Case:

Emilio Natividad v. Basilia Gabino (36 PHIL. 663),

March 31, 1917
FACTS

ISSUE/S
LAWS

PETITIONER: Emilio Natividad

RESPONDENT: Basilia Gabino
PONENTE: Torres, J.

On August 21, 1915, an order given by the judge of the Court of First Instance arose
from interpreting the true wishes of the testator, Salvador Y Reyes that on accord
to clause 6 of the testament, ownership and dominion of subject property should
be awarded to Basilia Gabino, subject to the reservation made in behalf od Lorenzo
Salvador and Emilio Natividad. Because of this, an amendment was ordered to
clarify the confusion on Clause 6 of the testament.

The original clause 6 was:

I bequeath to Doa Basilia Gabino the ownership and dominion of the urban
property, consisting of a house and lot situated on Calle Lavezares of the said
district of San Nicolas and designated by No. 520, and in addition eleven meters by
two meters of the lot designated by No. 419, situated on Calle Madrid. This portion
shall be taken from that part of the lot which is adjacent to the rear of said property
No. 520. If the said legatee should die, Lorenzo Salvador shall be obliged to deliver
this house, together with the lot on which it stands, to my grandson Emilio
Natividad, upon payment by the latter to the former of the sum of four thousand
pesos (P4,000), Philippine currency.

This case was filed by Emilio Natividad, the administrator of the estateof the
decedent, Tiburcio Salvador Y. Reyes as an appeal from the order upheld by the CFI.

Whether the CFI erred in interpreting clause 6 of the testament
Article 1181. In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the
extinguishment or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening
of the event which constitutes the condition. (1114)
Suspensive Condition/Condition Precedent: Also know as condition antecedent a
condition that rules an obligation as non-existent should an event NOT take place.
The event is considered future and uncertain. If this event does not happen, the
parties will stand as if the conditional obligation never existed;
Resolutory Condition/Condition Subsequent: A condition that extinguishes rights
and obligations already existing; The rights and obligations are already existing but
are under threat of extinction upon the happening or fulfillment of the resolutory
condition.
A but, if condition:
e.g #1: Piece of land given with a resolutory cause that it be used as a park, if a park

is not constructed then entitles the donor to revoke the obligation.

e.g #2: propter nuptias
e.g #3: reserva troncal

HOLDINGS

No. The CFI did not err with their ruling. The condition imposed by the testator in
the double legacy mentioned depends upon the happening of the event
constituting the condition, to wit, the death of the legatee Basilia Gabino, a
perfectly legal condition according to article 1114 of the Civil code, as it is not
impossible of performance and is not contrary to law or public morals, as provided
in article 1116 of said code.
The moment the legatee Gabino dies the other legatee, Lorenzo Salvador, is obliged
to deliver the property to the heir Emilio Natividad who, in his turn and in
exchange, must pay the legatee Salvador the sum of P4,000, thereby fulfilling the
double legacy contained in the said sixth clause of the will, the first of these legacies
being the voluntary reservation to Basilia Gabino of the ownership of the said
house, and the second, the conditional legacy of P4,000 to Lorenzo Salvador.

If the provisions of article 675 of the Civil Code are to be complied with, it cannot
be understood that the testator meant to bequeath to Basilia Gabino the mere
usufruct of the property, inasmuch as, by unmistakable language employed in the
said sixth clause, he bequeathed her the ownership or dominion of the said
property language which expresses without the slightest doubt his wishes which
should be complied with literally, because it is constant rule or jurisprudence that in
matters of last wills and testaments the testator's will is the law.

Also, both conditions set forth by the testator are not contrary to law or public
morals.

The August 21 Ruling was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.