . M 0he ta"

fi"ed in this article shall be paid:

?a@ 4n the second and third cases of the ne"t preceding section, before entrance into

possession of the property.

?b I$ o"h(r ca&(&, %#"h#$ "h( &#= !o$"h&

&-*&(-($" "o "h( )(a"h o6 "h( /r()(c(&&or

*-" #6 -)#c#a "(&"a!($"ar+ or #$"(&"a"(

/roc(()#$'& &ha *( #$&"#"-"() /r#or "o "h(

(=/#ra"#o$ o6 &a#) /(r#o), "h( /a+!($" &ha



*( !a)( *+ "h( (=(c-"or or a)!#$#&"ra"or

*(6or( )(#2(r#$' "o (ach *($(6#c#ar+ h#&

&har(

-4t should be observed in passing that the word

*trustee*, appearing in subsection b o6 &(c"#o$

1543, should read *fideicommissary* or *cestuique trust *. 0here was an obvious mistake in

translation from the ;panish to the Bnglish

version.

-0he instant case does fall under subsection ?a@,

*-" -$)(r &-*&(c"#o$ b, o6 &(c"#o$ 1544

a*o2(-o"(), a& "h(r( #& h(r( $o 6#)-c#ar+

h(#r&, 6#r&" h(#r&, ('a"(( or )o$((. 3nder the

subsection, the ta" should have been paid before the delivery of the properties in 'uestion

to !. 9. . oore as trustee on arch /8, /%(<.

-

?ND ISSUE;

-4f death is the generating source from whichthe power of the estate to impose inheritance

ta"es takes its being and if, upon the death ofthe decedent, succession takes place and the

right of the estate to ta" vests instantly, the ta"

should be measured by the vlaue of the estate asit stood at the time of the decedent>s death,

regardless of any subse'uent contingency value

of any subse'uent increase or decrease in value.-we hold that a transmission by inheritance is

ta"able at the time of the predecessor>s death,

notwithstanding the postponement of the actual possession or enoyment of the estate by the beneficiary, and the ta" measured by the value

of the property transmitted at that time

regardless of its appreciation or depreciation.

3RD ISSUE;

-7 trustee, no doubt, is entitled to receive a faircompensation for his services ?arney vs.

;aunders, / ow., #+ /< &aw. ed., /8<)@.

ut from this it does not follow that the

compensation due him may lawfully bededucted in arriving at the net value of the

estate subect to ta".

-0here is no statute in the !hilippines whichre'uires trustees> commissions to be deducted in

determining the net value of the estate subect

to inheritance ta" ?/ C. 9., p. /)[email protected], though a testamentary trust has

been created, it does not appear that the testator

intended that the duties of his e"ecutors andtrustees should be separated.

4T ISSUE;

-0he defendant levied and assessed the

inheritance ta" due from the estate of 0homasanley under the provisions of section /<< of

the 2evised 7dministrative Code, as amended

by section # of 7ct 5o. #8. ut 7ct 5o. #8

went into effect on 9anuary /, /%#8. 4t,therefore, was not the law in force when the

testator died on ay (), /%((. 0he law at the

time was section /<< above-mentioned, asamended by 7ct 5o. #8#/, which took effect on

arch %, /%((.

-4t is well-settled that inheritance ta"ation isgoverned by the statute in force at the time of

the death of the decedent

-0he ta"payer can not foresee and ought not to

be re'uired to guess the outcome of pending

measures.-7ct 5o. #8 itself contains no provisions

indicating legislative intent to give it retroactiveeffect

-0he defendant Collector of 4nternal 2evenue

maintains, however, that certain provisions of7ct 5o. #8 are more favorable to the

ta"payer than those of 7ct 5o. #8#/, that said

provisions are penal in nature and, therefore,should operate retroactively in conformity with

the provisions of article (( of the 2evised !enal

Code. 0his is the reason why he applied 7ct 5o.#8 instead of 7ct 5o. #8#/. 4ndeed, under7ct 5o. #8, ?/@ the surcharge of ( per cent is

based on the ta" only, instead of on both the ta"

and the interest, as provided for in 7ct 5o.#8#/, and ?(@ the ta"payer is allowed twenty

days from notice and demand by rthe Collector

of 4nternal 2evenue within which to pay the ta",instead of ten days only as re'uired by the old

law.

-a statute is penal when it imposes punishment

for an offense committed against the statewhich, under the Constitution, the B"ecutive

has the power to pardon. 4n common use,

however, this sense has been enlarged toinclude within the term *penal statutes* all

status which command or prohibit certain acts,

and establish penalties for their violation, andeven those which, without e"pressly prohibiting

certain acts, impose a penalty upon their

commission ?% C. 9., p. ///8@. 2evenue laws,generally, which impose ta"es collected by the



means ordinarily resorted to for the collection

of ta"es are not classed as penal laws

5T ISSUE;

0he plaintiff correctly states that the liability to

pay a ta" may arise at a certain time and the ta"

may be paid within another given time. 7s

stated by this court, *the mere failure to payone>s ta" does not render one delin'ent until and

unless the entire period has eplased within

which the ta"payer is authoriAed by law tomake such payment without being subected to

the payment of penalties for fasilure to pay his

ta"es within the prescribed period.*-0he appointment of !. 9. . oore as trustee

was made by the trial court in conformity with

the wishes of the testator as e"pressed in his

will. 4t is true that the word *trust* is not

mentioned or used in the will but the intentionto create one is clear. 5o particular or technical

words are re'uired to create a testamentary trust-0he words *trust* and *trustee*, though apt for

the purpose, are not necessary. 4n fact, the use

of these two words is not conclusive on the'uestion that a trust is created

-to co$&"#"-"( a 2a#) "(&"a!($"ar+ "r-&" there

must be a concurrence of three circumstances:?/@ ;ufficient words to raise a trust+ ?(@ a

definite subect+ ?#@ a certain or ascertain obect+

statutes in some urisdictions e"pressly or ineffect so providing.*-!. 9. . oore became trustee on arch /8,

