1)PALACIOS VS 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

a. widow’s legitime

b. substitutions

c. usufruct of Wanda

HELD

a. YES, appellants do not question ½ because Marcelle is the

widow[1]and over which he could impose no burden, encumbrance,
condition or substitution of any kind whatsoever[2]

-the proposed creation by the admininstratix in favor of the

testator’s widow of a usufruct over 1/3 of the free portion of the
testator’s estate cannot be made where it will run counter to the
testator’s express will. The Court erred for Marcelle who is entitled
to ½ of the estate “enpleno dominio” as her legitime and which is
more than what she is given under the will is not entitled to have
any additional share in the estate. To give Marcelle more than her
legitime will run counter to the testator’s intention for as stated
above his disposition even impaired her legitime and tended to favor
Wanda.

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.

c. YES, usufruct of Wanda is VALID

-Art XIII[3]Sec 5 (1935): Save in cases of hereditary succession, no

private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except
toindividuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or
hold land of the public domain in the Philippines.[4]

The lower court upheld the usufruct thinking that the Constitution
covers not only succession by operation of law but also
testamentary succession BUT SC is of the opinion that this
provision does not apply to testamentary succession for otherwise
the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless. Any alien would
circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine
landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land BUT an
alienmay be bestowed USUFRUCTUARY RIGHTS over a parcel of
land in the Philippines. Therefore, the usufruct in favor of Wanda,
although a real right, is upheld because it does not vest title to the
land in the usufructuary (Wanda) and it is the vesting of title to
land in favor of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.

Decision:½ Marcelle (as legitime), ½ Jorge and Roberto Ramirez

(free portion) in naked ownership and the usufruct to Wanda de
Wrobleski with simple substitution in favor of Juan Pablo
Jankowski and Horace Ramirez
 e.5)PADURA VS BALDOVINO

FACTS

Agustin married twice. His first wife was Gervacia with whom
he had one child named Manuel. His second wife was Benita with
whom he had two children named Fortunato and Candelaria. He
died leaving a will and bequeathing his properties among his three
children and Benita. Fortunato was adjudicated four parcels of
land.

Fortunato died without any heirs, thus, the four parcels of

land he received from his father were transmitted to her mother
Benita. After her mother died, Fortunato’s nephews and nieces from
his full sister Candelaria and half-brother Manuel took possession
of the property. The court ruled that the nephews and nieces should
have equal shares over the property.

The Baldovinos, four children of Candelaria, contended that

the nephews of the whole blood are entitled to a share twice as large
as that of the others pursuant to the rules on intestate succession.
The Paduras, seven children of Manuel, argued that they should all
be deemed inheriting in their own right hence, they should have
equal shares.

ISSUE

Whether or not the rules on intestate succession applies after

the application of the rule on reserva troncal

HELD

Yes. The purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the

property has devolved to the specified relatives of the line of origin.
Thereafter, Article 891 has nothing to do with the relations between
one reservatario and another of the same degree. Their shares
should be governed by the ordinary rules of intestate succession.

Therefore, whole blood nephews will get twice the share of

those who are nephews of half-blood.
 e.15)SUMAYA VS IAC

FACTS

Raul Balantakbo inherited 1/3 interest pro-indiviso of a lot in Liliw

from his father, and 1/7 interest pro-indiviso in 10 parcels of land
from his maternal grandmother. Raul then died intestate, leaving
his mother Consuelo Joaquin Vda. De Balantakbo as his sole
surviving heir.

Consuelo then adjudicated unto herself the properties in an

affidavit then subsequently sold the same to Mariquita Sumaya who
in turn sold them to Villa Honorio Dev’t Corp. who in turn sold
them to Agro-Industrial Coconut Cooperative (the present
possessors of the properties). Consuelo then died.

The brothers in “full blood” of Raul, and his niece and nephews
from a dead brother then filed suits to recover the properties which
were sold by Consuelo, arguing that the same properties were
subject to a reserva troncal in their favour. They claim that since
there was no annotation in the title, they should be treated as
innocent purchasers in good faith and for value, thus they may not
be stripped of the properties.

RTC ruled in favor of Balantakbo clan, and ordered the possessor of

the properties to convey the same to the Balantakbos. It said that
the registration of an affidavit of the self-adjudication of the estate
of Raul, wherein it was clearly stated that the properties were
inherited from Raul’s father and maternal grandmother, was in its
form, declaration, and substance, a recording in the Registry of
Deeds of the reservable character of the properties.

ISSUE

Whether or not the registration of the affidavit of self-adjudication

operated as an annotation to the title to the properties.

HELD

It was admitted that the certificates of titles covering the properties

in question show that they were free from any liens and
encumbrances at the time of the sale. The fact remains however,
that the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Consuelo stating
the source of the properties thereby showing the reservable nature
thereof was registered with the Register of Deeds of Laguna, and
this is sufficient notice to the whole world in accordance with
Section 52 of the Property Registration Decree (formerly Sec. 51 of
R.A. 496) which provides:

Sec. 52. Constructive Notice Upon Registration

“Every conveyance, mortgage,lease, lien attachment, order,

judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered landshall, if
registered, filed or entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for
the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be
constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering,
filing or entering.”

Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has

examined every instrument of record affecting the title. Such
presumption is irrebuttable. He is charged with notice of every fact
shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact which an
examination of the record would have disclosed. This presumption
cannot be overcome by proof of innocence or good faith. Otherwise,
the very purpose and object of the law requiring a record would be
destroyed. Such presumption cannot be defeated by proof of want of
knowledge of what the record contains any more than one may be
permitted to show that he was ignorant of the provisions of the law.

The affidavit of self adjudication executed by Consuelo which

contained a statement that the property was inherited from a
descendant, Raul, which has likewise inherited by the latter from
another ascendant, was registered with the Registry of Property.
The failure of the Register of Deeds to annotate the reservable
character of the property in the certificate of title cannot be
attributed to Consuelo.