You are on page 1of 15

8/9/2016

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089

VOL. 89, APRIL 30, 1979

493

Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria, Tarlac
vs. Rigor
*

No. L­22036. April 30, 1979.

TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE REVEREND FATHER
PASCUAL RIGOR. THE PARISH PRIEST OF THE
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF VICTORIA, TARLAC,
petitioner­appellant, vs. BELINA RIGOR, NESTORA
RIGOR, FRANCISCA ESCOBAR DE RIGOR and JOVITA
ESCOBAR DE FAUSTO, respondents­appellees.
Settlement of Estate; Will of Testator is the first and principal
law in the matter of Testaments.—The will of the testator is the
first and principal law in the matter of testaments. When his
intention is clearly and precisely expressed, any interpretation
must be in accord when it may certainly appear that his intention
was different from that literally expressed (In re Estate of
Caldero, 26 Phil. 237­8).
Same; Same.—One canon in the interpretation of the
testamentary provisions is that “the testator’s intention is to be
ascertained from the words of the will, taking into consideration
the circumstances as this intention” (Art. 789, Civil Code of the
Philippines).
_______________
*

SECOND DIVISION.

494

494

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria, Tarlac vs.
Rigor

Same; A bequest of land to the nearest male relative of the
grantor who would study for the priesthood construed to mean the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

1/15

— Of course. Same; As the testator was not survived by a nephew who became a priest the bequest became inoperative and the administration of the ricelands of the parish priest of Victoria. But since he could not prognosticate the exact date of his death or state with certitude what category of nearest male relative would be living at the time of his death. Escobar. Gamalinda’s affidavit. Rigor http://www. his nearest legal heirs were his three sisters or second­degree relatives. Tarlac also became inoperative.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 grantor’s nearest male relative living at the time of his death and not any indefinite time thereafter. Manaloto and Mrs. “In order to be capacitated to inherit. when it is proper. Our opinion that the said bequest refers to the testator’s nephew who was living at the time of his death. who would be his third­ degree relative. has no probative value. Mrs.—In 1935. Quiambao. Mrs.—Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest. when his succession was opened and the successional rights to his estate became vested. the unavoidable conclusion is that the bequest in question was ineffectual or inoperative. APRIL 30. when the testator died. Same; Same. he must have had in mind his nephew or a son of his sister. when the testator specified his nearest male relative. except in case of representation.—We hold 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. the heir. 89.” Same; Evidence; Evidence aliunde has no probative value. Mrs. the ad­ 495 VOL. Therefore. devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens. 1979 495 Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria.com. he could not specify that his nearest male relative would be his nephew or grandnephew (the son of his nephew or niece) and so he had to use the term “nearest male relative.” The said testamentary provisions should be sensibly or reasonably construed. Tarlac vs.central. rests on a judicious and unbiased reading of the terms of the will. which is tantamount to evidence aliunde as to the testator’s intention and which is hearsay. That could not have been his intention. To construe them as referring to the testator’s nearest male relative at any time after his death would render the provisions difficult to apply and create uncertainty as to the disposition of his estate.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15 . or possibly a grandnephew. Obviously.

it shall be merged into the estate. 496 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria. was likewise inoperative. or that there may be mixed succession. 51 Phil. A reading of the testamentary provisions regarding the disputed bequest does not support the view that the parish priest of Victoria was a trustee or a substitute devisee in the event that the testator was not survived by a nephew who became a priest. Same; Where a bequest is inoperative the same shall be merged. Those two contingencies did not arise. Tarlac vs. who desired to become a priest. That contention is untenable. se refundira en la masa de la herencia. if a conditional legacy does not take effect. and could not have arisen.com. Thus. now Article 956. no tenga efecto. having been ordained a priest. It should be underscored that the parish priest of Victoria could become a trustee only when the testator’s nephew living at the time of his death. and these contingencies never arose. Same; A person may die partly testate and partly intestate.” (el legado x x x por qualquier causa.central. Tarlac.— The Civil Code recognizes that a person may die partly testate and partly intestate. Same; Where the parish priest of Victoria.—The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that this case is covered by article 888 of the Old Civil Code. de los cases de sustitucion y derecho de acrecer”).8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 ministration of the ricelands by the parish priest of Victoria. as a rule. The old rule as to the indivisibility of the testator’s will is no longer valid. to the testator’s estate. which provides that if “the bequest for any reason should be inoperative. said parish priest cannot be deemed a substitute devisee. fuera. in this case because no nephew of the testator manifest any intention to enter the seminary or ever became a priest. http://www. under the bequest. there will be intestate succession as to the property covered by the said legacy (Macrahon Ong Ham vs. 267). he was excommunicated. Rigor APPEAL from the decision of the Court of Appeals. become a trustee only when any of the testator’s nephews living at the time of his death had not yet entered the seminary or being a priest was excommunicated.—The appellant in contending that a public charitable trust was constituted by the testator in his favor assumes that he was a trustee or substitute devisee. could. except in cases of substitution and those in which the right of accretion exists. as envisaged in the will. had not yet entered the seminary or.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15 . Saavedra.

