RABADILLA vs.

CA

June 29, 2000 20

FACTS:

In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,
predecessor-in-interest of the herein petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of
parcel of land. The Codicil provides that Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies, every year
to give Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, (75) (sic) piculs of Export sugar and (25) piculs of Domestic
sugar, until the said Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza dies.

Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died. Private respondent brought a complaint, to enforce the provisions of subject
Codicil.

ISSUE:

WON the obligations of Jorge Rabadilla under the Codicil are inherited by his heirs.

HELD:

Under Article 776 of the NCC, inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person,
not extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue of subject
Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his death. And since obligations not
extinguished by death also form part of the estate of the decedent; corollarily, the obligations imposed
by the Codicil on the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs
upon his death.
IBARLE v. PO

GR No.L-5064, February 27, 1953 21

92 PHIL 721

FACTS: Leonardo Winstanley died leaving a parcel of land to his surviving spouse Catalina Navarro and
some minor children. Catalina sold the entire parcel of land to Maria Canoy who later sold the same land
to the plaintiff Bienvenido Ibarle. After some time, after her appointment as guardian of her minor
children, Catalina again sold 1/2 of the land in question, which portion now belonged to the children as
heirs, to herein defendant Esperanza Po.

ISSUE: Which sale was valid, and who has the rightful claim to the property?

HELD: The sale to defendant is valid. Article 657 of the old Civil Code provides: "The rights to the
succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of his death." in a slightly different language,
this article is incorporated in the new Civil Code as article 777.

The above provision and comment make it clear that when Catalina Navarro Vda. de Winstanley sold
the entire parcel to the Canoy spouses, one-half of it already belonged to the seller's children. No formal
or judicial declaration being needed to confirm the children's title, it follows that the first sale was null
and void in so far as it included the children's share.