/%(<. =n that date trust estate vested in him

?sec. $( in relation to sec. %8, Code of Civil!rocedure@. 0he mere fact that the estate of the

deceased was placed in trust did not remove it

from the operation of our inheritance ta" lawsor e"empt it from the payment of the

inheritance ta". 0he corresponding inheritance

ta" should have been paid on or before arch

/8, /%(<, to escape the penalties of the laws.-7 trustee is but an instrument or agent for the

cestui que trust

e did not ac'uire any beneficial interest in theestate. e took such legal estate only as the

proper e"ecution of the trust re'uired ? C. 9.,

p. ($@ and, his estate ceased upon thefulfillment of the testator>s wishes.

-0hat ta"es must be collected promptly is a

policy deeply intrenched in our ta" system.0hus, no court is allowed to grant inunction to

restrain the collection of any internal revenue

ta"-Th( )(#$-($c+ #$ /a+!($" occ-rr() o$

March 10, 19?4, "h( )a"( %h($ Moor(

*(ca!( "r-&"((. 0he interest due should becomputed from that date and it is error on the

part of the defendant to compute it one month

later.

SC INAL RULING; Th( -)'!($" o6 "h(

o%(r co-r" #& accor)#$'+ !o)#6#(), %#"h

co&"& a'a#$&" "h( /a#$"#66 #$ *o"h #$&"a$c(&.

So or)(r().

SE8ERINA MARABILLES, ET AL., /a#$"#66 a$)

a//(a$"&, 2&. ALE:ANDRO @UITO a$) AIDA

@UITO, )(6($)a$"&a//(((&.195 Oc" 1E$

Ba$cG.R. No. L1040

LO<ER COURT PROCEEDINGS;

-0his concerns an action instituted in the Court of First4nstance of Camarines ;ur by plaintiffs against

defendants for the recovery of a parcel of land consisting

of /$ hectares situated in !ili, Camarines ;ur

-Defendants, #$&"(a) o6 a$&%(r#$' "h( co!/a#$", 6#()

a !o"#o$ "o )#&!#&& o$ "h( 'ro-$)& ?/@ that plaintiffs

have no legal capacity to sue, ?(@ that the complaint statesno cause of action, and ?#@ that the action had prescribed.

-Defendants attached to their motion as 7nne" 7 0ransfer

Certificate of 0itle 5o. /8 issued in the name of one6uadalupe ;aralde on arch #/, /%</ and =riginal

Certificate of 0itle 5o. /8/$ as 7nne" issued in the

name of !atricio arabiles on February /%, /%<. Th#& #&

a ho!(&"(a) /a"($" 'ra$"() -$)(r Ac" No. ?4.

-!laintiffs filed a written opposition to the motion, to

which defendants replied, and thereafter the court issued

on 5ovember $, /%< an order sustaining the motion.

RTC; , #" )#&!#&&() "h( co!/a#$" %#"h co&"& a'a#$&"

"h( /a#$"#66&. CA; Court of 7ppeals, the case was certified to us on the

ground that the 'uestions raised are purely of law.

CASE BEORE TE SC;

4;;3B;:/. 1N5 the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint

of the plaintiffs because they have no capacity to

sue.....because it appears that the title of the land was

issued in the name of !atricio arabiles who alreadydied and the complaint does not allege that ;everina

arabiles and her child who now appears as plaintiffs

had been duly declared as his heirs to entitle them to

bring the action.J0his theory is erroneous.

-0he right to assert a cause of action as an heir, although

he has not been udicially declared to be so, if duly



proven, is well settled in this urisdiction.

-the property of a deceased person, both real and

personal, becomes the property of the heir by the merefact of death of his predecessor in interest, and as such he

can deal with it in precisely the same way in which the

deceased could have dealt, subect only to the limitations

which by law or by contract may be imposed upon thedeceased himself

-0hus, it has been held that *0here is no legal precept or

established rule which imposes the necessity of a

previous legal declaration regarding their status as heirsto an intestate on those who, being of age and with legal

capacity, consider themselves the legal heirs of a person,

in order that they may maintain an action arising out of a

right which belonged to their ancestor*

?$) ISSUE;

-the complaint states no cause of action because while it

appears in the complaint that the land was transferred toone 6uadalupe ;aralde, deceased wife of defendant

7leandro uito, there is no allegation that said 7leandro

uito and his daughter 7ida, a co-defendant, had been

declared heirs or administrators of the estate of the

deceased.-the court has concluded that plaintiffs have no cause of

action against defendants because there is no legal bond

by which the latter may be linked with the property.

C=320:0his conclusion is also erroneous.

-to determine the sufficiency of a cause of action on a

motion to dismiss, only the facts alleged in the complaintshould be considered, / and considering the facts herein

alleged, there is enough ground to proceed with the case.

-0hus, it appears in the complaint that 6uadalupe ;aralde

is the wife of 7leandro uito, the defendant, and as said6uadalupe has already died, under the law, the husband

and his daughter 7ida are the legal heirs.