89. In addition. 1979 497 Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria.251 m. mide 242.: This case is about the efficaciousness or enforceability of a devise of ricelands located at Guimba. with a total area of around forty­four hectares. appealed to this Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the order of the probate court declaring that the said devise was inoperative (Rigor vs. mide 62. who claimed to be a trustee of the said lands.249 m. Tañedo. de CERTIFICADO DE TRANSFERENCIA DE TITULO SON;—Titulo Num. for appellants. 6521.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15 . Named as devisees in the will were the testator’s nearest relatives. Tarlac. Tarlac vs. his three sisters: Florencia Rigor­Escobar. mide 119.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Nueva Ecija. AQUINO. 6530. J.      J. 497 VOL. August 1. No.665 m. the parish priest of Pulilan.com. Bulacan. mide 16. cuyo num. The testator gave a devise to his cousin.central. Tarlac. Belina Rigor­Manaloto and Nestora Rigor­ Quiambao. cuadrados de superficie; Titulo Num. cuadrados de superficie; y Titulo Num. 1935. 1935. The record discloses that Father Rigor. namely. for appellee. The parish priest of Victoria.      D. cuadrados de superficie; Titulo Num. Rigor cuadrados de superficie; a cualquier pariente mio varon mas cercano que estudie la carrera eclesiastica hasta ordenarse de http://www. CA­G. 6525. Fortunato Gamalinda. Jr. 24319 R. APRIL 30. Parish Priest of the Roman Catholic Church of Victoria. died on August 9. leaving a will executed on October 29.998 m. 6548. Palanca Sr. the will contained the following controversial bequest (paragraphing supplied to facilitate comprehension of the testamentary provisions): “Doy y dejo como legado CUATRO (4) PARCELAS de terreno palayeros.R. That devise was made in the will of the late Father Pascual Rigor. in favor of his nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood. situados en el municipio de Guimba de la provincia de NUEVA ECIJA. a native of Victoria. 1933 which was probated by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac in its order of December 5. 1963).

and in the interim to be administered by the actual Catholic Priest of the Roman Catholic Church of Victoria. Tarlac. y si el actual legatario. pasara la administracion de este legado a cargo del actual Parroco Catolico y sus sucesores. the administratrix in 1940 submitted a project of partition containing the following item: “5.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15 . to wit: 498 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria. quedase excomulgado. “El Parroco administrador de estate legado.com. Tarlac. LEGACY OF THE CHURCH “That it be adjudicated in favor of the legacy purported to be given to the nearest male relative who shall take the priesthood.a) Que el legatario pariente mio mas cercano tendra derecho de empezar a gozar y administrar de este legado al principiar a curzar la Sagrada Teologia. hasta su muerte; pero que pierde el legatario este derecho de administrar y gozar de este legado al dejar de continuar sus estudios para ordenarse de Presbiterado (Sacerdote).” To implement the foregoing bequest. acumulara anualmente todos los productos que puede tener estate legado. Philippines. Tarlac vs. ganando o sacando de los productos anuales el CINCO (5) por ciento para su administracion. a nombre de estate legado. depositando todo lo restante de los productos de estate legado.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 Presbiterado o sea Sacerdote; las condiciones de estate legado son: “(1. y ordenado de Sacerdote.central. the real properties hereinbelow indicated. IPSO FACTO se le despoja este legado. Tarlac. y la administracion de esto pasara a cargo del actual Parroco y sus sucesores de la Iglesia Catolica de Victoria. de Victoria. y los derechos correspondientes de las VEINTE (20) Misas rezadas que debiera el Parroco celebrar cada año. Rigor http://www. “Y en intervalo de tiempo que no haya legatario acondicionado segun lo arriba queda expresado. “Que el legatario una vez Sacerdote ya estara obligado a celebrar cada año VEINTE (20) Misas rezadas en sufragio de mi alma y de mis padres difuntos. or his successors.a) Prohibe en absoluto la venta de estos terrenos arriba situados objectos de este legado; “(2. en un banco.

