You are on page 1of 6

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

113725 June 29, 2000

JOHNNY S. RABADILLA,1 petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND MARIA MARLENA2 COSCOLUELLA Y BELLEZA VILLACARLOS, respondents. DECISION PURISIMA, J.: This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, 3 dated December 23, 1993, in CA-G.R. No. CV-35555, which set aside the decision of Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court in Bacolod City, and ordered the defendants-appellees (including herein petitioner), as heirs of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, to reconvey title over Lot No. 1392, together with its fruits and interests, to the estate of Aleja Belleza. The antecedent facts are as follows: In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in-interest of the herein petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of 511, 855 square meters of that parcel of land surveyed as Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre. The said Codicil, which was duly probated and admitted in Special Proceedings No. 4046 before the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, contained the following provisions: "FIRST I give, leave and bequeath the following property owned by me to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla resident of 141 P. Villanueva, Pasay City: (a) Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4002 (10942), which is registered in my name according to the records of the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental. (b) That should Jorge Rabadilla die ahead of me, the aforementioned property and the rights which I shall set forth hereinbelow, shall be inherited and acknowledged by the children and spouse of Jorge Rabadilla. xxx FOURTH (a)....It is also my command, in this my addition (Codicil), that should I die and Jorge Rabadilla shall have already received the ownership of the said Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4002 (10942), and also at the time that the lease of Balbinito G. Guanzon of the said lot shall expire, Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies, every year to give to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, Seventy (75) (sic) piculs of Export sugar and Twenty Five (25) piculs of Domestic sugar, until the said Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza dies. FIFTH (a) Should Jorge Rabadilla die, his heir to whom he shall give Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT4002 (10492), shall have the obligation to still give yearly, the sugar as specified in the Fourth paragraph of his testament, to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza on the month of December of each year. SIXTH I command, in this my addition (Codicil) that the Lot No. 1392, in the event that the one to whom I have left and bequeathed, and his heir shall later sell, lease, mortgage this said Lot, the buyer, lessee, mortgagee, shall have also the obligation to respect and deliver yearly ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, on each month of December, SEVENTY FIVE (75) piculs of Export and TWENTY FIVE (25) piculs of Domestic, until Maria Marlina shall die, lastly should the buyer, lessee or the mortgagee of this lot, not have respected my command in this my addition (Codicil), Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, shall immediately seize this Lot No. 1392 from my heir and the latter's heirs, and shall turn it over to my near desendants, (sic) and the latter shall then have the obligation to give the ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar until Maria Marlina shall die. I further command in this my addition (Codicil) that my heir and his heirs of this Lot No. 1392, that they will obey and follow that should they decide to sell, lease, mortgage, they cannot negotiate with others than my near descendants and my sister." 4

and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1989. TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26.00) Pesos. payable on or before December of crop year 1990-91. to wit: For 1985-86. Defendant-heirs failed to comply with their obligation to deliver one hundred (100) piculs of sugar (75 piculs export sugar and 25 piculs domestic sugar) to plaintiff Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza from sugar crop years 1985 up to the filing of the complaint as mandated by the Codicil. On July 22. which is in the total amount of ONE HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P105. The plaintiff then prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendant-heirs to reconvey/return-Lot No. For 1987-88. TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26. the cancellation of TCT No.250. lease. or then existing in any of our names. the buyer. Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza Villacarlos brought a complaint.00) Pesos. Lot No. with respect to defendant Johnny S.250. against the above-mentioned heirs of Dr. arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on the obligation to deliver one hundred piculs of sugar.000. who filed his Answer.00) Pesos. Ofelia and Zenaida. Rabadilla. 