3RD ISSUE;

-the action of the plaintiffs had already prescribed

because the <-year period within which an action based

on fraud may be brought had already elapsed it appearing

that the title of plaintiffs> ancestor was cancelled and anew one issued in the name of 6uadalupe ;aralde in

/%</, whereas the complaint was only filed in /%<.

-court e"pressed the opinion that the fraud which is the

basis of the action is deemed to have been discoveredfrom the time the original title was cancelled and a new

one issued in /%</ upon the theory that those titles

constitute a public record which serves as a constructive

notice to the public.C=320: 1e also find his conclusion erroneous.

-1hile legally the registration of real property serves as a

constructive notice on which an action based on fraud

may be predicated, however, this cannot be invoked inthe present case, for there is an averment in the complaint

that the issuance of such title has been accomplished by

defendant 7leandro uito through fraud, deceit and

misrepresentation and not through a valid and voluntarytransfer.

-4t is a rule well settled that the defense of prescription

cannot be availed of when the purpose of the action is to

compel a trustee to convey the property registered in his

name for the benefit of the cestui 'ue trus0

-7nd when a person through fraud succeeds in registeringthe property in his name, the law creates what is called

*constructive trust* in favor of the defrauded party and

grants to the latter a right to vindicate the property

regardless of the lapse of time.-4t is clear that the defense of prescription cannot be set

up in this case.

SC INAL RULING; <h(r(6or(, "h( or)(r a//(a()

6ro! #& h(r(*+ &(" a&#)(, %#"h co&"& a'a#$&" a//(((&.

G.R. No. L?531 D(c(!*(r ?4, 19?

I$ r( (&"a"( o6 "h( )(c(a&() 8#c"or#a$a

Saa2()ra. MACARIO MACROON ONG

AM, administrator-appellant, vs. :UAN

SAA8EDRA, ET AL., opponents-appellees

-acario acrohon =ng am, widower and

e"ecutor of the oint last will and testament ofictoriana ;aavedra and himself, presented said

will for probate

-0his e"ecutor submitted a scheme of partition

and distribution of the property in accordancewith the terms of the oint will, to which 9uan

;aavedra and others filed an opposition.

-0he e"ecutor reoined insisting upon the

approval of the scheme and asking that theopposition of 9uan ;aavedra and others be

overruled.

-=n arch (, /%(, the parties submitted a

statement of facts, which reads as follows:

/. 0hat ictoriana ;aavedra died in themunicipality and !rovince of Kamboanga, !. 4.,

without descendants or ascendants, being at that

time married to acario acrohon =ng am,

both of them having e"ecuted a oint will,which oint will has been duly admitted to

probate in this court.

(. 0hat the only near relations of the saidictoriana ;aavedra, with the right to inherit

her estate are her brothers 9uan and ;egundo

;aavedra+ her nephews and nieces, 0eofilo;aavedra, anuel ;aavedra, ictoriana

;aavedra, ariano ;aavedra, Froilan ;aavedra,

9osefa ;aavedra, Bncarnacion Carpio and

acra Carpio, in case that the said ictoriana;aavedra died intestate, or did not dispose of

her property in said will.

#. 0hat aside from the estate mentioned in the



said last will and testament, duly probated by

this onorable Court, there e"ist another parcelof land, ac'uired by =ng am the year /%(8, by

purchase from =ng 0ah, and adudicated to the

said =ng am in Expediente 5o. [email protected]. 0hat the parties representing acario

acrohon =ng am admit that he sold lots

5os. #< and #, of Expediente 5o. $/%, for the

sum of !/,%88, believing in good faith that hecould sell the same for his personal uses.

. 0hat the party representing 9uan ;aavedra,

and the other relations heretofore named herebywithdraw their opposition which they have

presented to the final account of the surviving

spouse, acario acrohon =ng am, andconform to the same, and ask that the Court

approve the said final account.

9=450 14&&:

-4n case of the death of acario acrohon =ngam before ictoriana ;aavedra, we hereby

order that the properties hereinafter described be ointly given to 5B!B1; =ng Oa Chiew

and =ng Oa 9ian , and should either of the two

die before acario acrohon =ng am, weorder that all the said properties be given to the

survivor, which properties are described as

follows:

-4n case that ictoriana ;aavedra should survive

acario acrohon =ng am, the lands and properties described below shall belonge"clusively to ictoriana ;aavedra,

-;hould ictoriana ;aavedra die before acario

acrohon =ng am, we order that lot 5o. $/)-7, proceeding 5o. )$$8, certificate 5o. /(<),

be adudicated to ;egunda ;aavedra, widow,

sister of ictoriana ;aavedra, free of all liensand encumbrances.

LO<ER COURT;

-0he lower court solving the 'uestion raised bythe parties in their agreement of facts, held that

the one-half of the property described in the

will, all of lot 5o. #8), cadastral case 5o. +one-half of the cash balance of the final account

to be rendered by the e"ecutor, and half of the

proceeds of the sale of lots 5o. #< and # of!roceeding 5o. $/%, belong to acario

acrohon =ng am+

-and as it appears from the will 'uoted, as wellas from the agreement dated arch (, /%(,

that ictoriana ;aavedra left no legitimate

ascendants or descendants at the time of herdeath acario acrohon =ng am, her

widower, is, according to the provisions of

articles $#) of the Civil Code, entitled to theusufruct of one-half of the estate of the said

ictoriana ;aavedra, consisting of one-half of

the property described in the will, e"cluding

lots 5o. $/) and )$ of proceeding 5o. )$$8,given to ;egunda ;aavedra with the consent of

acario acrohon =ng am+ of one-half of the

cash balance of the e"ecutor>s final account, andof half of the proceeds of the sale of lots 5os.

