Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
already
received
their
legacies
and
hereditary
shares
from
her
estate,
filed
action
in
the
Regional
Trial
Court
of
Legaspi
City
to
recover
the
properties
which
she
had
conveyed
to
the
Locsins
during
her
lifetime,
alleging
that
the
conveyances
were
inofficious,
without
consideration,
and
intended
solely
to
circumvent
the
laws
on
succession.
Those
who
were
closest
to
Doa
Catalina
did
not
join
the
action.
After
the
trial,
judgment
was
rendered
on
July
8,
l985
in
favor
of
the
Jaucians,
and
against
the
Locsin
defendants.
The
Locsins
appealed
to
the
Court
of
Appeals
which
affirmed
the
trial
court's
decision.
ISSUE:
RULING:
The
trial
court
and
the
Court
of
Appeals
erred
in
declaring
the
private
respondents
entitled
to
inherit
the
properties
which
she
had
already
disposed
of
more
than
ten
(10)
years
before
her
death.
For
those
properties
did
not
form
part
of
her
hereditary
estate,
i.e.,
"the
property
and
transmissible
rights
and
obligations
existing
at
the
time
of
(the
decedent's)
death
and
those
which
have
accrued
thereto
since
the
opening
of
the
succession."
The
rights
to
a
person's
succession
are
transmitted
from
the
moment
of
his
death,
and
do
not
vest
in
his
heirs
until
such
time.
Property
which
Doa
Catalina
had
transferred
or
conveyed
to
other
persons
during
her
lifetime
no
longer
formed
part
of
her
estate
at
the
time
of
her
death
to
which
her
heirs
may
lay
claim.
Had
she
died
intestate,
only
the
property
that
remained
in
her
estate
at
the
time
of
her
death
devolved
to
her
legal
heirs;
and
even
if
those
transfers
were,
one
and
all,
treated
as
donations,
the
right
arising
under
certain
circumstances
to
impugn
and
compel
the
reduction
or
revocation
of
a
decedent's
gifts
inter
vivos
does
not
inure
to
the
respondents
since
neither
they
nor
the
donees
are
compulsory
(or
forced)
heirs.
There
is
thus
no
basis
for
assuming
an
intention
on
the
part
of
Doa
Catalina,
in
transferring
the
properties
she
had
received
from
her
late
husband
to
his
nephews
and
nieces,
an
intent
to
circumvent
the
law
in
violation
of
the
private
respondents'
rights
to
her
succession.
Said
respondents
are
not
her
compulsory
heirs,
and
it
is
not
pretended
that
she
had
any
such,
hence
there
were
no
legitimes
that
could
conceivably
be
impaired
by
any
transfer
of
her
property
during
her
lifetime.
All
that
the
respondents
had
was
an
expectancy
that
in
nowise
restricted
her
freedom
to
dispose
of
even
her
entire
estate.
For
as
early
as
1957,
or
twenty-eight
(28)
years
before
her
death,
Doa
Catalina
had
already
begun
transferring
to
her
Locsin
nephews
and
nieces
the
properties
which
she
received
from
Don
Mariano.
There
is
not
the
slightest
suggestion
in
the
record
that
Doa
Catalina
was
mentally
incompetent
when
she
made
those
dispositions.
Indeed,
how
can
any
such
suggestion
be
made
in
light
of
the
fact
that
even
as
she
was
transferring
properties
to
the
Locsins,
she
was
also
contemporaneously
disposing
of
her
other
properties
in
favor
of
the
Jaucians?
Little
significance,
it
seems,
has
been
attached
to
the
fact
that
among
Doa
Catalina's
nephews
and
nieces,
those
closest
to
her
did
not
join
the
suit
to
annul
and
undo
the
dispositions
of
property
which
she
made
in
favor
of
the
Locsins,
although
it
would
have
been
to
their
advantage
to
do
so.
Their
desistance
persuasively
demonstrates
that
Doa
Catalina
acted
as
a
completely
free
agent
when
she
made
the
conveyances
in
favor
of
the
petitioners.
In
fact,
considering
their
closeness
to
Doa
Catalina
it
would
have
been
well-nigh
impossible
for
the
petitioners
to
employ
"fraud,
undue
pressure,
and
subtle
manipulations"
on
her
to
make
her
sell
or
donate
her
properties
to
them.
The
decision
dated
March
14,
1989
of
the
Court
of
Appeals
in
CA-G.R.
CV
No.
11186
is
REVERSED
and
SET
ASIDE.
FACTS:
In
a
Codicil
appended
to
the
Last
Will
and
Testament
of
the
deceased
Aleja
Belleza,
Dr.
Jorge
Rabadilla,
predecessor-in-interest
of
the
herein
petitioner,
Johnny
S.
Rabadilla,
was
instituted
as
a
devisee
of
a
big
tract
of
land.
The
Codicil,
was
duly
probated
and
contained
in
substance,
among
others;
that
as
a
condition
of
the
devise,
Dr.