5588. accordingly. 1990 the Order of Default was lifted. the defendant-heirs were declared in default but on March 28. all surnamed Rabadilla. TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26.80 piculs of sugar corresponding to sugar crop year 1988 -1989. Jorge Rabadilla. payable on or before December of crop year 1989-90. 49074 of TCT No. the Regional Trial Court came out with a decision. in Azucar Sugar Central. Lot No. Jorge Rabadilla. Dr. 1998.00). to enforce the provisions of subject Codicil. payable on or before December of crop year 1991-92. During the pre-trial. docketed as Civil Case No. Jorge Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his wife Rufina and children Johnny (petitioner). or mortgagee shall likewise have the obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar per crop year to herein private respondent. 44489 will be delivered not later than January of 1989. 1392 to the surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza. and 25 piculs of 'B' sugar. before Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court in Bacolod City. lessee. 1986-87.00) Pesos. 1392 was mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank and the Republic Planters Bank in disregard of the testatrix's specific instruction to sell. On August 21. and the issuance of a new certificate of title in the names of the surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza. there was no compliance with the aforesaid Memorandum of Agreement except for a partial delivery of 50. TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26. and in the same manner will compliance of the annuity be in the next succeeding crop years. 44498 in the name of the deceased. 1991. and 1987-88.Pursuant to the same Codicil. Mary Rose Rabadilla y Azurin or Alan Azurin." 5 However. 3. or mortgage of the property. 2. lease. Dr. payable on or before the end of December of every sugar crop year. and For 1988-89. Aurora. in that: 1. and. 44498 thereto issued in his name. 1392 was transferred to the deceased. 1990. despite repeated demands for compliance. will be complied in cash equivalent of the number of piculs as mentioned therein and which is as herein agreed upon. dismissing the complaint and disposing as follows: "WHEREFORE.250. The banks failed to comply with the 6th paragraph of the Codicil which provided that in case of the sale. On February 26. son-in-law of the herein petitioner who was lessee of the property and acting as attorney-in-fact of defendant-heirs. or mortgage only to the near descendants and sister of the testatrix. Jorge Rabadilla. payable on or before December of crop year 1988-89. the plaintiff (private respondent) and a certain Alan Azurin. The Complaint alleged that the defendant-heirs violated the conditions of the Codicil. to the following effect: "That for crop year 1988-89.250. more specifically. in the light of the aforegoing findings. That the above-mentioned amount will be paid or delivered on a staggered cash installment. the annuity mentioned in Entry No. to wit: 75 piculs of 'A' sugar. during December of each sugar crop year. the Court finds that the action is prematurely filed as no cause of action against the defendants has as yet arose in favor of plaintiff. That the annuity above stated for crop year 1985-86. the parties admitted that: On November 15. For 1986-87. taking into consideration the composite price of sugar during each sugar crop year. this is considered compliance of the annuity as mentioned. While there maybe the non-performance of the command as mandated exaction from them simply because they . Dr.

. the Complaint being prematurely filed is DISMISSED without prejudice. 1392. petitioner found his way to this Court via the present petition. was to be substituted by the testatrix's "near descendants" should the obligation to deliver the fruits to herein private respondent be not complied with. 1392 to Dr. Dr. The remedy at bar must fall. inheritance includes all the property. Jorge Rabadilla. The petitioner theorizes further that there can be no valid substitution for the reason that the substituted heirs are not definite. rights and obligations of a person. to the estate of Aleja Belleza. precisely. Upon the death of Dr. reserved to her by the codicil. there was no such deviation. as the substituted heirs are merely referred to as "near descendants" without a definite identity or reference as to who are the "near descendants" and therefore. the First Division of the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. It is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent 10 and compulsory heirs are called to succeed by operation of law. and in ruling that the testamentary institution of Dr. the petitioner.11 Thus. on which issue the Court of Appeals ruled in accordance with law. the evidence on record having established plaintiff-appellant's right to receive 100 piculs of sugar annually out of the produce of Lot No. Jorge Rabadilla. In the light of the aforegoing findings. his compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and title over the said property. the title holder/owner of the lot in question. private respondent has a cause of action against petitioner and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint below. at the time of his death. the instituted heir. SO ORDERED. Dr. plaintiff-appellant must institute separate proceedings to re-open Aleja Belleza's estate. secure the appointment of an administrator. and they also assumed his (decedent's) obligation to deliver the fruits of the lot involved to herein private respondent. 