TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, MARIA LUISA PALACIOS,

Administratrix, petitioner-appellee, vs. MARCELLE D. VDA.DE RAMIREZ, ET AL.,

oppositors, JORGE and ROBERTO RAMIREZ, legatees, oppositors-appellants.
Jul
25
FACTS:
Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain on December 11, 1964,
with only his widow as compulsory heir. His will was admitted to probate by the
Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch X, on July 27, 1965. Maria Luisa Palacios
was appointed administratrix of the estate.
On June 23, 1966, the administratrix submitted a project of partition as follows:
the property of the deceased is to be divided into two parts. One part shall go to
the widow en plenodominio in satisfaction of her legitime; the other part or
free portion shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez en nudapropriedad.
Furthermore, one third (1/3) of the free portion is charged with the widows
usufruct and the remaining two-third (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of Wanda.

-APPEAL for the partitioning of testate estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez (a Filipino
national, died in Spain on December 11, 1964) among principal beneficiaries:
Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez
-widow
-French who lives in Paris
-received (as spouse) and usufructuary rights over 1/3 of the free portion
Roberto and Jorge Ramirez
-two grandnephews
-lives in Malate
-received the (free portion)
Wanda de Wrobleski
-companion
-Austrian who lives in Spain
-received usufructuary rights of 2/3 of the free portion
-vulgar substitution in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio Ramirez
-Maria Luisa Palacios -administratix

-Jorge and Roberto Ramirez opposed because

a. vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda wrt widows usufruct and in favor of Juan
Pablo Jankowski and Horacio Ramirez, wrt to Wandas usufruct is INVALID
because first heirs (Marcelle and Wanda) survived the testator
b. fideicommissary substitutions are INVALID because first heirs not related to
the second heirs or substitutes within the first degree as provided in Art 863 CC
c. grant of usufruct of real property in favor of an alien, Wanda, violated Art XIII
Sec 5
d. proposed partition of the testators interest in the Santa Cruz Building
between widow and appellants violates testators express will to give this
property to them
-LC: approved partition
ISSUE
WON the partition is valid insofar as
a. widows legitime
b. substitutions
c. usufruct of Wanda
HELD
a. YES, appellants do not question because Marcelle is the widow[1]and over
which he could impose no burden, encumbrance, condition or substitution of any
kind whatsoever[2]
-the proposed creation by the admininstratix in favor of the testators widow of a
usufruct over 1/3 of the free portion of the testators estate cannot be made
where it will run counter to the testators express will. The Court erred for
Marcelle who is entitled to of the estate enpleno dominio as her legitime and
which is more than what she is given under the will is not entitled to have any
additional share in the estate. To give Marcelle more than her legitime will run
counter to the testators intention for as stated above his disposition even
impaired her legitime and tended to favor Wanda.
b. Vulgar substitutions are valid because dying before the testator is not the only
case where a vulgar substitution can be made. Also, according to Art 859 CC,
cases also include refusal or incapacity to accept inheritance therefore it is
VALID.
BUT fideicommissary substitutions are VOID because Juan Pablo Jankowski and
Horace Ramirez are not related to Wande and according to Art 863 CC, it
validates a fideicommissary substitution provided that such substitution does not
go beyond one degreefrom the heir originally instituted. Another is that there is
no absolute duty imposed on Wanda to transmit the usufructuary to the
substitutes and in fact the apellee agrees that the testator contradicts the

establishment of the fideicommissary substitution when he permits the

properties be subject to usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement ofthe
usufructuaries and naked owners.
c. YES, usufruct of Wanda is VALID
-Art XIII[3]Sec 5 (1935): Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private
agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except toindividuals,
corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold land of the public
domain in the Philippines.[4]
The lower court upheld the usufruct thinking that the Constitution covers not
only succession by operation of law but also testamentary succession BUT SC is
of the opinion that this provision does not apply to testamentary succession for
otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless. Any alien would
circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine landowner in
exchange for a devise of a piece of land BUT an alienmay be bestowed
USUFRUCTUARY RIGHTS over a parcel of land in the Philippines. Therefore, the
usufruct in favor of Wanda, although a real right, is upheld because it does not
vest title to the land in the usufructuary (Wanda) and it is the vesting of title to
land in favor of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.
Decision: Marcelle (as legitime), Jorge and Roberto Ramirez (free portion) in
naked ownership and the usufruct to Wanda de Wrobleski with simple
substitution in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace Ramirez

RAMIREZ vs. RAMIREZ

111 SCRA 82
FACTS:

Jose Ramirez a Filipino, died in Spain leaving only his widow Marcelle Ramirez, a
French. In the project partition, the property was divided into 2 parts: 1 st part to
the widow, and 2nd part to the grandnephews the naked ownership. Furthermore,
as to the usufruct of the 2nd part, 1/3 was given to the widow and 2/3 to Wanda
de Wrobleski, an Austrian. The grandnephews opposed on the ground that
usufruct to Wanda is void because it violates the constitutional prohibition
against the acquisition of lands by aliens.
ISSUE:
WON the ground for the opposition is correct.
HELD:
No, it is not correct.
The SC held that the Constitutional provision which enables aliens
to acquire private lands does not extend to testamentary succession for
otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless. The SC upheld the
usufruct in favor of Wanda because although it is a real right, it does not vest
title to the land in the usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to land in favor of
aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.

