Fideicommissary Substitution

Ramirez v. Ramirez

FACTS:

Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain on December 11, 1964, with only his
widow as compulsory heir. His will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Branch X, on July 27, 1965. Maria Luisa Palacios was appointed administratrix of the
estate.

On June 23, 1966, the administratrix submitted a project of partition as follows: the property of
the deceased is to be divided into two parts. One part shall go to the widow “en plenodominio” in
satisfaction of her legitime; the other part or “free portion” shall go to Jorge and Roberto
Ramirez “en nudapropriedad.” Furthermore, one third (1/3) of the free portion is charged with
the widow‟s usufruct and the remaining two-third (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of Wanda.

-APPEAL for the partitioning of testate estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez (a Filipino national, died
in Spain on December 11, 1964) among principal beneficiaries:

Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez

-widow

-French who lives in Paris

-received ½ (as spouse) and usufructuary rights over 1/3 of the free portion

Roberto and Jorge Ramirez

-two grandnephews

-lives in Malate

-received the ½ (free portion)

Wanda de Wrobleski

-companion

-Austrian who lives in Spain

-received usufructuary rights of 2/3 of the free portion

-vulgar substitution in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio Ramirez

-Maria Luisa Palacios -administratix

-Jorge and Roberto Ramirez opposed because

a. vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda wrt widow’s usufruct and in favor of Juan Pablo
Jankowski and Horacio Ramirez, wrt to Wanda’s usufruct is INVALID because first heirs
(Marcelle and Wanda) survived the testator

b. fideicommissary substitutions are INVALID because first heirs not related to the second heirs
or substitutes within the first degree as provided in Art 863 CC

c. grant of usufruct of real property in favor of an alien, Wanda, violated Art XIII Sec 5

d. proposed partition of the testator’’s interest in the Santa Cruz Building between widow and
appellants violates testators express will to give this property to them

-LC: approved partition

ISSUE

WON the partition is valid insofar as substitutions

HELD

b. Vulgar substitutions are valid because dying before the testator is not the only case where a
vulgar substitution can be made. Also, according to Art 859 CC, cases also include refusal or
incapacity to accept inheritance therefore it is VALID.

BUT fideicommissary substitutions are VOID because Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace
Ramirez are not related to Wande and according to Art 863 CC, it validates a fideicommissary
substitution provided that such substitution does not go beyond one degreefrom the heir
originally instituted. Another is that there is no absolute duty imposed on Wanda to transmit the
usufructuary to the substitutes and in fact the apellee agrees that the testator contradicts the
establishment of the fideicommissary substitution when he permits the properties be subject to
usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement ofthe usufructuaries and naked owners.