1392. However. to deliver such amount of sugar to plaintiff-appellant. the fulfillment or performance of which is now being demanded by the latter through the institution of the case at bar. Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code. which was the propriety of the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prematurity of cause of action. to receive her legacy of 100 piculs of sugar per year out of the produce of Lot No. the punitive consequences enjoined by both the codicil and the Civil Code. And since obligations not extinguished by death also form part of the estate of the decedent. to stress that the private respondent had a legally demandable right against the petitioner pursuant to subject Codicil. And since the testatrix died single and without issue. the decision appealed from is SET ASIDE and another one entered ordering defendants-appellees. there can be no valid substitution and such testamentary provision cannot be given any effect. to reconvey title over Lot No. Such obligation of the instituted heir reciprocally corresponds to the right of private respondent over the usufruct. and the successional rights were transmitted to them from the moment of death of the decedent. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the appeal in accordance with Article 882 of the New Civil Code on modal institutions and in deviating from the sole issue raised which is the absence or prematurity of the cause of action.i. if only to establish the heirs of Jorge Rabadilla and in order to give full meaning and semblance to her claim under the Codicil. Contrary to his supposition that the Court of Appeals deviated from the issue posed before it. ratiocinating and ordering thus: "Therefore. contending that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reversion of Lot 1392 to the estate of the testatrix Aleja Belleza on the basis of paragraph 6 of the Codicil. The Court of Appeals found that the private respondent had a cause of action against the petitioner. does not warrant the filing of the present complaint. Jorge Rabadilla is a modal institution within the purview of Article 882 of the New Civil Code. it is opined that plaintiff may initiate the intestate proceedings. Jorge Rabadilla. Incidentally. in relation to their legitimate parents.e. the obligations imposed by the Codicil on the deceased Dr. The petition is not impressed with merit. as heirs of Jorge Rabadilla. defendants-appellee's admitted non-compliance with said obligation since 1985. corollarily. and distribute Lot No. as heirs of the modal heir. 1392 to Aleja Belleza's legal heirs in order to enforce her right. The contentions of petitioner are untenable."6 On appeal by plaintiff. being in the category as creditor of the left estate. 1392 until she dies. as compulsory heirs of the instituted heir. are compulsory heirs. succeeded the latter by operation of law. Jorge Rabadilla. Accordingly. In the said Codicil. this Court deems it proper to order the reconveyance of title over Lot No. his mother and sisters. under Articles 8438 and 8459 of the New Civil Code. The disquisition made on modal institution was. were likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his death. whatever rights Dr. together with its fruits and interests. Jorge Rabadilla. Dr. of seizure of Lot No. and. and the widow or widower. the substitution should be deemed as not written. not extinguished by his death. 1392 from the estates of Jorge Rabadilla to the estate of Aleja Belleza. Jorge Rabadilla. without need of further proceedings. 1392 and its reversion to the estate of Aleja Belleza in case of such non-compliance. SO ORDERED."7 Dissatisfied with the aforesaid disposition by the Court of Appeals. Jorge Rabadilla. Petitioner maintains that Article 882 does not find application as there was no modal institution and the testatrix intended a mere simple substitution .are the children of Jorge Rabadilla. subject to the condition that the usufruct thereof would be delivered to the herein private respondent every year. The legitimate children and descendants. defendants-appellee's obligation under Aleja Belleza's codicil. testatrix Aleja Belleza devised Lot No. Conformably. Therefore. Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue of subject Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs.

. Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person or persons to take the place of the heir or heirs first instituted.18 A "mode" imposes an obligation upon the heir or legatee but it does not affect the efficacy of his rights to the succession. the institution should be considered as modal and not conditional.13 The Codicil sued upon contemplates neither of the two. The Court of Appeals erred not in ruling that the institution of Dr."16 Also. though. a very important element of a fideicommissary substitution is lacking. renounce the inheritance or be incapacitated to inherit. Jorge Rabadilla under subject Codicil is in the nature of a modal institution and therefore. since testamentary dispositions are generally acts of liberality. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed in the Codicil. during the lifetime of the latter.Petitioner also theorizes that Article 882 of the New Civil Code on modal institutions is not applicable because what the testatrix intended was a substitution . Jorge Rabadilla's inheritance and the effectivity of his institution as a devisee. The manner of institution of Dr.15 In the case under consideration. It is likewise clearly worded that the testatrix imposed an obligation on the said instituted heir and his successors-in-interest to deliver one hundred piculs of sugar to the herein private respondent. the testatrix's near descendants would substitute him. 882.Dr. Under substitutions in general. the provisions of subject Codicil do not provide that should Dr. affecting the efficacy of such institution. In simple substitutions. in a conditional testamentary disposition. 20 To some extent. it shall be complied with in a manner most analogous to and in conformity with his wishes. the testatrix did not make Dr. an institution referred to in the preceding article cannot take effect in the exact manner stated by the testator. Neither is there a fideicommissary substitution here and on this point. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the obligation to deliver part of the usufruct to private respondent. Another important element of a fideicommissary substitution is also missing here. Jorge Rabadilla was to be substituted by the testatrix's near descendants should there be noncompliance with the obligation to deliver the piculs of sugar to private respondent. 12 or (2) leave his/her property to one person with the express charge that it be transmitted subsequently to another or others. the testator may either (1) provide for the designation of another heir to whom the property shall pass in case the original heir should die before him/her. should Dr. the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom the property is transmitted must not be beyond one degree from the first heir or the fiduciary.22 Neither is there tenability in the other contention of petitioner that the private respondent has only a right of usufruct but not the right to seize the property itself from the instituted heir because the right to seize was expressly limited to violations by the buyer.21 From the provisions of the Codicil litigated upon. predecease or renunciation. the property shall be turned over to the testatrix's near descendants. What the Codicil provides is that. When without the fault of the heir. the contention is without merit. void if the first heir is not related by first degree to the second heir. Thus. the instituted heir is in fact allowed under the Codicil to alienate the property provided the negotiation is with the near descendants or the sister of the testatrix. The condition suspends but does not obligate. However. however. Dr. together with its fruits and interests. Then too. the near descendants' right to inherit from the testatrix is not definite.17 In the case under scrutiny. Jorge Rabadilla default due to predecease. Art. Under Article 863. The institution of an heir in the manner prescribed in Article 882 is what is known in the law of succession as an institucion sub modo or a modal institution. shall not be considered as a condition unless it appears that such was his intention. it can be gleaned unerringly that the testatrix intended that subject property be inherited by Dr. That which has been left in this manner may be claimed at once provided that the instituted heir or his heirs give security for compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of anything he or they may receive. (2) the purpose or application of the property left by the testator. the obligation clearly imposing upon the first heir the preservation of the property and its transmission to the second heir. 14 In the case under consideration. an obligation imposed upon the heir should not be considered a condition unless it clearly appears from the Will itself that such was the intention of the testator. if he or they should disregard this obligation. Jorge Rabadilla. the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir by reason of incapacity. Article 882 of the New Civil Code is the provision of law in point. the condition must happen or be fulfilled in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the testator. It is clear. Marlena Coscolluela Belleza. as in a fideicommissary substitution. Jorge Rabadilla under subject Codicil is evidently modal in nature because it imposes a charge upon the instituted heir without. as in a simple substitution. lessee or mortgagee. or (3) the charge imposed by the testator upon the heir. The property will only pass to them should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. A fideicommissary substitution is therefore. In case of doubt. the property referred to shall be seized and turned over to the testatrix's near descendants. the testator states (1) the object of the institution. dependent on the performance of the said obligation. 883. it is similar to a resolutory condition. The statement of the object of the institution or the application of the property left by the testator. Again. In a modal institution. petitioner is correct. that should the obligation be not complied with. Articles 882 and 883 of the New Civil Code provide: Art. incapacity or renunciation.19 On the other hand. the first heir is strictly mandated to preserve the property and to transmit the same later to the second heir. "Without this obligation to preserve clearly imposed by the testator in his will. In a fideicommissary substitution. and the mode obligates but does not suspend. the near descendants are not at all related to the instituted heir. there is no fideicommissary substitution. or the charge imposed on him.