00 T­6521 3666 11. 25 and 35. It may be noted that the administratrix and Judge Cruz did not bother to analyze the meaning and implications of Father Rigor’s bequest to his nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood. or on February 19. A new administrator was appointed.2998 18730 7.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 “Title No.2665 18736 1. Value T­6530 3663 1.00” Judge Roman A.00 T­6548 3445­C 24. 89. The probate court granted the petition.880.00 44. who should deliver to the church the said ricelands. Lot No.central. as admitted by the parish priest of Victoria.1163   “Total area and value — P13.580. The intestate heirs of Father Rigor countered with a petition dated March 25. Cruz in his order of August 15.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 499 6/15 . Area in Has. Florencia Rigor). 1979 http://www. Ass. directed that after payment of the obligations of the estate (including the sum of P3. 499 VOL.132.6249 18740 P340. 1940. approving the project of partition. and further praying that the possessors thereof be ordered to render an accounting of the fruits. Inasmuch as no nephew of the testator claimed the devise and as the administratrix and the legal heirs believed that the parish priest of Victoria had no right to administer the ricelands. On January 31. About thirteen years after the approval of the project of partition. Record on Appeal). 1954. “no nearest male relative of” the testator “has ever studied for the priesthood” (pp. 1957 praying that the bequest be declared inoperative and that they be adjudged as the persons entitled to the said ricelands since. APRIL 30. the same were not delivered to that ecclesiastic. Tax Dec. The testate proceeding remained pending.com. the parish priest of Victoria filed in the pending testate proceeding a petition praying for the appointment of a new administrator (succeeding the deceased administratrix.00 T­6525 3670 6.9251 18733 3.26 due to the church of the Victoria parish) the administratrix should deliver to the devisees their respective shares.290. 1957 the parish priest filed another petition for the delivery of the ricelands to the church as trustee.090.

ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15 . declared the bequest inoperative and adjudicated the ricelands to the testator’s legal heirs in his order of June 28. The administrator was directed to deliver the ricelands to the parish priest of Victoria as trustee. that factual finding is binding on this Court. the legal heirs argue that the Court of Appeals declared the bequest inoperative because no one among the testator’s nearest male relatives had studied for the priesthood and not because the trust was a private charitable trust. where the intention of the contracting 500 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED http://www. Judge De Aquino granted the second motion for reconsideration in his order of December 10. Tarlac vs. The legal heirs appealed to the Court of Appeals.central.com. It reversed that order. the lower court. citing articles 888 and 912(2) of the old Civil Code and article 870 of the new Civil Coda The parish priest in this appeal contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the testator created a public charitable trust and in not liberally construing the testamentary provisions so as to render the trust operative and to prevent intestacy. Rigor That petition was opposed by the parish priest of Victoria. 1957. As refutation. 1957 on the ground that the testator had a grandnephew named Edgardo G. through Judge Bernabe de Aquino. Finding that petition to be meritorious. According to the legal heirs. The parish priest filed two motions for reconsideration. In this case. They point out that appellant priest’s change of theory cannot be countenanced in this appeal. as in cases involving the law of contracts and statutory construction.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria. the same should pass to his legal heirs. It ruled that since no legatee claimed the ricelands within twenty years after the testator’s death. It held that Father Rigor had created a testamentary trust for his nearest male relative who would take the holy orders but that such trust could exist only for twenty years because to enforce it beyond that period would violate “the rule against perpetuities”. Cunanan (the grandson of his first cousin) who was a seminarian in the San Jose Seminary of the Jesuit Fathers in Quezon City.

