Johnny RABADILLA v.
CA and Maria Marlena Conscuella Y Belleza o In the event of non-compliance, Maria shall immediately seize
Villacarlos
Solemnities of Wills: Codicils | Testamentary Succession: Kinds of Institution of
Heirs| June 29, 2000 | Purisima
Nature of Case: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of
Appeals.
Digest maker: Dacillo
SUMMARY: Aleja left a Will with a codicil attached to it, wherein she left the
subject lot to Dr. Jorge, with the obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar to
Respondent Maria annually, else the lot will be seized by Maria and given to
Aleja’s near descendants. When Dr. Jorge died, Petitioner Johnny, his son,
succeeded him. Maria filed a complaint against Dr. Jorge’s heirs for non-
compliance with the obligation to deliver to Maria. RTC ruled for Johnny. CA
reversed for Maria. SC affirmed that Maria has the right to seize the lot
because Johnny, as Dr. Jorge’s modal heir, inherited the obligation under the
Codicil.
DOCTRINE:
#1 on Codicils: A codicil is supplement or addition to a will, made after the
execution of a will and annexed to be taken as a part thereof, by which
disposition made in the original will is explained, added to, or altered.”
<A825, NCC> A codicil is ALWAYS related to some prior will. It explains,
alters, or adds to the original will. <Tolentino>
#2 on Kinds of Institution of Heirs:
1. Institution sub modo or modal institution: a mode imposes an
obligation upon the heir or legatee but it does not affect the efficacy of WON this is a modal institution? – YES
his rights to his succession. Here, the testator states:
a. The object of the institution
b. The purpose or application of the property left by the testator
c. The charge imposed by the testator upon the heir
2. Conditional testamentary disposition: condition must happen or be
fulfilled in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the testator.
The condition suspends but does not obligate; and the mode obligates but
does not suspend.
● Aleja Belleza left a will and testament, appended to which is a codicil. In
the codicil, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, Petitioner Johnny’s father, was instituted
as a devisee of a parcel of land in Bacolod. The codicil was duly
probated and admitted.
o It was indicated in the codicil that Dr. Jorge, his heirs, and any
buyer, lessee, mortgagee of the subject lot shall deliver 100
piculs of sugar to Respondent Maria until Maria dies.
the lot and turn it over to Aleja’s near descendants, who shall
continue the obligation.
● Dr. Jorge died in 1983, and is surivived by his wife, daughters, and
herein petitioner Johnny, his son.
● In 1989, Respondent Maria brought a complaint against Dr. Jorge’s heirs
for non-compliance to the condition of delivery of sugar to her since
1985.
● During pre-trial, the parties admitted the existence of a Memorandum of
Agreement settlement between Respondent Maria and Alan Azurin,
lessee of the subject lot. But there was no compliance to the MoA.
● RTC DISMISSED the complaint in favor of Petitioner Johnny.
o Action is premature because Respondent Maria has no cause of
action against Petitioner Johnny. It’s Dr. Jorge who is the owner
and devisee, and Respondent Maria cannot come after Petitioner
Johnny simply because he is Dr. Jorge’s son.
● CA REVERSED in favor of Respondent Mari.
o Respondent Maria has a right to receive the sugar from
Petitioner Johnny, as he is the modal heir of Dr. Jorge.
WON there is cause of action? – YES
1. Petitioner Johnny, as well as his mother and sisters, are compulsory
heirs of Dr. Jorge, therefore they succeeded him by operation of law. The
succession includes the right/ownership of the subject lot as well as the
obligation to Respondent Maria which attaches to the lot by virtue of the
codicil.
2. Petitioner Johnny claims that this is not a modal institution, but a mere
substitution where Aleja’s near descendants are only meant to substitute
in the obligation to deliver sugar to Respondent Maria. It is not a modal
institution where the non-compliance of the obligation merits the
reversion of the lot back to the estate of Aleja.
3. Substitution: the designation by the testator of a person/s to take the
place of the heir/s first instituted.
a. Simple substitution: 2nd heir takes the inheritance in default of the 1st
heir by reason of incapacity, pre-decease, or renunciation.
i. Court held that there is no simple substitution because there is no
condition of pre-decease, incapacity, or renunciation necessary
before Aleja’s near descendants can substitute Dr. Jorge or his
heir.
b. Fideicommissary substitution: the 1st heir is strictly mandated to
preserve the property and transmit it to the 2nd heir.
i. Court held that there is no fideicommissary substitution because
there is no obligation to preserve; and because the 2nd heirs
(Aleja’s near descendants) are not related at all to the 1st heir (Dr.
 Jorge), when the requirement is that the 2nd heir must not be
beyond 1 degree from the 1st heir.
4. [See Doctrine #2]
5. Here, Aleja intended that the lot be inherited by Dr. Jorge. She then
imposed an obligation on him and his heirs. BUT she did not make Dr.
Jorge’s inheritance be dependent on the performance of the obligation.
a. The manner of institution is evidently modal in nature because it
imposes a charge upon the heir without affecting the efficacy of the
institution.

WON Respondent Maria only holds a right of usufruct, and not a right to seize
the property? – NO
1. When an uncertainty arises on the face of the Will, the testator’s
intention is to be ascertained from the words of the Will. Such
construction as will sustain and uphold the will in all its parts must be
adopted.
2. It was clear in the codicil that Maria has the right to seize the property.

WON the MoA between Maria and Alan works as substantial compliance on the
part of Johnny? – NO
1. Johnny claims that because of the MoA, Maria’s recourse is now to
enforce the obligation under the MoA and not the seizure of the lot.
2. The Court held that a Will is a personal, solemn, revocable, and free act
by which a person disposes of his property, to take affect after his death.
3. Wishes and desires of the testator must be strictly followed, and the Will
cannot be subject of a MoA/compromise agreement which would
thereby defeat the very purpose of making a Will.

RULING: Petition DISMISSED. CA AFFIRMED.

Vitug, J. Separate Opinion:

1. Mode obligates the instituted heir to comply with the mandate made by
the testator but does not prevent the heir from at once claiming the
inheritance provided he gives a security to ensure compliance with the
will of the testator and the return of the thing received together with its
fruits and interests, “should (the heir) disregard this obligation.”
a. The obligation imposed upon the heir or legatee is deemed not
to be a condition for his entry forthwith into the inheritance
unless a contrary intention of the testator is evident.
2. Condition dictates the efficacy, either in a suspensive or resolutory
manner, of a testamentary disposition.
3. In case of doubt, the institution is considered modal, rather than
conditional.