Perez v. Gachitorena
54 Phil 431; February 13, 1930
J. Romualdez:
FACTS: Ana Maria Acantara (+) died single without any forced heir. She left
among others, a sum of money in deposit with La Urbana in the name of Carmen
de Perez, trustee of her estate. In her will, it contains the following clauses:
9th- instituted Carmen Gachitorena, niece-in-law and married to Joaquin PerezAlcantara, as the sole and universal heiress to the remainder of the estate after

payment of all the debts and legacies, so that after probate of her will, she will
receive from her executrix the property, that she may enjoy them;
10th- should Carmen die, her whole estate shall pass unimpaired to her surviving
children (in such wise that my estate shall never pass unimpaired to my
relatives;
11th- should Carmen die after her while her children are still minor, however
estate shall be administered by her executrix, Josefa Laplana.
Thereafter, Mariano Gachitorena held a judgment for payment of money against
Joaquin Alcantara. Sheriff levied an attachment on said amount deposit with La
Urbana. Plaintiff; secured for a preliminary injunction alleged said deposit
belongs to the Fideicommisary heirs of Ana Maria. Defendant contends that
plaintiff is a universal heiress.
TC- deposit belongs to plaintiffs children as fideicommisary heirs, hence cannot
be attached. Appellant: simple substitution. Appelle: Fideicommisary
substitution.
HELD: AFFIRMED
Requisites of Fideicommisary Substitution:
1) A first heir called primary to the enjoyment of the estate; (#9)
2) An obligation clearly imposed upon him to preserve and transmit to a third
person the whole or part of the estate; (#10)
3) A second heir. (#10 and #11)
Although clause #9 says, SOLE HEIR, it does not necessarily exclude the idea of
substitute heirs. Taking all the three clauses together, Carmen is the sole heiress
in the first instance.

Ramirez v. vda de Ramirez

111 SCRA 704; Feb. 15, 1982
J. Abad-Santos:
FACTS: Jose Eugenio Ramirez [+], a Filipino national died in Spain on Dec. 11,
1964, with only his widow Marcelle Demoron [French] as compulsory heir. His
will was admitted for probate. The administratrix Ma. Luisa Palacios submitted a
project of partition which state as follows: to widow Marcelle Demoron as
legitime and to Jorge and Robert Ramirez in which 1/3 of the same is subject to

the widows usufruct (substitution in the person of Wanda de Wrobleski) and 2/3
of the same as usufruct in favor of Wanda de Wrobsleski, an Australian who live
in Spain.
Jorge and Robert opposed: (1) the provision on vulgar substitution in favor of
Wanda with respect to the widows usufruct and in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski
and Horacio Ramirez, with respect to Wandas usufruct are invalid because the
first heir survived the testator; (2) fideicommisary substitution is also void
because 1st heir is not related to 2nd heir; (3) Art. III sec. 5. CFI approved the
project of partition.
HELD: (1) As to the widows legitime: legitime is proper. But the 1/3
usufruct over the free portion should not be granted. The will contained such
disposition, but her legitime was impaired by such disposition. So much so that
the legitime would be enough and give her more than her legitime will run
counter to the testators intention for as stated, his disposition even impaired her
legitime.
(2) Substitution is the appointment of another heir so that he may enter into the
inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted- SIMPLE, BRIEF,
RECIPROCAL, and FIDEICOMMICARY.
Dying before the testator is not the only case for VULGAR SUBSTITUTION for it
also includes refusal or incapacity to accept the inheritance as provision in Art.
859 hence, vulgar substitution is valid. As to the substitution with respect to 1/3
of the widow, moot, as the widow is not entitled to usufruct.
Fideicommisary substitution is void. The substitutes are not related to Wanda,
the heir originally instituted. Art. 863 requires one degree from the heir
originally instituted, so its either parent or a child of the 1 st heir.
(3) What the 1935 Constitution prohibits is the vesting of the title to land in
favor of aliens.
- widows legitime
- Roberto and Jorge- naked ownership. Wanda- usufruct with a simple
substitution in
favor of Juan Pablo and Horace.