[85] Parish Priest of Victoria Vs.

RIGOR (Belina Rigor, Nestora Rigor, Francisca Escobar De Rigor And Jovita
Escobar De Fausto)
G.R. No. L-22036 April 30, 1979

Testator: Fr. Pascual Rigor

Beneficiary: “male relative who would become a priest”
Contesting Party and relationship:

DOCTRINE:
Citing Article 1025 of the Civil Code, the High Court held that the said bequest refers to the testator's nearest male relative
living at the time of his death and not to any indefinite time thereafter. In order to be capacitated to inherit, the devisee
must be living at the moment the succession opens. The bequest refers to the testator's nephew who was living at the
time of his death, when his succession was opened and the successional rights to his estate became vested, rests on a
judicious and unbiased reading of the terms of the will.

Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest, the unavoidable conclusion is that the
bequest in question was ineffectual or inoperative. Therefore, the administration of the ricelands by the church, as
envisaged in the will, was likewise inoperative.

FACTS:
Testator (Father Rigor) left a will (executed on Oct 29, 1933) with named devisees constituting his three sisters: Florencia
Rigor-Escobar, Belina RigorManaloto and Nestora Rigor-Quiambao as well as his cousin, Fortunato Gamalinda. Also, he
devised the 44-has of riceland in favor to anyone of his nearest male relatives who would pursue an ecclesiastical
career until his ordination as a priest. The lower court approved and all devises was partitioned and delivered except
for the 44-ha riceland. Inasmuch as no nephew of the testator claimed the devise and as the administratrix (Florencia
Rigor – Escobar) and the legal heirs believed that the parish priest of Victoria had no right to administer the 44-ha
ricelands was not delivered to the church. After thirteen years, the parish priest of Victoria petition that ricelands be
delivered to the church contending that the testator's grandnephew was studying for the priesthood at the San Jose
Seminary. The intestate heirs countered petition that the bequest be declared inoperative since petitioner admitted that
"no nearest male relative of the testator" has ever studied for the priesthood.

It was stated therein that the parish priest of Victoria would administer the ricelands only in two situations: one, during the
interval of time that no nearest male relative of the testator was studying for the priesthood and two, in case the testator's
nephew became a priest and he was excommunicated.

ISSUE:
W/N a device in favour of a person whose identity at the time of the testator’s death cannot be ascertained, may be
efficacious?

RULING:
No. Devise is ineffective.
The Supreme Court held that the said bequest refers to the testator's nearest male relative living at the time of his death
and not to any indefinite time thereafter. "In order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or legatee must be living at
the moment the succession opens, except in case of representation, when it is proper" (Art. 1025, Civil Code).

The said testamentary provisions should be sensibly or reasonably construed. To construe them as referring to the
testator's nearest male relative at anytime after his death would render the provisions difficult to apply and create
uncertainty as to the disposition of his estate. That could not have been his intention.

The reasonable view is that he was referring to a situation whereby his nephew living at the time of his death, who would
like to become a priest, was still in grade school or in high school or was not yet in the seminary. In that case, the parish
priest of Victoria would administer the ricelands before the nephew entered the seminary. But the moment the testator's
nephew entered the seminary, then he would be entitled to enjoy and administer the ricelands and receive the fruits
thereof. In that event, the trusteeship would be terminated.

Following that interpretation of the will the inquiry would be whether at the time Father Rigor died in 1935 he had a
nephew who was studying for the priesthood or who had manifested his desire to follow the ecclesiastical career. That
query is categorically answered in paragraph 4 of appellant priest's petitions of February 19, 1954 and January 31, 1957.
He unequivocally alleged therein that "not male relative of the late (Father) Pascual Rigor has ever studied for the
priesthood."
Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest, the unavoidable conclusion is that the
bequest in question was ineffectual or inoperative. Therefore, the administration of the ricelands by the parish priest of
Victoria, as envisaged in the wilt was likewise inoperative.

It should be understood that the parish priest of Victoria could become a trustee only when the testator's nephew living at
the time of his death, who desired to become a priest, had not yet entered the seminary or, having been ordained a priest,
he was excommunicated. Those two contingencies did not arise, and could not have arisen in this case because no
nephew of the testator manifested any intention to enter the seminary or ever became a priest.

The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that this case is covered by article 888 of the old Civil Code, now article 956, which
provides that if "the bequest for any reason should be inoperative, it shall be merged into the estate, except in cases of
substitution and those in which the right of accretion exists."

This case is also covered by article 912(2) of the old Civil Code, now article 960 (2), which provides that legal succession
takes place when the will "does not dispose of all that belongs to the testator." There being no substitution nor accretion
as to the said ricelands the same should be distributed among the testator's legal heirs. The effect is as if the testator ha d
made no disposition as to the said ricelands.