ANGELA M. BUTTE, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANUEL UY a SONS, INC.

, defendant-appellee

Facts:  Jose V. Ramirez, during his lifetime, was a co-owner of a house and lot located at Sta. Cruz, Manila. Other
owners are Marie GarnierVda. de Ramirez, 1/6; José V. Ramirez, 1/6; José E. Ramirez, 1/6; Belen T. Ramirez, 1/6; Rita
De Ramirez, 1/6; and José Ma. Ramirez, 1/6.

On October 20, 1951. José V. Ramirez died. Subsequently, Special Proceeding No. 15026 was instituted to settle his
estate, that included the one-sixth (1/6) undivided share in the aforementioned property. His last will and testament
has been admitted to probate, wherein he bequeathed his estate to his children and grandchildren and one-third
(1/3) of the free portion to Mrs. Angela M. Butte, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff-appellant. The Bank of the
Philippine Islands was appointed judicial administrator.

Meanwhile, on December 9, 1958, Mrs. Marie GarnierVda. de Ramirez, one of the co-owners of the late José V.
Ramirez in the Sta. Cruz property, sold her undivided 1/6 share to Manuel Uy& Sons, Inc., defendant-appellee herein,
for the sum of P500,000.00. After the execution an affidavit to the effect that formal notices of the sale had been
sent to all possible redemptioners, the deed of sale was duly registered and the old TCT was cancelled in lieu of which
a new one was issued in the name of the vendee and the other-co-owners.

On the same day (December 9, 1958), Manuel Uya l Son Inc. sent a letter to the Bank of the Philippine Islands as
judicial administrator of the estate of the late José V. Ramirez informing it of the above-mentioned sale. This letter,
together with that of the bank, was forwarded by the latter to Mrs. Butte.

On January 15, 1959, Mrs. Angela M. Butte, sent a letter and a Philippine National Bank cashier’s check in the amount
of P500,000.00 to Manuel Uy a l Sons, Inc. offering to redeem share sold by Mrs. Marie GarnierVda. de Ramirez. This
tender having been refused, plaintiff on the same day consigned the amount in court and filed the corresponding
action for legal redemption. Without prejudice to the determination by the court of the reasonable and fair market
value of the property sold which she alleged to be grossly excessive, plaintiff prayed for conveyance of the property,
and for actual, moral and exemplary damages.

May 13, 1959, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.

Issue: WON the plaintiff in the case at bar has a right to redeem the property

Held: By law, the rights to the succession of a deceased person are transmitted to his heirs from the moment of his
death, and the right of succession includes all property, rights and obligations that survive the decedent so from the
instant of Jose Ramirez’ death, his heirs became co-owners of an undivided share and co-owner of the whole
property thus they became entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption as soon as another co-owner has sold
his undivided share to a stranger. The presence of the judicial administrator is of no moment because the rights of
the administrator of possession and administration of the real and personal estate of the deceased do not include
the right of legal redemption of the undivided share sold to Manuel Uy and Sons because the right to redeem only
came into existence when the sale was perfected 8 years from the death of Jose Ramirez. Theadministrator cannot
exercise the right of redemption since the land was sold AFTER the death of Ramirez. The administrator may exercise
the right to redeem only if the right pertains to the estate, and this can only happen if the sale of said portion to Uy
was done before the death of Ramirez.

2. Conde v. Abaya [March 23, 1909]

Facts:
·         Casiano Abaya died in 1899 unmarried however leaving two unaknowledged children by Paula Conde. The two
children died as minors in 1902 and 1903. The mother sued for the settlement of the intestate estate of Casiano
along with the acknowledgment of the two as natural children of the deceased.
·         The trial court, with the opposition of the Roman Abaya, brother of the deceased, rendered judgment
bestowing the estate of Casiano to Conde as legitimate heir of the decedent's natural children.
Issues:
1. WON an ordinary action for the acknowledgment of natural children may be brought in special probate
proceedings. (YES)
·         Section 782 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
o    If there shall be a controversy before the Court of First Instance as to who the lawful heirs of the
deceased person are, or as to the distributive share to which each person is entitled under the law, the
testimony as to such controversy shall be taken in writing by the judge, under oath, and signed by the
witness. Any party in interest whose distributive share is affected by the determination of such
controversy, may appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance determining such
controversy to the Supreme Court, within the time and in the manner provided in the last preceding
section.P3ach3s

2.  WON the mother of a natural child now deceased, but who survived the person who, it is claimed, was his natural
father, also deceased, may bring an action for the acknowledgment of the natural filiation in favor of such child?  in
order to appear in his behalf to receive the inheritance from the person who is supposed to be his natural father. (NO)
#peaches

·         The power to transmit the right of such action by the natural child to his descendants cannot be sustained
under the law, and still less to his mother.

CIVIL CODE RULES FOR FILIATION

Legitimate Child Illegitimate Child
Period ·         Lasts during the whole lifetime of the child ·         GR: Lasts ONLY during the lifetime of the
when it (NCC 118) presumed parent
can be ·         E: Within 5 years should the child die (NCC ·         E:
filed 118) o    Presumed parent died during the
o    Minor minority of the child [within 4 years]
o    Insane o    An instrument where the parent
expressly acknowledged the child [six
months after discover] (NCC 137)
Who may ·         GR: Child himself ·         Code is silent
bring the ·         E: Transmitted to its heirs should the child die:
action o    Minor
o    Insane
o    Child dies after instituting the action

·         The court concluded that the right is not transmissible to the heirs of the natural child by the following
argument: It cannot place a natural child on a better position by assuming that the right is transmitted to the
heirs as a general rule when it only grants exceptions to a legitimate child

Torres Dissenting Opinion:

·         While for those of the natural child, there is no provision in the code authorizing the same, although on the
other hand there is none that prohibits it. As a solution, the right of action to claim acknowledgment of a
natural child is transmitted by analogy to his heirs on the same conditions and terms that it is transmitted to
the descendants of the legitimate child under article 118, but no more.
·         Since the children died while they were minors, they should be allowed to file an action.
Side Notes:

FAMILY CODE RULES FOR FILIATION[1]

Legitimate Child Illegitimate Child
Period ·         Lasts during the whole lifetime of the child (FC ·         If it’s based on a primary evidence = same way
when it 173) as legitimate child
can be ·         E: Within 5 years should the child die (FC 173) ·         If it’s based on a secondary evidence = within
filed o    Minor the lifetime of the parent
o    Insane

Who may ·         GR: Child himself ·         FC 175 states that it may be “established in
bring the ·         E: Transmitted to its heirs should the child die: the same way as a legitimate child”. It may be
action o    Minor inferred that as long as the action is based on
o    Insane primary evidence it may be transmitted to the
o    Child dies after instituting the action heirs of the child.

[1] Types of Evidence to prove filiation

A.     Primary
1.        Record of birth in civil register or final judgments
2.        Admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent
concerned

B.     Secondary
1.        Open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child
2.        Other means allowed by the rules of court and special laws
o    Baptismal certificate of child
o    Judicial admission
o    Family bible wherein the name of the child is entered
o    Common reputation respecting pedigree
o    Admission by silence
o    Testimonies of witnesses
o    Other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
 G.R. No. 113725, June 29, 2000

JOHNNY S. RABADILLA VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND MARIA MARLENA  COSCOLUELLA Y BELLEZA VILLACARLOS

FACTS: In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla was
instituted as a devisee of a parcel of land surveyed as Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre. Pursuant to the same
Codicil, Lot No. 1392 was transferred to the deceased, Rabadilla, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 44498 thereto
issued in his name. Rabadilla died and was survived by his wife and children including Johnny (petitioner).

Maria Marlena brought a complaint against the heirs of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, to enforce the provisions of subject
Codicil alleging that defendant-heirs failed to comply with their obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar to Maria
Marlena from sugar crop years 1985 up to the filing of the complaint as mandated by the Codicil, despite repeated
demands for compliance.

ISSUE: Whether there was no modal institution and the testatrix intended a mere simple substitution.

RULING: NO. The institution of an heir in the manner prescribed in Article 882 is what is known in the law of
succession as an institucion sub modo  or a modal institution. A "mode" imposes an obligation upon the heir or
legatee but it does not affect the efficacy of his rights to the succession. 

From the provisions of the Codicil litigated upon, it can be gleaned unerringly that the testatrix intended that subject
property be inherited by Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. It is likewise clearly worded that the testatrix imposed an obligation on
the said instituted heir and his successors-in-interest to deliver one hundred piculs of sugar to the herein private
respondent, Marlena Coscolluela Belleza, during the lifetime of the latter. However, the testatrix did not make Dr.
Jorge Rabadilla's inheritance and the effectivity of his institution as a devisee, dependent on the performance of the
said obligation. It is clear, though, that should the obligation be not complied with, the property shall be turned over
to the testatrix's near descendants. The manner of institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla under subject Codicil is evidently
modal in nature because it imposes a charge upon the instituted heir without, however, affecting the efficacy of such
institution.

Then too, since testamentary dispositions are generally acts of liberality, an obligation imposed upon the heir should
not be considered a condition unless it clearly appears from the Will itself that such was the intention of the testator.
In case of doubt, the institution should be considered as modal and not conditional.