PCIB vs.

ESCOLIN

known and identified, no such

liquidation was ever undertaken.

FACTS:

The instant cases refer to the estate

left by the late Charles Newton
Hodges as well as that of his wife,
Linnie
Jane
Hodges,
who
predeceased him by about five years
and a half.
In their respective wills which were
executed on different occasions,
each one of them provided mutually
as follows: "I give, devise and
bequeath all of the rest, residue and
remainder
(after
funeral
and
administration expenses, taxes and
debts) of my estate, both real and
personal,
wherever situated or
located, to my beloved (spouse) to
have and to hold unto (him/her)
during (his/her) natural lifetime",
subject to the condition that upon
the death of whoever of them
survived the other, the remainder of
what he or she would inherit from
the other is "give(n), devise(d) and
bequeath(ed)" to the brothers and
sisters of the latter.
Mrs. Hodges died first. Four days
later, on May 27, Hodges was
appointed special administrator of
her estate, and in a separate order
of the same date, he was "allowed or
authorized to continue the business
in which he was engaged.
Importantly to be the provision in
the will of Mrs. Hodges that her
share of the conjugal partnership
was to be inherited by her husband
"to have and to hold unto him, my
said husband, during his natural
lifetime" and that "at the death of
my said husband, I give, devise and
bequeath all the rest, residue and
remainder of my estate, both real
and personal, wherever situated or
located, to be equally divided among
my brothers and sisters, share and
share
alike",
which
provision
naturally made it imperative that the
conjugal partnership be promptly
liquidated, in order that the "rest,
residue and remainder" of his wife's
share thereof, as of the time of
Hodges' own death, may be readily

Upon the death of Hodges, Avelina

Magno
was
appointed
as
administratriz.

the two probate proceedings appear

to have been proceeding jointly, with
each administrator acting together
with the other, under a sort of
modus operandi. PCIB used to
secure
at
the
beginning
the
conformity to and signature of
Magno in transactions it wanted to
enter into and submitted the same
to the court for approval as their
joint acts.

Differences seem to have arisen, for

which reason, each of them began
acting later on separately and
independently of each other, with
apparent sanction of the trial court.

PCIB maintains that the provision in

Mrs. Hodges' will instituting her
brothers and sisters in the manner
therein specified is in the nature of a
testamentary
substitution,
but
inasmuch
as
the
purported
substitution is not, in its view, in
accordance
with
the
pertinent
provisions of the Civil Code, it is
ineffective and may not be enforced.

ISSUE:
WoN the provisions in the will of Mrs. Hodges
in favor of her brothers and sisters
constitute
ineffective
hereditary
substitutions.
HELD:

No
We hold that by said provision, Mrs.
Hodges simultaneously instituted her
brothers and sisters as co-heirs with
her husband, with the condition,
however, that the latter would have
complete rights of dominion over the
whole estate during his lifetime and
what would go to the former would

be only the remainder thereof at the

time of Hodges' death.
In other words, whereas they
are not to inherit only in case of
default of Hodges, on the other
hand, Hodges was not obliged to
preserve anything for them.
Clearly
then,
the
essential
elements
of
testamentary
substitution are absent; the
provision in question is a simple
case of conditional simultaneous
institution of heirs, whereby the
institution of Hodges is subject
to a partial resolutory condition
the operative contingency of
which is coincidental with that of
the suspensive condition of the
institution of his brothers and
sisters-in-law, which manner of
institution is not prohibited by
law.