1969. 3. Court of Appeals.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15 . the sovereign guide. the polestar. 27 Phil.com. March 28. 27 Phil. any interpretation must be in accord with the plain and literal meaning of his words. 501 http://www. (See Dissent of Justice Moreland in Santos vs. 2. 209. “The intent of the testator is the cardinal rule in the construction of wills. that he bequeathed the ricelands to anyone of his nearest male relatives who would pursue an ecclesiastical career until his ordination as a priest. 333). Civil Code of the Philippines). L­28734. That the devisee could not sell the ricelands. taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was made”. in giving effect to a will”. and once ordained as a priest. the primary issue is the determination of the testator’s intention which is the law of the case (dicat testor et erit lex. 27 SCRA 546). Tarlac vs. Manarang.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria. Rigor parties or of the lawmaking body is to be ascertained. 215; Rodriguez vs. but excluding the testator’s oral declarations as to his intention (Art 789. Manarang. That if the devisee became a priest. 209. 26 Phil. 237­8. except when it may certainly appear that his intention was different from that literally expressed (In re Estate of Calderon. Santos vs. it may be useful to make the following restatement of the provisions of his will: 1. he would be obligated to celebrate every year twenty masses with prayers for the repose of the souls of Father Rigor and his parents. That the devisee at the inception of his studies in sacred theology could enjoy and administer the ricelands. When his intention is clearly and precisely expressed. The will of the testator is the first and principal law in the matter of testaments. To ascertain Father Rigor’s intention.central.” It is “the life and soul of a will”. he could continue enjoying and administering the same up to the time of his death but the devisee would cease to enjoy and administer the ricelands if he discontinued his studies for the priesthood. It is “the first greatest rule.) One canon in the interpretation of the testamentary provisions is that “the testator’s intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will. 4. 223.

Tarlac vs. who would lose the devise if he discontinued his studies for the priesthood. or having been ordained a priest. What is not clear is the duration of “el intervalo de tiempo que no haya legatario acondicionado”. APRIL 30. who was forbidden to sell the ricelands.com. That during the interval of time that there is no qualified devisee. 89. during the interval of time that no nearest male relative of the testator was studying for the priesthood and two.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15 . it may be deduced that the testator intended to devise the ricelands to his nearest male relative who would become a priest. From the foregoing testamentary provisions. That the parish priest­administrator of the ricelands would accumulate annually the products thereof. and 7. On the other hand. depositing the balance of the income of the devise in the bank in the names of his bequest. it is clear that the parish priest of Victoria would administer the ricelands only in two situations: one. 6. That if the devisee is excommunicated. as contemplated above. he would be divested of the legacy and the administration of the ricelands would pass to the incumbent parish priest of Victoria and his successors. Rigor 5. It is that patent ambiguity that has brought about the controversy between the parish priest of Victoria and the testator’s legal heirs. obtaining or getting from the annual produce five percent thereof for his administration and the fees corresponding to the twenty masses with prayers that the parish priest would celebrate for each year. in case the testator’s nephew became a priest and he was excommunicated.central. 1979 501 Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria. the administration of the ricelands would be under the responsibility of the incumbent parish priest of Victoria and his successors. Interwoven with that equivocal provision is the time when the nearest male relative who would study for the http://www. and who would be obligated to say annually twenty masses with prayers for the repose of the souls of the testator and his parents. he was excommunicated.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 VOL. or how long after the testator’s death would it be determined that he had a nephew who would pursue an ecclesiastical vocation.