Rabadilla
shall
have
the
obligation
until
he
dies
to
deliver
(one
hundred)
100
piculs
of
sugar
(75
export
sugar
and
25
domestic
sugar)
to
Maria
Marlinna
Belleza,
sister
of
the
deceased;
should
Dr.
Rabadilla
die,
his
heir
who
shall
inherit
the
subject
land
shall
also
oblige
to
the
annual
delivery;
that
should
the
wish
of
the
deceased
be
not
respected,
Maria
Marlinna
Belleza
shall
immediately
seize
the
subject
lot
and
deliver
the
same
to
the
nearest
descendant
of
the
deceased
who
shall
also
have
the
same
obligation
to
deliver
the
100
sacks
of
sugar
to
Belleza.
Dr.
Rabadilla
died
in
1983.
On
1989,
Belleza
brought
a
complaint
against
the
heirs
of
Dr.
Jorge
Rabadilla,
alleging
violation
of
the
conditions
of
the
Codicil,
more
specifically
their
failure
to
comply
with
their
obligation
to
deliver
100
piculs
of
sugar
to
plaintiff
Maria
Marlena
from
sugar
crop
years
1985
up
to
the
filing
despite
repeated
demands
for
compliance.
She
prayed
that
judgment
be
rendered
ordering
defendant-
heirs
to
reconvey
/
return
the
lot
to
the
surviving
heirs
of
the
late
Aleja
Belleza.
Belleza
and
Alan
Azurin,
son-in-law
of
the
herein
petitioner
who
was
lessee
of
the
property
and
acting
as
attorney-in-fact
of
defendant-heirs,
arrived
at
an
amicable
settlement
and
entered
into
a
Memorandum
of
Agreement
with
respect
to
the
annual
delivery
of
the
one
hundred
piculs
of
sugar.
However,
there
was
no
compliance
with
the
aforesaid
agreement
except
for
a
partial
delivery
of
50.80
piculs
of
sugar
corresponding
to
sugar
crop
year
1988
-1989.
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
the
subject
property
should
revert
back
to
the
estate
of
the
testatrix
Aleja
Belleza
as
provided
for
in
the
codicil
of
her
last
will
and
testament.
RULING:
YES.
The
private
respondent
had
a
legally
demandable
right
against
the
petitioner
pursuant
to
subject
Codicil.
It
is
a
general
rule
under
the
law
on
succession
that
successional
rights
are
transmitted
from
the
moment
of
death
of
the
decedent
and
compulsory
heirs
are
called
to
succeed
by
operation
of
law.
The
legitimate
children
and
descendants,
in
relation
to
their
legitimate
parents,
and
the
widow
or
widower,
are
compulsory
heirs.
Thus,
the
petitioner,
his
mother
and
sisters,
as
compulsory
heirs
of
the
instituted
heir,
Dr.
Jorge
Rabadilla,
succeeded
the
latter
by
operation
of
law,
without
need
of
further
proceedings,
and
the
successional
rights
were
transmitted
to
them
from
the
moment
of
death
of
the
decedent,
Dr.
Jorge
Rabadilla.
Under
Article
776
of
the
New
Civil
Code,
inheritance
includes
all
the
property,
rights
and
obligations
of
a
person,
not
extinguished
by
his
death.
Conformably,
whatever
rights
Dr.
Jorge
Rabadilla
had
by
virtue
of
subject
Codicil
were
transmitted
to
his
forced
heirs,
at
the
time
of
his
death.
And
since
obligations
not
extinguished
by
death
also
form
part
of
the
estate
of
the
decedent;
corollarily,
the
obligations
imposed
by
the
Codicil
on
the
deceased
Dr.
Jorge
Rabadilla,
were
likewise
transmitted
to
his
compulsory
heirs
upon
his
death.
Upon
the
death
of
Dr.
Jorge
Rabadilla,
his
compulsory
heirs
succeeded
to
his
rights
and
title
over
the
said
property,
and
they
also
assumed
his
(decedent's)
obligation
to
deliver
the
fruits
of
the
lot
involved
to
herein
private
respondent.
Such
obligation
of
the
instituted
heir
reciprocally
corresponds
to
the
right
of
private
respondent
over
the
usufruct,
the
fulfillment
or
performance
of
which
is
now
being
demanded
by
the
latter
through
the
institution
of
the
case
at
bar.
Therefore,
private
respondent
has
a
cause
of
action
against
petitioner
and
the
trial
court
erred
in
dismissing
the
complaint
below.
In
the
interpretation
of
Wills,
when
an
uncertainty
arises
on
the
face
of
the
Will,
as
to
the
application
of
any
of
its
provisions,
the
testator's
intention
is
to
be
ascertained
from
the
words
of
the
Will,
taking
into
consideration
the
circumstances
under
which
it
was
made.
Such
construction
as
will
sustain
and
uphold
the
Will
in
all
its
parts
must
be
adopted.
Subject
Codicil
provides
that
the
instituted
heir
is
under
obligation
to
deliver
One
Hundred
(100)
piculs
of
sugar
yearly
to
Marlena
Belleza
Coscuella.