#< and # in proceeding 5o. $/%,

-adudicated as follows: one-half of the same belongs in usufruct to the widower acario

acrohon =ng am, and the naked ownership

of this half as well as the full ownership of the

other half is adudicated to ictoriana

;aavedra>s heirs, named in the said agreementdated arch (, /%(,

-7s regards lots 5os. $/) and )$ of proceeding 5o. )$$8, given to ;egunda

;aavedra, the court adudicates the same to the

said ;egunda ;aavedra, in accordance with theclauses on lines %%-/// of the will.

Finally, the court orders that the e"ecutor, after

paying the inheritance ta", distribute amongictoriana ;aavedra>s heirs named in the

agreement of

arch (, /%(, the part belonging to each ofthem as hereinabove stated, and after thisdelivery is made and the inheritance ta", if any,

is paid, this proceeding is to be considered

closed ipso facto.

APPEALED BY COUNSEL O TE

EHECUTOR

ISSUES; <FN TE LO<ER COURT

ERRED;

4. 4n holding in its auto, of 5ovember (, /%(,that the deceased, ictoriana ;aavedra, )#()

/ar"#a+ #$"(&"a"(, and did not dispose of all

her property by the oint last will and testamente"ecuted by herself and her husband, acario

acrohon =ng am, and in not finding that

under the terms of the aforesaid oint will thelegatees, =ng Oa Chiew and =ng Oa 9ian,

named therein, were entitled to receive her

estate and participation in the si"teen parcels ofland devised under the said oint will, by the



said spouses.

44. 4n holding that the brother and the sister of

ictoriana ;aavedra, by name, 9uan ;aavedra

and ;egundo ;aavedra+ her nephews and nieces, by name, 0eofilo ;aavedra, anuel ;aavedra,

ictoriana ;aavedra, ariano ;aavedra, Froilan

;aavedra, 9osefa ;aavedra, Bncarnacion Carpio

and acra Carpio, her ne"t of kin were entitledto receive any part of her estate and

participation in the said si"teen parcels of land,

devised to the above named legatees, =ng OaChiew and =ng Oa 9ian, under the terms of the

said oint last will and testament.

A//(a$" a('(& "ha" "h( "r#a co-r" (rr()

#$ ho)#$' "ha" 8#c"or#a$a Saa2()ra )#()

/ar"+ #$"(&"a"(. 7rticle $ of the Civil Code

provides:

720. $. ;uccession is effected either by thewill of man e"pressed by the testament or, in

the absence of a testament, by operation of law.0he first is called testamentary, the second legal

succession.

4t may also be effected partly by the will of manand partly by operation of law.

7ccording to this, there are three ways in whichsuccession may be effected: by the will of man,

by the law, or by both at the same time.

-4n the first case the succession is calledtestamentary, because it is based on the last willand testament, which is the orderly

manifestation of the testator>s will+ in the

second, it is called legal, because it takes effect by operation of the law+ and the third is called

mi"ed, because it partakes of the character of

both testamentary and legal succession.

-articles )< and %/( of the Civil Code.

7ccording to the first of these articles, a will is

valid even though it does not contain anyinstitution of an heir, or if such institution does

not include the entire estate, and even though

the person instituted does not accept theinheritance or is dis'ualified to inherit+

according to the second, one of the ways in

which legal succession may take place is whenthe will does not institute an heir to all or part of

the property, or does not dispose of all that

belongs to the testator, in which case legalsuccession shall take place only with respect to

the property which the testator has not disposed

of.-7ssuming that the oint will in 'uestion is

valid, it follows that the deceased ictoriana

;aavedra specified therein that parcels /$) and)$ in proceeding 5o. )$$8 be delivered as a

legacy to her sister ;egunda ;aavedra, the first

parcel free of all liens and encumbrances, and

the second on the condition that the legateedevote the products of the same to having

masses said for the repose to the testatri">s soul.

7s to the remaining si"teen parcels, the testatri"disposed of her part in them conditionally, that

is to say, in case her husband acario

acrohon =ng am died before she died, said parcels were to be awarded to her husband>s

nephews, or to either of them in case one should

have died before the said acario acrohon

=ng am. 0he condition imposed in the will as

precedent to the vesting in the alleged legatees=ng Oa Chiew and =ng Oa 9ian of the right to

the legacy, not having been complied with, thetrial court found that the part of said property

belonging to the testatriA should be partitioned

among the persons called on to succeed herunder the law.

COURTJS OPINION;

1e are of the opinion that this finding is inaccordance with the law, since, under article

)%/ of the Civil Code, conditions imposed upon

heirs and legatees shall be governed by the rulesestablished for conditional obligations in allmatters not provided for by this section ?articles

)%8 to $8@

-7nd, in accordance with article ///< of theCode, in conditional obligations the ac'uisition

of rights, as well as the e"tinction or loss of

those already ac'uired, shall depend upon theoccurrence of the event constituting the

condition.

?ND

ISSUE;-0he part of the will invoked by the appellant,

states:

4n case of the death of acario acrohon=ng am before ictoriana ;aavedra, we

hereby order that the properties hereinafter

described given to =ng Oa Chiew and =ng Oa9ian ointly, and should either of the two die

before acario acrohon =ng am, we order

that all the said properties be given to thesurvivor.