Mrs. Civil Code). when the testator specified his nearest male relative. although he was studying for the priesthood at the San Carlos Seminary. Escobar. “In order to be capacitated to inherit.com. It is contended by the legal heirs that the said devise was in reality intended for Ramon Quiambao. the legal heirs presented in the lower court the affidavit of Beatriz Gamalinda.. Mrs. Obviously. Rigor should he determined. the testator’s nephew and godchild. the maternal grandmother of Edgardo Cunanan. when it is proper” (Art. he must have had in mind his nephew or a son of his sister. 1025. To prove that contention. devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens. when the testator died.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15 . who deposed that after Father Rigor’s death. his nearest legal heirs were his three sisters or second­degree relatives.central. Mrs. except in case of representation. In 1935. who was the son of his sister. her own son. Manaloto and Mrs. But since he could not prognosticate the exact date of his death or state with certitude what category of nearest male relative would be living at the time of his death. the heir. Jr. he could not specify that his nearest male relative would be his nephew or grandnephews (the sone of his nephew or niece) and so he had to use the term “nearest male relative”. The said testamentary provisions should be sensibly or reasonably construed. Tarlac vs. Quiambao. did not claim the devise. or possibly a grandnephew. 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. who would be his third­degree relative. because she (Beatriz) knew that Father Rigor had intended that devise for his nearest male http://www. Quiambao. Did the testator contemplate only his nearest male relative at the time of his death? Or did he have in mind any of his nearest male relatives at anytime after his death? We hold 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. That could not have been his intention.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 priesthood 502 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria. Valentin Gamalinda.

Mrs. Edgardo.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/15 . What then did the testator mean by “el intervalo de tiempo que no haya legatario acondidonado”? The reasonable view is that he was referring to a situation whereby his nephew living at the time of his death. it should be stated at this juncture that Edgardo ceased to be a seminarian in 1961. But the moment the testator’s nephew entered the seminary. was not the one contemplated in Father Rigor’s will and that Edgardo’s father told her that he was not consulted by the parish priest of Victoria before the latter filed his second motion for reconsideration which was based on the ground that the testator’s grandnephew. the legal heirs apprised the Court of Appeals that the probate court’s order adjudicating the ricelands to the parish priest of Victoria had no more leg to stand on (p. Parenthetically. 1979 503 Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria.com. Rigor relative beloning to the Rigor family (pp. Our opinion that the said “bequest refers to the testator’s nephew who was living at the time of his death. Gamalinda further deposed that her own grandchild. when his succession was opened and the successional rights to his estate became vested. was studying for the priesthood at the San Jose Seminary.central. then he would be entitled to enjoy and administer the ricelands and http://www. the parish priest of Victoria would administer the ricelands before the nephew entered the seminary. Appellant’s brief).8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 503 VOL. Of course. He must have known that such a broad provision would suspend for an unlimited period of time the efficaciousness of his bequest. 105­114. Cunanan. In that case. has no probative value. Had the testator intended that the “cualquier pariente mio varon mas cercano que estudie la carrera eclesiastica” would include indefinitely anyone of his nearest male relatives born after his death. Edgardo G. 89. Mrs. Tarlac vs. 84. rests on a judicious and unbiased reading of the terms of the will. APRIL 30. which is tantamount to evidence aliunde as to the testator’s intention and which is hearsay. Record on Appeal). who would like to become a priest. he could have so specified in his will. For that reason. was still in grade school or in high school or was not yet in the seminary. Gamalinda’s affidavit.

it shall be merged into the estate. 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.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/15 . Record on Appeal). was likewise inoperative. That contention is untenable. 1954 and January 31. who desired to become a priest. having been ordained a priest. the administration of the ricelands by the parish priest of Victoria. 1957. had not yet entered the seminary or. In that event.central. no http://www. Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest. the trusteeship would be terminated.com. That query is categorically answered in paragraph 4 of appellant priest’s petitions of February 19.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 receive the fruits thereof. he was excommunicated. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that this case is covered by article 888 of the old Civil Code. Therefore. except in cases of substitution and those in which the right of accretion exists” (“el legado x x x por qualquier causa. which provides that if “the bequest for any reason should be inoperative. He unequivocally alleged therein that “no nearest male relative of the late (Father) Pascual Rigor has ever studied for the priesthood” (pp. now article 956. 25 and 35. 504 504 SUPREME COUBT REPORTS ANNOTATED Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria. The appellant in contending that a public charitable trust was constituted by the testator in is favor assumes that he was a trustee or a substitute devisee. as envisaged in the will. 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. Tarlac vs. A reading of the testamentary provisions regarding the disputed bequest not support the view that the parish priest of Victoria was a trustee or a substitute devisee in the event that the testator was not survived by a nephew who became a priest. Those two contingencies did not arise. the unavoidable conclusion is that the bequest in question was ineffectual or inoperative. Rigor Following that interpretation of the will. in this case because no nephew of the testator manifested any intention to enter the seminary or ever became a priest. and could not have arisen.