his heirs. (Chairman). CV-35555 AFFIRMED.In the interpretation of Wills. The testator shall designate the heir by his name and surname.R.. 34-35. J. WHEREFORE. J. join the separate opinion of Justice Vitug. Rollo. Kapunan (Chairman) and concurred in by Justices Minerva P. and their buyer. Suffice it to state that a Will is a personal. as to the application of any of its provisions. solemn. 65-66. 1993. Footnotes 1 Was spelled interchangeably in Rollo as Ravadilla. see separate opinion. should he designate him in such manner that there can be no doubt as to who has been instituted. 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. 14. the recourse of the private respondent is the fulfillment of the obligation under the amicable settlement and not the seizure of subject property. the testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words of the Will. p. Rollo. The Codicil further provides that in the event that the obligation to deliver the sugar is not respected. Was spelled interchangeably in Rollo as Marlina. Melo. 10 Article 777. 5 6 7 8 Art. lease. unless by some event or circumstance his identity becomes certain. 23 Such construction as will sustain and uphold the Will in all its parts must be adopted.. concur in the separate opinion of Justice Vitug. Gonzaga-Reyes and Eduardo G. J. pp. Marlena Belleza Coscuella shall seize the property and turn it over to the testatrix's near descendants.25 Since the Will expresses the manner in which a person intends how his properties be disposed. New Civil Code. Since the said obligation is clearly imposed by the testatrix. taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was made. Similarly unsustainable is petitioner's submission that by virtue of the amicable settlement. or mortgagee should they sell. CA Decision. Panganiban. lessee. 843. Every disposition in favor of an unknown person shall be void. the institution shall be valid. RTC Decision. and having consummated a settlement with the petitioner. pp. in CA-G. when an uncertainty arises on the face of the Will. Montenegro. dated December 23. that petitioner is deemed to have made a substantial and constructive compliance of his obligation through the consummated settlement between the lessee and the private respondent. 9 Art. J. 845. Even though the testator may have omitted the name of the heir. 2 3 Penned by Justice Santiago M. However.. 8-9. no part. (Members) 4 Annex "C". and when there are two persons having the same names. No. Jorge Rabadilla. Vitug. Dr. . a Will cannot be the subject of a compromise agreement which would thereby defeat the very purpose of making a Will. Gonzaga-Reyes. the wishes and desires of the testator must be strictly followed.24 Subject Codicil provides that the instituted heir is under obligation to deliver One Hundred (100) piculs of sugar yearly to Marlena Belleza Coscuella. revocable and free act by which a person disposes of his property. mortgage or otherwise negotiate the property involved. a disposition in favor of a definite class or group of persons shall be valid. and whatever obligation petitioner had become the obligation of the lessee. Such obligation is imposed on the instituted heir.. 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. he shall indicate some circumstance by which the instituted heir may be known. pp. to take effect after his death. No pronouncement as to costs SO ORDERED. Thus. the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals. the said obligation imposed by the Codicil has been assumed by the lessee.

11 Ibid. 111 SCRA 704.. p. De Ramos. NCC and Tolentino. Jottings and Jurisprudence in Civil Law. supra. Arturo Tolentino. p. Article 859. 242. Ibid. Ruben Balane. Ibid. Ramirez vs.. Vda. Article 863. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . 34... p. 241-242.. Art. 783. 249. p. NCC. Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code. Tolentino. Article 887. Volume III. Article 789. Article 859. Tolentino. 242. Ibid. p. supra. 212. 212. Ibid. Ibid. p. 28-29. p. Tolentino. pp. supra.. Ibid.