ART-776 G.R. No.

L-4963 January 29, 1953

MARIA USON, p a!n"!##-app$ $$, %&. MARIA '(L ROSARIO, )ON)(*)ION N(+R('A, )ONRA'O N(+R('A, 'OMINA'OR N(+R('A, AN' ,AUSTINO N(+R('A, Jr., -$#$n-an"&-app$ an"&. Priscilo Evangelista for appellee. Brigido G. Estrada for appellant. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: This is an action for recovery of the ownership and possession of five !" parce#s of #and sit$ated in the %$nicipa#ity of La&rador, 'rovince of 'an(asinan, fi#ed &y %aria Uson a(ainst %aria de# )osario and her fo$r chi#dren na*ed +oncepcion, +onrado, ,o*inador, and -a$stino, s$rna*ed Ne&reda, who are a## of *inor a(e, &efore the +o$rt of -irst Instance of 'an(asinan. %aria Uson was the #awf$# wife of -a$stino Ne&reda who $pon his death in ./0! #eft the #ands invo#ved in this #iti(ation. -a$stino Ne&reda #eft no other heir e1cept his widow %aria Uson. 2owever, p#aintiff c#ai*s that when -a$stino Ne&reda died in ./0!, his co**on3#aw wife %aria de# )osario too4 possession i##e(a##y of said #ands th$s deprivin( her of their possession and en5oy*ent. ,efendants in their answer set $p as specia# defense that on -e&r$ary 6., ./7., %aria Uson and her h$s&and, the #ate -a$stino Ne&reda, e1ec$ted a p$&#ic doc$*ent where&y they a(reed to separate as h$s&and and wife and, in consideration of their separation, %aria Uson was (iven a parce# of #and &y way of a#i*ony and in ret$rn she reno$nced her ri(ht to inherit any other property that *ay &e #eft &y her h$s&and $pon his death E1hi&it .". After tria#, at which &oth parties presented their respective evidence, the co$rt rendered decision orderin( the defendants to restore to the p#aintiff the ownership and possession of the #ands in disp$te witho$t specia# prono$nce*ent as to costs. ,efendants interposed the present appea#. There is no disp$te that %aria Uson, p#aintiff3appe##ee, is the #awf$# wife of -a$stino Ne&reda, for*er owner of the five parce#s of #ands #iti(ated in the present case. There is #i4ewise no disp$te that %aria de# )osario, one of the defendants3 appe##ants, was *ere#y a co**on3#aw wife of the #ate -a$stino Ne&reda with who* she had fo$r i##e(iti*ate chi#dren, her now co3defendants. It #i4ewise appears that -a$stino Ne&reda died in ./0! *$ch prior to the effectivity of the new +ivi# +ode. 8ith this &ac4(ro$nd, it is evident that when -a$stino Ne&reda died in ./0! the five parce#s of #and he was sei9ed of at the ti*e passed fro* the *o*ent of his death to his on#y heir, his widow %aria Uson Artic#e :!;, o#d +ivi# +ode".As this +o$rt apt#y said, <The property &e#on(s to the heirs at the *o*ent of the death of the ancestor as co*p#ete#y as if the ancestor had e1ec$ted and de#ivered to the* a deed for the sa*e &efore his death< I#$stre vs. A#aras -rondosa, .; 'hi#., 76.". -ro* that *o*ent, therefore, the ri(hts of inheritance of %aria Uson over the #ands in =$estion &eca*e vested. The c#ai* of the defendants that %aria Uson had re#in=$ished her ri(ht over the #ands in =$estion &eca$se she e1press#y reno$nced to inherit any f$t$re property that her h$s&and *ay ac=$ire and #eave $pon his death in the deed of separation they had entered into on -e&r$ary 6., ./7., cannot &e entertained for the si*p#e reason that f$t$re inheritance cannot &e the s$&5ect of a contract nor can it &e reno$nced . %anresa, .67, si1th edition> To#entino on +ivi# +ode, p. .6> Osorio vs. Osorio and ?ncha$sti Stea*ship +o., 0. 'hi#., !7.". B$t defendants contend that, whi#e it is tr$e that the fo$r *inor defendants are i##e(iti*ate chi#dren of the #ate -a$stino Ne&reda and $nder the o#d +ivi# +ode are not entit#ed to any s$ccessiona# ri(hts, however, $nder the new +ivi# +ode which &eca*e in force in @$ne, ./!A, they are (iven the stat$s and ri(hts of nat$ra# chi#dren and are entit#ed to the s$ccessiona# ri(hts which the #aw accords to the #atter artic#e 66:0 and artic#e 6B;, new +ivi# +ode", and &eca$se these s$ccessiona# ri(hts were dec#ared for the first ti*e in the new code, they sha## &e (iven retroactive effect even tho$(h the event which (ave rise to the* *ay have occ$rred $nder the prior #e(is#ation Artic#e 66!7, new +ivi# +ode". There is no *erit in this c#ai*. Artic#e 66!7 a&ove referred to provides indeed that ri(hts which are dec#ared for the first ti*e sha## have retroactive effect even tho$(h the event which (ave rise to the* *ay have occ$rred $nder the for*er #e(is#ation, &$t this is so on#y when the new ri(hts do not pre5$dice any vested or ac=$ired ri(ht of the sa*e ori(in. Th$s, said artic#e provides that <if a ri(ht sho$#d &e dec#ared for the first ti*e in this +ode, it sha## &e effective at once, even

tho$(h the act or event which (ives rise thereto *ay have &een done or *ay have occ$rred $nder the prior #e(is#ation, provided said new ri(ht does not pre5$dice or i*pair any vested or ac=$ired ri(ht, of the sa*e ori(in.< As a#ready stated in the ear#y part of this decision, the ri(ht of ownership of %aria Uson over the #ands in =$estion &eca*e vested in ./0! $pon the death of her #ate h$s&and and this is so &eca$se of the i*perative provision of the #aw which co**ands that the ri(hts to s$ccession are trans*itted fro* the *o*ent of death Artic#e :!;, o#d +ivi# +ode". The new ri(ht reco(ni9ed &y the new +ivi# +ode in favor of the i##e(iti*ate chi#dren of the deceased cannot, therefore, &e asserted to the i*pair*ent of the vested ri(ht of %aria Uson over the #ands in disp$te. As re(ards the c#ai* that %aria Uson, whi#e her deceased h$s&and was #yin( in state, in a (est$re of pity or co*passion, a(reed to assi(n the #ands in =$estion to the *inor chi#dren for the reason that they were ac=$ired whi#e the deceased was #ivin( with their *other and %aria Uson wanted to ass$a(e so*ewhat the wron( she has done to the*, this *$ch can &e said> apart fro* the fact that this c#ai* is disp$ted, we are of the opinion that said assi(n*ent, if any, parta4es of the nat$re of a donation of rea# property, inas*$ch as it invo#ves no *ateria# consideration, and in order that it *ay &e va#id it sha## &e *ade in a p$&#ic doc$*ent and *$st &e accepted either in the sa*e doc$*ent or in a separate one Artic#e :77, o#d +ivi# +ode". Inas*$ch as this essentia# for*a#ity has not &een fo##owed, it res$#ts that the a##e(ed assi(n*ent or donation has no va#id effect. 82E)E-O)E, the decision appea#ed fro* is affir*ed, witho$t costs.