” There being no substitution nor accretion as to the said ricelands. 267). and through an independent action which would be tried by another Court or Judge which may thus reverse a decision or order of the probate or intestate court already final 506 http://www.      Abad Santos.central. 505 VOL.com. APRIL 30.—It is essentially the duty of every person dealing at arms’ length with the administrator of an estate subject of settlement and liquidation to inquire about the existence of claims against. Chairman). which provides that legal succession takes place when the will “does not dispose of all that belongs to the testator.. Tarlac vs. Costs against the petitioner. and Santos. J. Thus. SO ORDERED. if a conditional legacy does not take effect. 51 Phil.J. or of persons having an interest in the estate subject to probate and settlement proceedings. 1979 505 Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria. Rigor This case is also covered by article 912(2) of the old Civil Code. The old rule as to the indivisibility of the testator’s will is no longer valid.           Fernando (Actg. fuera de los casos de sustitución y derecho de acrecer”). Saavedra. now article 960 (2). Notes. did not take part.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 tenga efecto. The Appellate Court’s decision is affirmed. JJ. Sundiam. The better practice for the heir who has not received his share is to demand his share through a proper motion in the same probate or administration proceedings if it had already been closed. Antonio. Decision affirmed. (Dolor vs. Concepcion Jr.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/15 . Barredo (Actg.). 89. concur. se refundirá en la masa de la herencia. C. there will be intestate succession as to the property covered by the said legacy (Macrohon Ong Ham vs. 39 SCRA 616). the same should be distributed among the testator’s legal heirs. We find no merit in the appeal... The Civil Code recognizes that a person may die partly testate and partly intestate. or that there may be mixed succession. The effect is as if the testator had made no disposition as to the said ricelands.

(Ignacio vs. the court has no jurisdiction to determine who are the heirs of the brother of the deceased and who should inherit his estate.central. when clearly expressed in his will. 45 SCRA 251. (Vda. New Civil Code). must be settled in accordance therewith.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15 . 43 SCRA 111; Macias vs. 17 SCRA 418. (Guilas vs. 37 SCRA 672). 4 SCRA 550. Maravilla. Uy Kim.) The intention and wishes of the testator. Juico. 33 SCRA 252. should contribute for the payment of the creditor’s claims and taxes. de Villanueva vs. a compromise.) In a special proceeding for the settlement of an estate. 4 SCRA 1063. although it should purport to be a sale. 5 SCRA 313.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria. and the domicile of the testator only affects the venue but not the jurisdiction of the court. Borja. (Maravilla vs. (Uriarte vs. if other evidence satisfactorily show due execution.) Every act intended to put an end to in division among coheirs and legatees and divisees is deemed to be a partition. (Gutierrez vs. (Bacani vs.) A will may be allowed even if some witnesses do not remember having attested to it. Testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose. Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. Rigor and executed. relative to its execution and fulfillment. following the plain and literal meaning of the testators words. Judge of Court of First Instance. constitute the fixed law of interpretation.com. Tarlac vs. unless it clearly appears that his intention was otherwise. in possession of a portion of the decedent’s estate. Elchico. and all questions raised at the trial. 20 SCRA 100. an exchange.) The probate court acted correctly in holding a hearing to determine the amount and the manner in which an heir. 1082.) The power to settle decedent’s estate is conferred by law upon all Courts of First Instance. Villegas. (Rodriguez vs. Failure of a witness to identify his signature will not necessarily bar probate.) ——o0o—— 507 http://www. or any other transaction (Art. Galauran.

com. Inc.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f11059750790089003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15 .central. All rights reserved. http://www.8/9/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 © Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply.