1. Vda. De Kilayko v. Hon.
Judge Tencgo declared heirs to properties of L1 in the estate of L2(The
2. Rodolfo Lizares and Amelo Lizares v. Tengco, Vda
De Kilayko et. al
G.R 45425 | March 27,1992
Romero, J
Doctrine
Facts
1. Maria Lizares (L1)executed a will. She subsequently
died without any issue living the will in the custody of
her Niece, Eustaquia Lizares (L2)
2. The will was allowed probate and L2 was appointed
executrix. She filed a project for Partition wherein the
properties assigned to the heirs, devises, legatees and
usufructuaries were adjudicated to them.
3. The testate proceedings for L1 was closed
4. L2 filed a motion to re-open the testate proceedings
because there were properties that were omitted from the
partition and that these properties be adjudicated to the
which was granted.
5. L2 died without any issue. Rodolfo Lizares and Amelo
Lizares were appointed Joint Estate of L2s estate.
6. The Heirs of L1, on the strength of Paragraph 10 and 11
of the will which was in the nature of simple substitution,
filed a motion to re-open the proceedings so that they be
properties which were adjudicated to L2, refer to #4)
7. Motion was denied.MFR denied.
8. Heirs of L1 filed a complaint for Recovery of Ownership
and Possession of Real Property against the Joint
Administrators of the Estate of L2. They also filed a
notice of lis pendens with the RD.
9. Joint Administrators filed an MTD.
10. Judge Tengco cancelled the Notice of Lis Pendens and
held in abeyance the MTD
11. Hence this by the Joint Administrators of L2s Estate
arguing among others that what was intended by
Paragraph 10 and 11 of the will was a Fideicommisary
Substitution which was invalid
Issue: W/N Paragraph 10 and 11 of the will intended a
Fideicommisary substitution
Held: No.
Analysis:
1. Requisites for A Fideicommisary Substitution
a. There must be a first heir or fiduciary.
b. Absolute obligation is imposed upon the
fiduciary to preserve and transmit to a second
heir the property at a given time.
c. There must be a second heir who must be 1
degree from the first heir.
d. 1st and 2nd heir must be living and qualified when
the testator dies.
2. Paragraph 10 and 11 did not impose a clear obligation
on L2 to preserve the estate in favor of Vda. De Kilayco.
Hence there is no Fideicommisary Substitution.
Notes:
1. The will is in Spanish so its difficult to interpret the
provisions of paragraph 10 and 11.
2. The Court also said that the argument of Vda de Kilayco
that the said paragraphs imply a simple substitution is not
valid as this kind of substitution only takes place if the
first heir predeceased the testator and in this case, L2
outlived L1