G.R. No. L-44.37

No%$/0$r 23, 193.

SO)ORRO L('(SMA an- ANA 1UIT)O L('(SMA, p a!n"!##&-app$ $$&, %&. )ON)2ITA M)LA)2LIN, (T AL., -$#$n-an"&-app$ an"&. Adriano T. de la Cruz for appellants. Simeon Bitanga for appellees. CILLA3)EAL, J.: This case is &efore $s &y virt$e of an appea# ta4en &y the defendants +onchita %cLach#in, Loren9o D$itco, @r., Sa&ina D$itco, )afae# D$itco and %arce#a D$itco, fro* the decision of the +o$rt of -irst Instance of Occidenta# Ne(ros, the dispositive part of which reads: -or the fore(oin( considerations, the co$rt renders 5$d(*ent in this case dec#arin( Ana D$itco Ledes*a an ac4now#ed(ed nat$ra# da$(hter of the deceased Loren9o %. D$itco, for #e(a# p$rposes, &$t a&so#vin( the defendants as to the prayer in the first ca$se of action that the said Ana D$itco Ledes*a &e dec#ared entit#ed to share in the properties #eft &y the deceased E$se&io D$itco. As to the second ca$se of action, the said defendants are ordered to pay to the p#aintiff Socorro Ledes*a, 5oint#y and severa##y, on#y the s$* of one tho$sand five h$ndred pesos '.,!AA", with #e(a# interest thereon fro* the fi#in( of this co*p#aint $nti# f$##y paid. No prono$nce*ent is *ade as to the costs. So ordered. In s$pport of their appea#, the appe##ants assi(n the fo##owin( errors a##e(ed#y co**itted &y the tria# co$rt in its aforesaid decision: .. That the tria# co$rt erred in ho#din(, that the action for the recovery of the s$* of '.,!AA, representin( the #ast insta##*ent of the note E1hi&it + has not yet prescri&ed. 6. That the tria# co$rt erred in ho#din( that the property inherited &y the defendants fro* their deceased (randfather &y the ri(ht of representation is s$&5ect to the de&ts and o&#i(ations of their deceased father who died witho$t any property whatsoever.lawp i!.net 7. That the tria# co$rt erred in conde*nin( the defendants to pay 5oint#y and severa##y the p#aintiff Socorro Ledes*a the s$* of '.,!AA.

The on#y facts to &e considered in the deter*ination of the #e(a# =$estions raised in this appea# are those set o$t in the appea#ed decision, which have &een esta&#ished at the tria#, na*e#y: In the year ./.:, the p#aintiff Socorro Ledes*a #ived *arita##y with Loren9o %. D$itco, whi#e the #atter was sti## sin(#e, of which re#ation, #astin( $nti# the year ./6., was &orn a da$(hter who is the other p#aintiff Ana D$itco Ledes*a. In ./6., it see*s hat the re#ation &etween Socorro Ledes*a and Loren9o %. D$itco ca*e to an end, &$t the #atter e1ec$ted a deed E1hi&it A", ac4now#ed(in( the p#aintiff Ana D$itco Ledes*a as his nat$ra# da$(hter and on @an$ary 6., ./66, he iss$ed in favor of the p#aintiff Socorro Ledes*a a pro*issory note E1hi&it +", of the fo##owin( tenor: '6,AAA. -or va#$e received I pro*ise to pay %iss Socorro Ledes*a the s$* of two tho$sand pesos '6,AAA". 'hi#ippine c$rrency $nder the fo##owin( ter*s: Two h$ndred and fifty pesos '6!A" to &e paid on the first day of %arch ./66> another two h$ndred and fifty pesos '6!A"to &e paid on the first day of Nove*&er ./66> the re*ainin( one tho$sand and five h$ndred '.,!AA" to &e paid two years fro* the date of the e1ec$tion of this note. San Enri=$e, Occ. Ne(ros, '. I., @an. 6., ./66. S$&se=$ent#y, Loren9o %. D$itco *arried the defendant +onchita %cLach#in, with who* he had fo$r chi#dren, who are the other defendants. On %arch /, ./7A, Loren9o %. D$itco died E1hi&it !", and, sti## #ater, that is, on ,ece*&er .!, ./76, his father E$se&io D$itco a#so died, and as the #atter #eft rea# and persona# properties $pon his death, ad*inistration proceedin(s of said properties were instit$ted in this co$rt, the said case &ein( 4nown as the <Intestate of the deceased E$se&io D$itco,< civi# case No. :.!7 of this co$rt. Upon the instit$tion of the intestate of the deceased E$se&io D$itco and the appoint*ent of the co**ittee on c#ai*s and appraisa#, the p#aintiff Socorro Ledes*a, on A$($st 6:, ./7!, fi#ed &efore said co**ittee the afore=$oted pro*issory note for pay*ent, and the co**issioners, $pon receipt of said pro*issory note, instead of passin( $pon it, e#evated the sa*e to this co$rt en cons$#ta E1hi&it -", and as the 2onora&#e @ose Lope9 Cito, presidin( over the -irst Branch, ret$rned said cons$#ta and refrained fro* (ivin( his opinion thereon E1hi&it +", the aforesaid co**issioners on c#ai*s and appraisa#, a##e(in( #ac4 of 5$risdiction to pass $pon the c#ai*, denied