COURTJS OPINION: 0he trial court, in

interpreting this paragraph of the will in regard

to legatees =ng Oa Chiew and =ng Oa 9ian,reached the right conclusion, and rightly, in our

opinion, that it provides for the substitution of

legatees in case either of them should die before

acario acrohon =ng am+ and that theac'uisition by these legatees of any right to the

property described in the will depended on the

condition that acario acrohon =ng amdied before ictoriana ;aavedra.

-

3RD ISSUE;

-0he appellant also assigns as error the holding

of the trial court that the opponents, the brother,

sister, nephews, and nieces of the testatri", were

entitled to receive her share in the said si"teen

parcels of land, given to the legatees, =ng OaChiew and =ng Oa 9ian, under the terms of the

said oint will

COURTJS OPINION:

-;uch a contention is untenable

-the ac'uisition of right by the alleged legateesdepends on the occurrence of the event

constituting the condition, that is, the death of

acario acrohon =ng am prior to that of hiswife+ and this condition not having been

complied with, the said =ng Oa Chiew and =ng

Oa 9ian have not ac'uired any right, andtherefore the testatri">s estate is to be dividedamong her heirs in accordance with the law.

-

SCJS MODIICATION: 0o the si"teen parcels

of land to which reference is her made, that is,

those given to the nephews of the testator,should be added lot 5o. $#$--7, proceeding 5o.

)$$8, certificate /(), which the testatri" had

reserved to herself ?together with lots $/) and

)$@, in case she survived her husband acarioacrohon =ng am.

=ne-half of these seventeen parcels of land

belong to the widower, acario acrohon =ngam, and the trial court shall order the division

of the other half, that is, the estate of the

deceased ictoriana ;aavedra, being one-half of the conugal property, between the widower and

the opponents, as provided for in articles %<,

%<$ and %# of the Civil Code.

SC INAL RULING; <#"h "h#&

!o)#6#ca"#o$, "h( or)(r a//(a() 6ro! #&

a66#r!() #$ a o"h(r r(&/(c"&. So or)(r().

L6. 2. 5o. <(). arch (#, /%8%.P

!73&7 C=5DB, !laintiff-7ppellee, vs.

2=75 77E7, Defendant-7ppellant.

appeal interposed by 2oman 7baya in the

special proceedings brought in the Court of

First 4nstance of &a &aguna for the settlementof the intestate estate and the distribution of the

property of Casiano 7baya

-Casiano 7baya, unmarried, the son of

2omualdo 7baya and ;abina &abadia, died on

the th of 7pril /$%%+ that !aula Conde, as the

mother of the natural children 9ose and 0eopista

Conde, whom she states she had by Casiano7baya, on the th of 5ovember, /%8, moved

the settlement of the said intestate succession+-that an administrator having been appointed

for the said estate on the (th of 5ovember,

/%8, 2oman 7baya, a son of the said2omualdo 7baya and ;abina &abadia, the

parents of the late Casiano 7baya, came

forward and opposed said appointment andclaimed it for himself as being the nearest

relative of the deceased+

-this was granted by the court below on the%th of 9anuary, /%8

-on the /)th of 5ovember, /%8, 2oman

7baya moved that, after due process of law, the

court declare him to be the sole heir of Casiano7baya, to the e"clusion of all other persons,

especially of !aula Conde, and to be therefore

entitled to take possession of all the property ofsaid estate, and that it be adudicated to him+

-0hat on the ($th of 5ovember, /%8, !aula

Conde, in reply to the foregoing motion of

2oman 7baya, filed a petition wherein shestated that she acknowledged the relationship

alleged by 2oman 7baya, but that she

considered that her right was superior to his andmoved for a hearing of the matter,

-and, in conse'uence of the evidence that she

intended to present she prayed that she bedeclared to have preferential rights to the

property left by Casiano 7baya, and that the

same be adudicated to her together with thecorresponding products thereof.



&=1B2 C=320 23&456:-Q0hat the administrator of the estate of

Casiana 7baya should recogniAe 0eopista and

9ose Conde as being natural children of Casiano7baya+ that the !etitioner !aula Conde should

succeed to the hereditary rights of her children

with respect to the inheritance of their deceased

natural father Casiano 7baya+ and therefore, itis hereby declared that she is the only heir to the

property of the said intestate estate, to the

e"clusion of the administrator, 2oman 7baya

7!!B7& E 2=75 77E7:

/;0 4;;3B:

/. 0he fact that the court below found that an

ordinary action for the acknowledgment of

natural children under articles /# and /#) of

the Civil Code, might be brought in special probate proceedings.

-/;0 4;;3B:

whether in special proceedings for the

administration and distribution of an intestateestate, an action might be brought to enforce the

acknowledgment of the natural child of the

person from whom the inheritance is derived,that is to say, whether one might appear as heir

on the ground that he is a recogniAed natural

child of the deceased, not having been sorecogniAed by the deceased either voluntarily or compulsory by reason of a pree"isting udicial

decision, but asking at the same time that, in the

special proceeding itself, he be recogniAed bythe presumed legitimate heirs of the deceased

who claim to be entitled to the succession

opened in the special proceeding.-7ccording to section )$( of the Code of Civil

!rocedure M

Q4f there shall be a controversy before the Court

of First 4nstance as to who the lawful heirs ofthe deceased person are, or as to the distributive

share to which each person is entitled under the

law, the testimony as to such controversy shall be taken in writing by the udge, under oath and

signed by witness. 7ny party in interest whose

distributive share is affected by thedetermination of such controversy, may appeal

from the udgment of the Court of First 4nstance

determining such controversy to the ;upremeCourt, within the time and in the manner

provided in the last preceding section. R

(5D 4;;3B:

- whether or not the mother of a natural child

now deceased, but who survived the personwho, it is claimed, was his natural father, also

deceased, may bring an action for the

acknowledgment of the natural filiation in favor

of such child in order to appear in his behalf toreceive the inheritance from the person who is

supposed to be his natural father.