Such
obligation
is
imposed
on
the
instituted
heir,
Dr.
Jorge
Rabadilla,
his
heirs,
and
their
buyer,
lessee,
or
mortgagee
should
they
sell,
lease,
mortgage
or
otherwise
negotiate
the
property
involved.
The
Codicil
further
provides
that
in
the
event
that
the
obligation
to
deliver
the
sugar
is
not
respected,
Marlena
Belleza
Coscuella
shall
seize
the
property
and
turn
it
over
to
the
testatrix's
near
descendants.
The
non-performance
of
the
said
obligation
is
thus
with
the
sanction
of
seizure
of
the
property
and
reversion
thereof
to
the
testatrix's
near
descendants.
Since
the
said
obligation
is
clearly
imposed
by
the
testatrix,
not
only
on
the
instituted
heir
but
also
on
his
successors-in-interest,
the
sanction
imposed
by
the
testatrix
in
case
of
non-fulfillment
of
said
obligation
should
equally
apply
to
the
instituted
heir
and
his
successors-in-interest.
Suffice
it
to
state
that
a
Will
is
a
personal,
solemn,
revocable
and
free
act
by
which
a
person
disposes
of
his
property,
to
take
effect
after
his
death.
Since
the
Will
expresses
the
manner
in
which
a
person
intends
how
his
properties
be
disposed,
the
wishes
and
desires
of
the
testator
must
be
strictly
followed.
Thus,
a
Will
cannot
be
the
subject
of
a
compromise
agreement
which
would
thereby
defeat
the
very
purpose
of
making
a
Will.
Petition
is
dismissed.
binding
as
against
them.
The
death
of
a
party
does
not
excuse
nonperformance
of
a
contract
which
involves
a
property
right
and
the
rights
and
obligations
thereunder
pass
to
the
personal
representatives
of
the
deceased.
Similarly,
nonperformance
is
not
excused
by
the
death
of
the
party
when
the
other
party
has
a
property
interest
in
the
subject
matter
of
the
contract.
Despite
the
death
of
the
petitioners
mother,
they
are
still
bound
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
"Bilihan
ng
Lupa,"
dated
17
August
1979
and
9
January
1981.
Consequently,
they
must
reconvey
to
herein
respondents
Spouses
Lumbao
the
107-
square
meter
lot
which
they
bought
from
Rita,
petitioners
mother.
determined
by
probate.
RULING:
When
the
petitioner
received
the
"Sinumpaang
Salaysay,"
it
should
have
noted
that
the
effectivity
of
the
said
document
commences
at
the
time
of
death
of
the
author
of
the
instrument;
in
her
words
"sakaling
ako'y
bawian
na
ng
Dios
ng
aking
buhay..."
Hence,
in
such
period,
all
the
interests
of
the
person
should
cease
to
be
hers
and
shall
be
in
the
possession
of
her
estate
until
they
are
transferred
to
her
heirs
by
virtue
of
Article
774
of
the
Civil
Code
which
provides
that:
Art.
774.
Succession
is
a
mode
of
acquisition
by
virtue
of
which
the
property,
rights
and
obligations
to
the
extent
of
the
value
of
the
inheritance,
of
a
person
are
transmitted
through
his
death
to
another
or
others
either
by
his
will
or
by
operation
of
law.
The
NHA
gave
due
course
to
the
application
made
by
Francisca
Herrera
without
considering
that
the
initial
applicant's
death
would
transfer
all
her
property,
rights
and
obligations
to
the
estate
including
whatever
interest
she
has
or
may
have
had
over
the
disputed
properties.
To
the
extent
of
the
interest
that
the
original
owner
had
over
the
property,
the
same
should
go
to
her
estate.
Margarita
Herrera
had
an
interest
in
the
property
and
that
interest
should
go
to
her
estate
upon
her
demise
so
as
to
be
able
to
properly
distribute
them
later
to
her
heirsin
accordance
with
a
will
or
by
operation
of
law.
The
death
of
Margarita
Herrera
does
not
extinguish
her
interest
over
the
property.
Obligations
are
transmissible.
Margarita
Herrera's
obligation
to
pay
became
transmissible
at
the
time
of
her
death
either
by
will
or
by
operation
of
law.
When
the
original
buyer
died,
the
NHA
should
have
considered
the
estate
of
the
decedent
as
the
next
"person"
likely
to
stand
in
to
fulfill
the
obligation
to
pay
the
rest
of
the
purchase
price.
The
opposition
of
other
heirs
to
the
repurchase
by
Francisca
Herrera
should
have
put
the
NHA
on
guard
as
to
the
award
of
the
lots.
Further,
the
Decision
in
the
said
Civil
Case
questioning
the
Deed
of
Self-
Adjudication
which
rendered
the
deed
therein
null
and
void
should
have
alerted
the
NHA
that
there
are
other
heirs
to
the
interests
and
properties
of
the
decedent
who
may
claim
the
property
after
a
testate
or
intestate
proceeding
is
concluded.
The
NHA
therefore
acted
arbitrarily
in
the
award
of
the
lots.