he sa*e E1hi&it 2". On Nove*&er .0, ./77 E1hi&it I", the co$rt iss$ed an order of dec#aration of heirs in the intestate of the deceased E$se&io D$itco, and as Ana D$itco Ledes*a was not inc#$ded a*on( the dec#ared heirs, Socorro Ledes*a, as *other of Ana D$itco Ledes*a, as4ed for the reconsideration of said order, a petition which the co$rt denied. -ro* the order denyin( the said petition no appea# was ta4en, and in #ie$ thereof there was fi#ed the co*p#aint which (ives rise to this case. The first =$estion to &e decided in this appea#, raised in the first assi(n*ent of a##e(ed error, is whether or not the action to recover the s$* of '.,!AA, representin( the #ast insta##*ent for the pay*ent of the pro*issory note E1hi&it +, has prescri&ed. Accordin( to the pro*issory note E1hi&it +, e1ec$ted &y the deceased Loren9o %. D$itco, on @an$ary 6., ./66, the #ast insta##*ent of '.,!AA sho$#d &e paid two years fro* the date of the e1ec$tion of said pro*issory note, that is, on @an$ary 6., ./60. The co*p#aint in the present case was fi#ed on @$ne 6:, ./70, that is, *ore than ten years after he e1piration of the said period. The fact that the p#aintiff Socorro Ledes*a fi#ed her c#ai*, on A$($st 6:, ./77, with the co**ittee on c#ai*s and appraisa# appointed in the intestate of E$se&io D$itco, does not s$spend the r$nnin( of the prescriptive period of the 5$dicia# action for the recovery of said de&t, &eca$se the c#ai* for the $npaid &a#ance of the a*o$nt of the pro*issory note sho$#d no have &een presented in the intestate of E$se&io D$itco, the said deceased not &ein( the one who e1ec$ted the sa*e, &$t in the intestate of Loren9o %. D$itco, which sho$#d have &een instit$ted &y the said Socorro Ledes*a as provided in section :06 of the +ode of +ivi# 'roced$re, a$thori9in( a creditor to instit$te said case thro$(h the appoint*ent of an ad*inistrator for the p$rpose of co##ectin( his credit. %ore than ten years havin( th$s e#apsed fro* the e1piration of the period for the pay*ent of said de&t of '.,!AA, the action for its recovery has prescri&ed $nder section 07, No. ., of the +ode of +ivi# 'roced$re. The first assi(n*ent of a##e(ed error is, therefore, we##3fo$nded. As to the second assi(n*ent of a##e(ed error, consistin( in that the tria# co$rt erred in ho#din( that the properties inherited &y the defendants fro* their deceased (randfather &y representation are s$&5ect to the pay*ent of de&ts and o&#i(ations of their deceased father, who died witho$t #eavin( any property, whi#e it is tr$e that $nder the provisions of artic#es /60 to /6; of the +ivi# +ode, a chi#dren presents his father or *other who died &efore hi* in the properties of his (randfather or (rand*other, this ri(ht of representation does not *a4e the said chi#d answera&#e for the o&#i(ations

contracted &y his deceased father or *other, &eca$se, as *ay &e seen fro* the provisions of the +ode of +ivi# 'roced$re referrin( to partition of inheritances, the inheritance is received with the &enefit of inventory, that is to say, the heirs on#y answer with the properties received fro* their predecessor. The herein defendants, as heirs of E$se&io D$itco, in representation of their father Loren9o %. D$itco, are not &o$nd to pay the inde&tedness of their said father fro* who* they did not inherit anythin(. The second assi(n*ent of a##e(ed error is a#so we##3fo$nded. Bein( a *ere se=$e# of the first two assi(n*ents of a##e(ed errors, the third assi(n*ent of error is a#so we##3 fo$nded. -or the fore(oin( considerations, we are of the opinion and so ho#d: ." That the fi#in( of a c#ai* &efore the co**ittee on c#ai*s and appraisa#, appointed in the intestate of the father, for a *onetary o&#i(ation contracted &y a son who died &efore hi*, does not s$spend the prescriptive period of the 5$dicia# action for the recovery of said inde&tedness> 6" that the c#ai* for the pay*ent of an inde&tedness contracted &y a deceased person cannot &e fi#ed for its co##ection &efore the co**ittee on c#ai*s and appraisa#, appointed in the intestate of his father, and the propertiesinherited fro* the #atter &y the chi#dren of said deceased do not answer for the pay*ent of the inde&tedness contracted d$rin( the #ifeti*e of said person. 8herefore, the appea#ed 5$d(*ent is reversed, and the defendants are a&so#ved fro* the co*p#aint, with the costs to the appe##ees. So ordered.

3G.R. No. 113725. Jun$ 29, 24445 JO2NN6 S. RA+A'ILLA,315 petitioner, vs. )OURT O, A**(ALS AN' MARIA MARL(NA325 )OS)OLU(LLA 6 +(LL(7A 8ILLA)ARLOS, respondents. ,E+ISION 'U)ISI%A, J.: This is a petition for review of the decision of the +o$rt of Appea#s, E7F dated ,ece*&er 67, .//7, in +A3G.). No. +C3 7!!!!, which set aside the decision of Branch !6 of the )e(iona# Tria# +o$rt in Baco#od +ity, and ordered the defendants3 appe##ees "including erein petitioner#$ as heirs of ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a, to reconvey tit#e over Lot No. .7/6, to(ether with its fr$its and interests, to the estate of A#e5a Be##e9a. The antecedent facts are as fo##ows: In a +odici# appended to the Last 8i## and Testa*ent of testatri1 A#e5a Be##e9a, ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a, predecessor3in3 interest of the herein petitioner, @ohnny S. )a&adi##a, was instit$ted as a devisee of !.., B!! s=$are *eters of that parce# of #and s$rveyed as Lot No. .7/6 of the Baco#od +adastre. The said +odici#, which was d$#y pro&ated and ad*itted in Specia# 'roceedin(s No. 0A0: &efore the then +o$rt of -irst Instance of Ne(ros Occidenta#, contained the fo##owin( provisions: <-I)ST I (ive, #eave and &e=$eath the fo##owin( property owned &y *e to ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a resident of .0. '. Ci##an$eva, 'asay +ity: a" Lot No. .7/6 of the Baco#od +adastre, covered &y Transfer +ertificate of Tit#e No. )T30AA6 .A/06", which is re(istered in *y na*e accordin( to the records of the )e(ister of ,eeds of Ne(ros Occidenta#. &" That sho$#d @or(e )a&adi##a die ahead of *e, the afore*entioned property and the ri(hts which I sha## set forth herein&e#ow, sha## &e inherited and ac4now#ed(ed &y the chi#dren and spo$se of @or(e )a&adi##a. -OU)T2

a"....It is a#so *y co**and, in this *y addition +odici#", that sho$#d I die and @or(e )a&adi##a sha## have a#ready received the ownership of the said Lot No. .7/6 of the Baco#od +adastre, covered &y Transfer +ertificate of Tit#e No. )T30AA6 .A/06", and a#so at the ti*e that the #ease of Ba#&inito G. G$an9on of the said #ot sha## e1pire, @or(e )a&adi##a sha## have the o&#i(ation $nti# he dies, every year to (ive to %aria %ar#ina +osco##$e#a y Be##e9a, Seventy ;!" sic" pic$#s of E1port s$(ar and Twenty -ive 6!" pic$#s of ,o*estic s$(ar, $nti# the said %aria %ar#ina +osco##$e#a y Be##e9a dies. -I-T2 a" Sho$#d @or(e )a&adi##a die, his heir to who* he sha## (ive Lot No. .7/6 of the Baco#od +adastre, covered &y Transfer +ertificate of Tit#e No. )T30AA6 .A0/6", sha## have the o&#i(ation to sti## (ive year#y, the s$(ar as specified in the -o$rth para(raph of his testa*ent, to %aria %ar#ina +osco##$e#a y Be##e9a on the *onth of ,ece*&er of each year. SIGT2 I co**and, in this *y addition +odici#" that the Lot No. .7/6, in the event that the one to who* I have #eft and &e=$eathed, and his heir sha## #ater se##, #ease, *ort(a(e this said Lot, the &$yer, #essee, *ort(a(ee, sha## have a#so the o&#i(ation to respect and de#iver year#y ONE 2UN,)E, .AA" pic$#s of s$(ar to %aria %ar#ina +osco##$e#a y Be##e9a, on each *onth of ,ece*&er, SECENT? -ICE ;!" pic$#s of E1port and T8ENT? -ICE 6!" pic$#s of ,o*estic, $nti# %aria %ar#ina sha## die, #ast#y sho$#d the &$yer, #essee or the *ort(a(ee of this #ot, not have respected *y co**and in this *y addition +odici#", %aria %ar#ina +osco##$e#a y Be##e9a, sha## i**ediate#y sei9e this Lot No. .7/6 fro* *y heir and the #atterHs heirs, and sha## t$rn it over to *y near desendants, sic" and the #atter sha## then have the o&#i(ation to (ive the ONE 2UN,)E, .AA" pic$#s of s$(ar $nti# %aria %ar#ina sha## die. I f$rther co**and in this *y addition +odici#" that *y heir and his heirs of this Lot No. .7/6, that they wi## o&ey and fo##ow that sho$#d they decide to se##, #ease, *ort(a(e, they cannot ne(otiate with others than *y near descendants and *y sister.< E0F '$rs$ant to the sa*e +odici#, Lot No. .7/6 was transferred to the deceased, ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a, and Transfer +ertificate of Tit#e No. 000/B thereto iss$ed in his na*e. ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a died in ./B7 and was s$rvived &y his wife )$fina and chi#dren @ohnny petitioner", A$rora, Ofe#ia and Ienaida, a## s$rna*ed )a&adi##a. On A$($st 6., ./B/, %aria %ar#ena +osco##$e#a y Be##e9a Ci##acar#os &ro$(ht a co*p#aint, doc4eted as +ivi# +ase No. !!BB, &efore Branch !6 of the )e(iona# Tria# +o$rt in Baco#od +ity, a(ainst the a&ove3*entioned heirs of ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a, to enforce the provisions of s$&5ect +odici#. The +o*p#aint a##e(ed that the defendant3heirs vio#ated the conditions of the +odici#, in that: .. Lot No. .7/6 was *ort(a(ed to the 'hi#ippine Nationa# Ban4 and the )ep$&#ic '#anters Ban4 in disre(ard of the testatri1Hs specific instr$ction to se##, #ease, or *ort(a(e on#y to the near descendants and sister of the testatri1. 6. ,efendant3heirs fai#ed to co*p#y with their o&#i(ation to de#iver one h$ndred .AA" pic$#s of s$(ar ;! pic$#s e1port s$(ar and 6! pic$#s do*estic s$(ar" to p#aintiff %aria %ar#ena +osco##$e#a y Be##e9a fro* s$(ar crop years ./B! $p to the fi#in( of the co*p#aint as *andated &y the +odici#, despite repeated de*ands for co*p#iance. 7. The &an4s fai#ed to co*p#y with the :th para(raph of the +odici# which provided that in case of the sa#e, #ease, or *ort(a(e of the property, the &$yer, #essee, or *ort(a(ee sha## #i4ewise have the o&#i(ation to de#iver .AA pic$#s of s$(ar per crop year to herein private respondent. The p#aintiff then prayed that 5$d(*ent &e rendered orderin( defendant3heirs to reconveyJret$rn3Lot No. .7/6 to the s$rvivin( heirs of the #ate A#e5a Be##e9a, the cance##ation of T+T No. 000/B in the na*e of the deceased, ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a, and the iss$ance of a new certificate of tit#e in the na*es of the s$rvivin( heirs of the #ate A#e5a Be##e9a. On -e&r$ary 6:, .//A, the defendant3heirs were dec#ared in defa$#t &$t on %arch 6B, .//A the Order of ,efa$#t was #ifted, with respect to defendant @ohnny S. )a&adi##a, who fi#ed his Answer, accordin(#y. ,$rin( the pre3tria#, the parties ad*itted that: On Nove*&er .!, .//B, the p#aintiff "private respondent# and a certain A#an A9$rin, son3in3#aw of the herein petitioner who was #essee of the property and actin( as attorney3in3fact of defendant3heirs, arrived at an a*ica&#e

sett#e*ent and entered into a %e*orand$* of A(ree*ent on the o&#i(ation to de#iver one h$ndred pic$#s of s$(ar, to the fo##owin( effect: <That for crop year ./BB3B/, the ann$ity *entioned in Entry No. 0/A;0 of T+T No. 000B/ wi## &e de#ivered not #ater than @an$ary of ./B/, *ore specifica##y, to wit: ;! pic$#s of HAH s$(ar, and 6! pic$#s of HBH s$(ar, or then e1istin( in any of o$r na*es, %ary )ose )a&adi##a y A9$rin or A#an A9$rin, d$rin( ,ece*&er of each s$(ar crop year, in A9$car S$(ar +entra#> and, this is considered co*p#iance of the ann$ity as *entioned, and in the sa*e *anner wi## co*p#iance of the ann$ity &e in the ne1t s$cceedin( crop years. That the ann$ity a&ove stated for crop year ./B!3B:, ./B:3B;, and ./B;3BB, wi## &e co*p#ied in cash e=$iva#ent of the n$*&er of pic$#s as *entioned therein and which is as herein a(reed $pon, ta4in( into consideration the co*posite price of s$(ar d$rin( each s$(ar crop year, which is in the tota# a*o$nt of ONE 2UN,)E, -ICE T2OUSAN, 'ESOS '.A!,AAA.AA". That the a&ove3*entioned a*o$nt wi## &e paid or de#ivered on a sta((ered cash insta##*ent, paya&#e on or &efore the end of ,ece*&er of every s$(ar crop year, to wit: -or ./B!3B:, T8ENT? SIG T2OUSAN, T8O 2UN,)E, -I-T? '6:,6!A.AA" 'esos, paya&#e on or &efore ,ece*&er of crop year ./BB3B/> -or ./B:3B;, T8ENT? SIG T2OUSAN, T8O 2UN,)E, -I-T? '6:,6!A.AA" 'esos, paya&#e on or &efore ,ece*&er of crop year ./B/3/A> -or ./B;3BB, T8ENT? SIG T2OUSAN, T8O 2UN,)E, -I-T? '6:,6!A.AA" 'esos, paya&#e on or &efore ,ece*&er of crop year .//A3/.> and -or ./BB3B/, T8ENT? SIG T2OUSAN, T8O 2UN,)E, -I-T? '6:,6!A.AA" 'esos, paya&#e on or &efore ,ece*&er of crop year .//.3/6.<E!F 2owever, there was no co*p#iance with the aforesaid %e*orand$* of A(ree*ent e1cept for a partia# de#ivery of !A.BA pic$#s of s$(ar correspondin( to s$(ar crop year ./BB 3./B/. On @$#y 66, .//., the )e(iona# Tria# +o$rt ca*e o$t with a decision, dis*issin( the co*p#aint and disposin( as fo##ows: <82E)E-O)E, in the #i(ht of the afore(oin( findin(s, the +o$rt finds that the action is pre*at$re#y fi#ed as no ca$se of action a(ainst the defendants has as yet arose in favor of p#aintiff. 8hi#e there *ay&e the non3perfor*ance of the co**and as *andated e1action fro* the* si*p#y &eca$se they are the chi#dren of @or(e )a&adi##a, the tit#e ho#derJowner of the #ot in =$estion, does not warrant the fi#in( of the present co*p#aint. The re*edy at &ar *$st fa##. Incidenta##y, &ein( in the cate(ory as creditor of the #eft estate, it is opined that p#aintiff *ay initiate the intestate proceedin(s, if on#y to esta&#ish the heirs of @or(e )a&adi##a and in order to (ive f$## *eanin( and se*&#ance to her c#ai* $nder the +odici#. In the #i(ht of the afore(oin( findin(s, the +o*p#aint &ein( pre*at$re#y fi#ed is ,IS%ISSE, witho$t pre5$dice. SO O),E)E,.<E:F On appea# &y p#aintiff, the -irst ,ivision of the +o$rt of Appea#s reversed the decision of the tria# co$rt> ratiocinatin( and orderin( th$s: <Therefore, the evidence on record havin( esta&#ished p#aintiff3appe##antHs ri(ht to receive .AA pic$#s of s$(ar ann$a##y o$t of the prod$ce of Lot No. .7/6> defendants3appe##eeHs o&#i(ation $nder A#e5a Be##e9aHs codici#, as heirs of the *oda# heir, @or(e )a&adi##a, to de#iver s$ch a*o$nt of s$(ar to p#aintiff3appe##ant> defendants3appe##eeHs ad*itted non3co*p#iance with said o&#i(ation since ./B!> and, the p$nitive conse=$ences en5oined &y &oth the codici# and the +ivi# +ode, of sei9$re of Lot No. .7/6 and its reversion to the estate of A#e5a Be##e9a in case of s$ch non3co*p#iance, this +o$rt dee*s it proper to order the reconveyance of tit#e over Lot No. .7/6 fro* the estates of @or(e )a&adi##a to the estate of

A#e5a Be##e9a. 2owever, p#aintiff3appe##ant *$st instit$te separate proceedin(s to re3open A#e5a Be##e9aHs estate, sec$re the appoint*ent of an ad*inistrator, and distri&$te Lot No. .7/6 to A#e5a Be##e9aHs #e(a# heirs in order to enforce her ri(ht, reserved to her &y the codici#, to receive her #e(acy of .AA pic$#s of s$(ar per year o$t of the prod$ce of Lot No. .7/6 $nti# she dies. Accordin(#y, the decision appea#ed fro* is SET ASI,E and another one entered orderin( defendants3 appe##ees, as heirs of @or(e )a&adi##a, to reconvey tit#e over Lot No. .7/6, to(ether with its fr$its and interests, to the estate of A#e5a Be##e9a. SO O),E)E,.<E;F ,issatisfied with the aforesaid disposition &y the +o$rt of Appea#s, petitioner fo$nd his way to this +o$rt via the present petition, contendin( that the +o$rt of Appea#s erred in orderin( the reversion of Lot .7/6 to the estate of the testatri1 A#e5a Be##e9a on the &asis of para(raph : of the +odici#, and in r$#in( that the testa*entary instit$tion of ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a is a *oda# instit$tion within the p$rview of Artic#e BB6 of the New +ivi# +ode. The petition is not i*pressed with *erit. 'etitioner contends that the +o$rt of Appea#s erred in reso#vin( the appea# in accordance with Artic#e BB6 of the New +ivi# +ode on *oda# instit$tions and in deviatin( fro* the so#e iss$e raised which is the a&sence or pre*at$rity of the ca$se of action. 'etitioner *aintains that Artic#e BB6 does not find app#ication as there was no *oda# instit$tion and the testatri1 intended a *ere si*p#e s$&stit$tion 3 i.e. the instit$ted heir, ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a, was to &e s$&stit$ted &y the testatri1Hs <near descendants< sho$#d the o&#i(ation to de#iver the fr$its to herein private respondent &e not co*p#ied with. And since the testatri1 died sin(#e and witho$t iss$e, there can &e no va#id s$&stit$tion and s$ch testa*entary provision cannot &e (iven any effect. The petitioner theori9es f$rther that there can &e no va#id s$&stit$tion for the reason that the s$&stit$ted heirs are not definite, as the s$&stit$ted heirs are *ere#y referred to as <near descendants< witho$t a definite identity or reference as to who are the <near descendants< and therefore, $nder Artic#es B07 EBF and B0!E/F of the New +ivi# +ode, the s$&stit$tion sho$#d &e dee*ed as not written. The contentions of petitioner are $ntena&#e. +ontrary to his s$pposition that the +o$rt of Appea#s deviated fro* the iss$e posed &efore it, which was the propriety of the dis*issa# of the co*p#aint on the (ro$nd of pre*at$rity of ca$se of action, there was no s$ch deviation. The +o$rt of Appea#s fo$nd that the private respondent had a ca$se of action a(ainst the petitioner. The dis=$isition *ade on *oda# instit$tion was, precise#y, to stress that the private respondent had a #e(a##y de*anda&#e ri(ht a(ainst the petitioner p$rs$ant to s$&5ect +odici#> on which iss$e the +o$rt of Appea#s r$#ed in accordance with #aw. It is a (enera# r$#e $nder the #aw on s$ccession that s$ccessiona# ri(hts are trans*itted fro* the *o*ent of death of the decedentE.AF and co*p$#sory heirs are ca##ed to s$cceed &y operation of #aw. The #e(iti*ate chi#dren and descendants, in re#ation to their #e(iti*ate parents, and the widow or widower, are co*p$#sory heirs. E..F Th$s, the petitioner, his *other and sisters, as co*p$#sory heirs of the instit$ted heir, ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a, s$cceeded the #atter &y operation of #aw, witho$t need of f$rther proceedin(s, and the s$ccessiona# ri(hts were trans*itted to the* fro* the *o*ent of death of the decedent, ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a. Under Artic#e ;;: of the New +ivi# +ode, inheritance inc#$des a## the property, ri(hts and o&#i(ations of a person, not e1tin($ished &y his death. +onfor*a&#y, whatever ri(hts ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a had &y virt$e of s$&5ect +odici# were trans*itted to his forced heirs, at the ti*e of his death. And since o&#i(ations not e1tin($ished &y death a#so for* part of the estate of the decedent> coro##ari#y, the o&#i(ations i*posed &y the +odici# on the deceased ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a, were #i4ewise trans*itted to his co*p$#sory heirs $pon his death. In the said +odici#, testatri1 A#e5a Be##e9a devised Lot No. .7/6 to ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a, s$&5ect to the condition that the $s$fr$ct thereof wo$#d &e de#ivered to the herein private respondent every year. Upon the death of ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a, his co*p$#sory heirs s$cceeded to his ri(hts and tit#e over the said property, and they a#so ass$*ed his decedentHs" o&#i(ation to de#iver the fr$its of the #ot invo#ved to herein private respondent. S$ch o&#i(ation of the instit$ted heir reciproca##y corresponds to the ri(ht of private respondent over the $s$fr$ct, the f$#fi##*ent or perfor*ance of which is now &ein( de*anded &y the #atter thro$(h the instit$tion of the case at &ar. Therefore, private respondent has a ca$se of action a(ainst petitioner and the tria# co$rt erred in dis*issin( the co*p#aint &e#ow.

'etitioner a#so theori9es that Artic#e BB6 of the New +ivi# +ode on *oda# instit$tions is not app#ica&#e &eca$se what the testatri1 intended was a s$&stit$tion 3 ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a was to &e s$&stit$ted &y the testatri1Hs near descendants sho$#d there &e nonco*p#iance with the o&#i(ation to de#iver the pic$#s of s$(ar to private respondent. A(ain, the contention is witho$t *erit. S$&stit$tion is the desi(nation &y the testator of a person or persons to ta4e the p#ace of the heir or heirs first instit$ted. Under s$&stit$tions in (enera#, the testator *ay either ." provide for the desi(nation of another heir to who* the property sha## pass in case the ori(ina# heir sho$#d die &efore hi*Jher, reno$nce the inheritance or &e incapacitated to inherit, as in a si*p#e s$&stit$tion,E.6F or 6" #eave hisJher property to one person with the e1press char(e that it &e trans*itted s$&se=$ent#y to another or others, as in a fideico**issary s$&stit$tion. E.7F The +odici# s$ed $pon conte*p#ates neither of the two. In si*p#e s$&stit$tions, the second heir ta4es the inheritance in defa$#t of the first heir &y reason of incapacity, predecease or ren$nciation.E.0F In the case $nder consideration, the provisions of s$&5ect +odici# do not provide that sho$#d ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a defa$#t d$e to predecease, incapacity or ren$nciation, the testatri1Hs near descendants wo$#d s$&stit$te hi*. 8hat the +odici# provides is that, sho$#d ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a or his heirs not f$#fi## the conditions i*posed in the +odici#, the property referred to sha## &e sei9ed and t$rned over to the testatri1Hs near descendants. Neither is there a fideico**issary s$&stit$tion here and on this point, petitioner is correct. In a fideico**issary s$&stit$tion, the first heir is strict#y *andated to preserve the property and to trans*it the sa*e #ater to the second heir. E.!F In the case $nder consideration, the instit$ted heir is in fact a##owed $nder the +odici# to a#ienate the property provided the ne(otiation is with the near descendants or the sister of the testatri1. Th$s, a very i*portant e#e*ent of a fideico**issary s$&stit$tion is #ac4in(> the o&#i(ation c#ear#y i*posin( $pon the first heir the preservation of the property and its trans*ission to the second heir. <8itho$t this o&#i(ation to preserve c#ear#y i*posed &y the testator in his wi##, there is no fideico**issary s$&stit$tion.<E.:F A#so, the near descendantsH ri(ht to inherit fro* the testatri1 is not definite. The property wi## on#y pass to the* sho$#d ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a or his heirs not f$#fi## the o&#i(ation to de#iver part of the $s$fr$ct to private respondent. Another i*portant e#e*ent of a fideico**issary s$&stit$tion is a#so *issin( here. Under Artic#e B:7, the second heir or the fideico**issary to who* the property is trans*itted *$st not &e &eyond one de(ree fro* the first heir or the fid$ciary. A fideico**issary s$&stit$tion is therefore, void if the first heir is not re#ated &y first de(ree to the second heir. E.;F In the case $nder scr$tiny, the near descendants are not at a## re#ated to the instit$ted heir, ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a. The +o$rt of Appea#s erred not in r$#in( that the instit$tion of ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a $nder s$&5ect +odici# is in the nat$re of a *oda# instit$tion and therefore, Artic#e BB6 of the New +ivi# +ode is the provision of #aw in point. Artic#es BB6 and BB7 of the New +ivi# +ode provide: Art. BB6. The state*ent of the o&5ect of the instit$tion or the app#ication of the property #eft &y the testator, or the char(e i*posed on hi*, sha## not &e considered as a condition $n#ess it appears that s$ch was his intention. That which has &een #eft in this *anner *ay &e c#ai*ed at once provided that the instit$ted heir or his heirs (ive sec$rity for co*p#iance with the wishes of the testator and for the ret$rn of anythin( he or they *ay receive, to(ether with its fr$its and interests, if he or they sho$#d disre(ard this o&#i(ation. Art. BB7. 8hen witho$t the fa$#t of the heir, an instit$tion referred to in the precedin( artic#e cannot ta4e effect in the e1act *anner stated &y the testator, it sha## &e co*p#ied with in a *anner *ost ana#o(o$s to and in confor*ity with his wishes. The instit$tion of an heir in the *anner prescri&ed in Artic#e BB6 is what is 4nown in the #aw of s$ccession as an institucion su% modo or a *oda# instit$tion. In a *oda# instit$tion, the testator states ." the o&5ect of the instit$tion, 6" the p$rpose or app#ication of the property #eft &y the testator, or 7" the char(e i*posed &y the testator $pon the heir. E.BF A <*ode< i*poses an o&#i(ation $pon the heir or #e(atee &$t it does not affect the efficacy of his ri(hts to the s$ccession. E./F On the other hand, in a conditiona# testa*entary disposition, the condition *$st happen or &e f$#fi##ed in order for the heir to &e entit#ed to s$cceed the testator. The condition s$spends &$t does not o&#i(ate> and the *ode o&#i(ates &$t does not s$spend.E6AF To so*e e1tent, it is si*i#ar to a reso#$tory condition. E6.F -ro* the provisions of the +odici# #iti(ated $pon, it can &e (#eaned $nerrin(#y that the testatri1 intended that s$&5ect property &e inherited &y ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a. It is #i4ewise c#ear#y worded that the testatri1 i*posed an o&#i(ation on the said instit$ted heir and his s$ccessors3in3interest to de#iver one h$ndred pic$#s of s$(ar to the herein private respondent, %ar#ena +osco##$e#a Be##e9a, d$rin( the #ifeti*e of the #atter. 2owever, the testatri1 did not *a4e ,r. @or(e )a&adi##aHs

inheritance and the effectivity of his instit$tion as a devisee, dependent on the perfor*ance of the said o&#i(ation. It is c#ear, tho$(h, that sho$#d the o&#i(ation &e not co*p#ied with, the property sha## &e t$rned over to the testatri1Hs near descendants. The *anner of instit$tion of ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a $nder s$&5ect +odici# is evident#y *oda# in nat$re &eca$se it i*poses a char(e $pon the instit$ted heir witho$t, however, affectin( the efficacy of s$ch instit$tion. Then too, since testa*entary dispositions are (enera##y acts of #i&era#ity, an o&#i(ation i*posed $pon the heir sho$#d not &e considered a condition $n#ess it c#ear#y appears fro* the 8i## itse#f that s$ch was the intention of the testator. In case of do$&t, the instit$tion sho$#d &e considered as *oda# and not conditiona#. E66F Neither is there tena&i#ity in the other contention of petitioner that the private respondent has on#y a ri(ht of $s$fr$ct &$t not the ri(ht to sei9e the property itse#f fro* the instit$ted heir &eca$se the ri(ht to sei9e was e1press#y #i*ited to vio#ations &y the &$yer, #essee or *ort(a(ee. In the interpretation of 8i##s, when an $ncertainty arises on the face of the 8i##, as to the app#ication of any of its provisions, the testatorHs intention is to &e ascertained fro* the words of the 8i##, ta4in( into consideration the circ$*stances $nder which it was *ade.E67F S$ch constr$ction as wi## s$stain and $pho#d the 8i## in a## its parts *$st &e adopted.E60F S$&5ect +odici# provides that the instit$ted heir is $nder o&#i(ation to de#iver One 2$ndred .AA" pic$#s of s$(ar year#y to %ar#ena Be##e9a +osc$e##a. S$ch o&#i(ation is i*posed on the instit$ted heir, ,r. @or(e )a&adi##a, his heirs, and their &$yer, #essee, or *ort(a(ee sho$#d they se##, #ease, *ort(a(e or otherwise ne(otiate the property invo#ved. The +odici# f$rther provides that in the event that the o&#i(ation to de#iver the s$(ar is not respected, %ar#ena Be##e9a +osc$e##a sha## sei9e the property and t$rn it over to the testatri1Hs near descendants. The non3perfor*ance of the said o&#i(ation is th$s with the sanction of sei9$re of the property and reversion thereof to the testatri1Hs near descendants. Since the said o&#i(ation is c#ear#y i*posed &y the testatri1, not on#y on the instit$ted heir &$t a#so on his s$ccessors3in3interest, the sanction i*posed &y the testatri1 in case of non3f$#fi##*ent of said o&#i(ation sho$#d e=$a##y app#y to the instit$ted heir and his s$ccessors3in3interest. Si*i#ar#y $ns$staina&#e is petitionerHs s$&*ission that &y virt$e of the a*ica&#e sett#e*ent, the said o&#i(ation i*posed &y the +odici# has &een ass$*ed &y the #essee, and whatever o&#i(ation petitioner had &eco*e the o&#i(ation of the #essee> that petitioner is dee*ed to have *ade a s$&stantia# and constr$ctive co*p#iance of his o&#i(ation thro$(h the cons$**ated sett#e*ent &etween the #essee and the private respondent, and havin( cons$**ated a sett#e*ent with the petitioner, the reco$rse of the private respondent is the f$#fi##*ent of the o&#i(ation $nder the a*ica&#e sett#e*ent and not the sei9$re of s$&5ect property. S$ffice it to state that a 8i## is a persona#, so#e*n, revoca&#e and free act &y which a person disposes of his property, to ta4e effect after his death.E6!F Since the 8i## e1presses the *anner in which a person intends how his properties &e disposed, the wishes and desires of the testator *$st &e strict#y fo##owed. Th$s, a 8i## cannot &e the s$&5ect of a co*pro*ise a(ree*ent which wo$#d there&y defeat the very p$rpose of *a4in( a 8i##. 82E)E-O)E, the petition is here&y ,IS%ISSE, and the decision of the +o$rt of Appea#s, dated ,ece*&er 67, .//7, in +A3G.). No. +C37!!!! A--I)%E,. No prono$nce*ent as to costs. SO O),E)E,