C=320>; =!454=5: EB; ?I@

2B7;=5: anresa says: chanrobles

virtualawlibrary S7n acknowledgment can only be demanded by the natural child and his

descendants whom it shall benefit, and should

they be minors or otherwise incapacitated, such

person as legally represents them+ the mother

may ask it in behalf of her child so long as he isunder her authority. T

30UUU 0he above doctrine, advanced by one of

the most eminent commentators of the Civil

Code, lacks legal and doctrinal foundation. 0he power to transmit the right of such action by the

natural child to his descendants cannot be

sustained under the law, and still less to hismother.

-4t is without any support in law because therule laid down in the code is most positive,limiting in form, when establishing the

e"ception for the e"ercise of such right of

action after the death of the presumed parents,as is shown hereafter. 4t is not supported by any

doctrine, because up to the present time no

argument has been presented, upon which evenan appro"imate conclusion could be based.

-7lthough the Civil Code considerably

improved the condition of recogniAed naturalchildren, granting them rights and actions that

they did not possess under the former laws, they

were not, however, placed upon the same planeas legitimate ones.

-Q7rt. //$. 0he action to claim its legitimacymay be brought by the child at any time of its

lifetime and shall be transmitted to its heirs,

should it die during minority or in a state ofinsanity. 4n such cases the heirs shall be allowed



a period of five years in which to institute the

action.

-Q7rt. /#). 0he actions for the acknowledgment

of natural children can be instituted only duringthe life of the presumed parents, e"cept in the

following cases:

Q/. 4f the father or mother died during the

minority of the child, in which case the lattermay institute the action before the e"piration of

the first four years of its maority.

(. 4f, after the death of the father or mother,some instrument, before unknown, should be

discovered in which the child is e"pressly

acknowledged.

Q4n this case the action must be instituted within

the si" months following the discovery of such

instrument. R

D4FFB2B5CB 7; 0= 2460 =F 7C04=5:

=n this supposition the first difference thatresults between one action and the other

consists in that the right of action for legitimacy

lasts during the whole lifetime of the child, thatis, it can always be brought against the

presumed parents or their heirs by the child

itself, while the right of action for theacknowledgment of a natural child does not last

his whole lifetime, and, as a general rule, it

cannot be instituted against the heirs of the presumed parents, inasmuch as it can bee"ercised only during the life of the presumed

parents.

D4FFB2B5CB 7; 0= 0B 0275;4;;4=5

0= 0B B42; =F 2460:1ith regard to the 'uestion at issue, that is, the

transmission to the heirs of the presumed

parents of the obligation to admit the legitimate

filiation, or to recogniAe the natural filiation,there e"ists the most radical difference in that

the former continues during the life of the child

who claims to be legitimate, and he maydemand it either directly and primarily from the

said presumed parents, or indirectly and

secondarily from the heirs of the latter+-while the second does not endure for life+ as a

general rule, it only lasts during the life of the

presumed parents.

76745;0 1= 2=360:

that an action for legitimacy is always broughtagainst the heirs of the presumed parents in case

of the death of the latter, while the action for

acknowledgment is not brought against theheirs of such parents, with the e"ception of the

two cases prescribed by article /#) transcribed

above.

-7s to the transmission to the heirs of the child

of the latterTs action to claim his legitimacy, or

to obtain the acknowledgment of his naturalfiliation, it is seen that the code grants it in the

first case, but not the second.

-4t is most illogical and contrary to every rule of

correct interpretation, that the right of action to

secure acknowledgment by the natural child

should be presumed to be transmitted,

independently, as a rule, to his heirs, while theright of action to claim legitimacy from his

predecessor is not e"pressly, independently, or,as a general rule, conceded to the heirs of the

legitimate child, but only relatively and as an

e"ception.-0he pretension that the right of action on the

part of the child to obtain the acknowledgment

of his natural filiation is transmitted to hisdescendants is unfounded.

-4t is placing the heirs of the natural child on a

better footing than the heirs of the legitimateone, when, as a matter of fact, the position of anatural child is no better than, nor even e'ual to,

that of a legitimate child.

-3sually the right of action for legitimacy

devolving upon the child is of a personalcharacter and pertains e"clusively to him, only

the child may e"ercise it at any time during his

lifetime. 7s an e"ception, and in three cases

only, it may be transmitted to the heirs of thechild, to wit, if he died during his minority, or

while insane, or after action had been already

instituted.

7n action for the acknowledgment of a natural

child may, as an e"ception, be e"ercised againstthe heirs of the presumed parents in two cases:

first, in the event of the death of the latter

during the minority of the child, and second,upon the discovery of some instrument of



e"press acknowledgment of the child, e"ecuted

by the father or mother, the e"istence of whichwas unknown during the life of the latter.

ut as such action for the acknowledgment of a

natural child can only be e"ercised by him. 4tcannot be transmitted to his descendants, or to

his ascendants.

-0he right of action pertaining to the child toclaim his legitimacy is in all respects superior to

that of the child who claims acknowledgment as

a natural child. 7nd it is evident that the right of action to claim his legitimacy is not one of

those rights which the legitimate child may

transmit by inheritance to his heirs+ it forms no part of the component rights of his inheritance

;C F457& 23&456:

-For all of the foregoing reasons we hereby

reverse the udgment appealed from in all its parts, without any special ruling as to the costs

of this instance.

450B;070B B;070B =F !B027 .2=;7&B;, 42B5B7 C. 2=;7&B;, petitioner,

vs. F=203570= 2=;7&B;, 7657

2=;7&B; 7CBB;, 7C4OB3B2=V2=;7&B; and 750=54= 2=;7&B;,

respondents

4n this !etition for 2eview of two ?(@ =rders ofthe Court of First 4nstance of Cebu the 'uestion

raised is whether the widow whose husband

predeceased his mother can inherit from thelatter, her mother-in-law.

F7C0;:-4t appears from the record of the case that on

February (, /%)/, rs. !etra . 2osales, a

resident of Cebu City, died intestate. ;he was

survived by her husband Fortunate 0. 2osalesand their two ?(@ children agna 2osales

7cebes and 7ntonio 2osales.

-7nother child, Carterio 2osales, predeceasedher, leaving behind a child, acike'uero"

2osales, and his widow 4renea C. 2osales, the

herein petitioner-0he estate of the dismissed has an estimated

gross value of about 0hirty 0housand !esos

?!#8,[email protected]=320 !2=CBBD456;:

-=n 9uly /8, /%)/, agna 2osales 7cebes

instituted the proceedings for the settlement ofthe estate of the deceased in the Court of First

4nstance of Cebu.

-the trial court appointed agna 2osales

7cebes administratri" of the said estate.

-4n the course of the intestate proceedings, the

trial court issued an =rder dated 9une /, /%)(declaring the following in individuals the legal

heirs of the deceased and prescribing their

respective share of the estate MFortunata 0. 2osales ?husband@, /N<+ agna 2.

7cebes ?daughter@, /N<+ acike'uero" 2osales,

/N<+ and 7ntonio 2osales son, /N<.

-0hese =rders notwithstanding, 4renea 2osales

insisted in getting a share of the estate in her

capacity as the surviving spouse of the late

Carterio 2osales, son of the deceased, claimingthat she is a compulsory heir of her mother-in-

law together with her son, acike'uero"2osales.

4renea 2osales sought the reconsideration of theaforementioned =rders. 0he trial court denied

her plea. ence this petition.

4;;3B;:

-First M is a widow ?surviving spouse@ anintestate heir of her mother-in-lawI;econd M are the =rders of the trial court

which e"cluded the widow from getting a share

of the estate in 'uestion final as against the saidwidowI

/;0 4;;3B:-=ur answer to the first 'uestion is in the

negative.

-4ntestate or legal heirs are classified into two

?(@ groups, namely, those who inherit by theirown right, and those who inherit by the right of

representation. / 2estated, an intestate heir can

only inherit either by his own right, as in theorder of intestate succession provided for in the

Civil Code, ( or by the right of representation

provided for in 7rticle %$/ of the same law.

-7rt. %$8. 0he children of the deceased shall

always inherit from him in their own right,dividing the inheritance in e'ual shares.



7rt. %$/. ;hould children of the deceased and

descendants of other children who are dead,survive, the former shall inherit in their own

right, and the latter by right of representation.

7rt. %$(. 0he grandchildren and otherdescendants shag inherit by right of

representation, and if any one of them should

have died, leaving several heirs, the portion

pertaining to him shall be divided among thelatter in e'ual portions.

7rt. %%%. 1hen the widow or widower survives

with legitimate children or their descendantsand illegitimate children or their descendants,

whether legitimate or illegitimate, such widow

or widower shall be entitled to the same shareas that of a legitimate child.

-0here is no provision in the Civil Code which

states that a widow ?surviving spouse@ is an

intestate heir of her mother-in-law.

!etitioner argues that she is a compulsory heir

in accordance with the provisions of 7rticle $$)of the Civil Code which provides that:

-7rt. $$). 0he following are compulsory heirs:

?/@ &egitimate children and descendants, withrespect to their legitimate parents and

ascendants+

?(@ 4n default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their

legitimate children and descendants+

?#@ 0he widow or widower+?<@ 7cknowledged natural children, and naturalchildren by legal fiction+

@ =ther illegitimate children referred to in

article ($)+

-0he aforesaid provision of law # refers to the

estate of the deceased spouse in which case thesurviving spouse ?widow or widower@ is a

compulsory heir. 4t does not apply to the estate

of a parent-in-law.

-y the same token, the provision of 7rticle %%%of the Civil Code aforecited does not support

petitioner>s claim. 7 careful e"amination of the

said 7rticle confirms that the estatecontemplated therein is the estate of the

deceased spouse. 0he estate which is the subect

matter of the intestate estate proceedings in thiscase is that of the deceased !etra . 2osales, the

mother-in-law of the petitioner. 4t is from the

estate of !etra . 2osales that acike'uero"2osales draws a share of the inheritance by the

right of representation as provided by 7rticle

%$/ of the Code.

-0he essence and nature of the right of

representation is e"plained by 7rticles %)8 and%)/ of the Civil Code, viA M

7rt. %)8. 2epresentation is a right created by

fiction of law, by virtue of which the

representative is raised to the place and thedegree of the person represented, and ac'uires

the rights which the latter would have if he were

living or if he could have inherited.7rt. %)/. 0he representative is called to the

succession by the law and not by the person

represented. 0he representative does notsucceed the person represented but the one

whom the person represented would have

succeeded. ?Bmphasis supplied.@

7rticle %)/ e"plicitly declares that

acike'uero" 2osales is called to succession by law because of his blood relationship. e

does not succeed his father, Carterio 2osales?the person represented@ who predeceased his

grandmother, !etra 2osales, but the latter whom

his father would have succeeded. !etitionercannot assert the same right of representation as

she has no filiation by blood with her mother-

in-law.

-!etitioner however contends that at the time of

the death of her husband Carterio 2osales hehad an inchoate or contingent right to the properties of !etra 2osales as compulsory heir.

e that as it may, said right of her husband was

e"tinguished by his death that is why it is theirson acike'uero" 2osales who succeeded from

!etra 2osales by right of representation. e did

not succeed from his deceased father, Carterio2osales.

;C F457& 23&456:

-1B2BF=2B, in view of the foregoing, the!etition is hereby DB54BD for lack of merit,

with costs against the petitioner. &et this case be

remanded to the trial-court for further proceedings.

6.2. 5o. &-<))%% 9une /#, /%</7dministration of the estate of 7gripino 5eri y

ChaveA. B&B30B24= 5B24, B0 7&.,

petitioners, vs. 4657C47 7O3045 75D B2C4&D2B5, respondents



-7gripino 5eri y ChaveA, who died onDecember /(, /%#/, had by his first marriage

si" children named Bleuterio, 7gripino,

7gapito, 6etulia, 2osario and Celerina+

-and by his second marriage with 4gnacia

7kutin, five children named 6racia, 6odofredo,

ioleta, Bstela aria, and Bmma.-6etulia, daughter in the first marriage, died on

=ctober (, /%(#, a little less than eight years

before the death of said 7gripino 5eri yChaveA, and was survived by seven children

named 2emedios, Bncarnacion, Carmen,

0rinidad, &uA, 7lberto and inda.-4n 7gripino 5eri>s testament, which was

admitted to probate on arch (/, /%#(, he

willed that his children by the first marriage

shall have no longer any participation in his

estate, as they had already received theircorresponding shares during his lifetime.

&=1B2 C=320 F45D456;:

-7t the hearing for the declaration of heirs, the

trial court found, contrary to what the testatorhad declared in his will, that all his children by

the first and second marriages 72B intestate

heirs of the deceased without preudice to one-half of the improvements introduced in the

properties during the e"istence of the last

conugal partnership, which should belong to4gnacia 7kutin.

C7:

-Court of 7ppeals affirmed the trial court>sdecision with the modification that the will was

*valid with respect to the two-thirds part which

the testator could freely dispose of. *

0his udgment of the Court of 7ppeals is now

sought to be reviewed in this petition for

certiorari.

4;;3B;:

/. 1N5 the omission of the children of the firstmarriage annuls the institution of the children of

the first marriage as sole heirs of the testator, or

(. whether the will may be held valid, at leastwith respect to one-third of the estate which the

testator may dispose of as legacy and to the

other one-third which he may be'ueath as betterment, to said children of the second

marriage.

-0he appellate court thus seemed to have rested

its udgment upon the impression that the

testator had intended to disinherit, thoughineffectively, the children of the first marriage.

;C: 0here is nothing in the will that supports

this conclusion.

-the testator e"pressly denied them any share in

his estate+ but the denial was predicated, notupon the desire to disinherit, but upon the

belief, mistaken though it was, that the children

by the first marriage had already received morethan their corresponding shares in his lifetime in

the form of advancement.

7ppellants, on the other hand, maintain that the

case is one of voluntary preterition

!2B0B2404=5: =4;;4=5 =F 0B;070=2 =F ;=B =F 4; B42; 1 72B

B5040&BD 0= &B6404B either because they

are not mentioned therein, or, thoughmentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs

nor are e"pressly disinherited.

of four of the children by the first marriage, and

of involuntary preterition of the children by the

deceased 6etulia, also of the first marriage, andis thus governed by the provisions of article $/<of the Civil Code, which read in part as follows:

0he preterition of one or all of the forced heirs

in the direct line, whether living at the time ofthe e"ecution of the will or born after the death

of the testator, shall void the institution of heir+

but the legacies and betterments shall be valid,in so far as they are not inofficious.

-4n the instant case, while the children of the

first marriage were mentioned in the will, they

were not accorded any share in the heriditary property, without e"pressly being disinherited.

4t is, therefore, a clear case of preterition as

contended by appellants.-B"cept as to *legacies and betterments* which

*shall be valid in so far as they are not

inofficious* ?art. $/< of the Civil Code@, preterition avoids the institution of heirs and



gives rise to intestate succession

-4n the instant case, no such legacies or

betterments have been made by the testator.

*eoras* or betterments must be e"pressly provided, according to articles $( and $($ of

the Civil Code, and where no e"press provision

therefor is made in the will, the law would

presume that the testator had no intention to thateffect.

-9udgment of the Court of 7ppeals is reversed

and that of the trial court affirmed, without preudice to the widow>s legal usufruct, with

costs against respondents.

CASE DIGEST SUCCESS1.doc

Documents

Transcript of CASE DIGEST SUCCESS1.doc