1. Santos vs. Blas de Buenaventura, G.R. No.

L-22797,
September 22, 1966 (and Resolution dated November 29,
1966)
 2nd Par

2. Fernandez vs. Dimagiba, G.R. Nos. L-23638 and L-23662,

October 12, 1967
 3. Belen vs. BPI, G.R. No. L-14474, October 31, 1960

ONESIMA D. BELEN, petitioner-appellant, v. BPI and MILAGROS BELEN DE

OLAGUERA, oppositors-appellees.
Reyes, J.B.L., October 31, 1960 G.R. No. L-14474
J.
Doctrine Art. 959 applies only in cases where the beneficiaries are relatives of the testator, not
of the legatee. The law assumes the testator intended to refer to the rules of intestacy
to benefit the relatives closest to him.
Summary Onesima sought to get a larger share of the legacies left by the testator to Filomena
Diaz, her mother. She claims that by virtue of the testator’s will, the latter intended
that the legacies left to Filomena are to be shared equally only by Filomena’s
children, Onesima and Milagros, to the exclusion of Milagros’ 7 children. Basically,
she wanted a 1/2 share, not just a 1/8 share, which is what she would get if she were
 to share with the children of Milagros. SC ruled that Art. 959, which provides that a
distribution made in general terms in favor of the testator’s relatives benefit only those
closest in degree to the testator, does not apply. The disposition made by the testator
was a distribution which was in favor of the relatives of the legatee, not the testator. It
also held that Onesima failed to prove that the testator intended the interpretation she
was pushing.
Facts • Decedent Benigno Diaz executed a will and, later, a codicil. The latter
contained the following provisions:
9.0 — In case of death of some or all legatees appointed by me, the
beneficiaries will pass the legacies in favor only of legitimate
descendants and ancestors, but not the surviving spouses.
10.0 —Ten to fifteen years after my death all property, movable or
immovable, rights and advantageous, can proceed to the sale of all
giving preference to legatees and of its total amount will be deducted
P1,000 for the 4 children of my late brother Fabian, all expenses and
reserving a sufficient and well calculated amount to cover expenses for
another ten years for the orders and masses. The remainder would be
distributed to the following people who still live, or to their legitimate
descendants: A Isabel M. de Santiago —50%; Los hijos de Domingo
Legarda —30%; Filomena Diaz —10%; Nestor M. Santiago —10%
• After he died in November 2, 1944, the will and codicil were admitted to
probate. Administration proceedings ended in 1950, with the estate put under
the administration of BPI as trustee for the benefit of the legatees.
• Filomena Diaz died on February 8, 1954, leaving two legitimate children:
o Milagros (married with 7 children); and
o Onesima (single).
• Onesima filed a petition, alleging that the amount which pertained to Filomena
under the will and codicil should divided equally only between Milagros and her,
to the exclusion of Milagros’ children.
o Onesima petitioned the court to order BPI to deliver to her "one-
half of whatever share [was due to] Filomena Diaz as legatee in
the will and codicil of the deceased testator…"
• CFI: Denied the petition. Hence, this petition.
Issues/Ratio
I. W/N the share of Filomena in clause 10 of the codicil forms part of her
estate so that it pertains to her legitimate descendants (YES)
By the last part of par. 10, the testator ordained a simple substitution with a
plurality of substitutes for each legatee. This is authorized by Art. 860: Two or
more persons may be substituted for one and one person for two or more
heirs.

II. W/N the share of Filomena should be distributed (1) between her children
only; OR (2) also among her other legitimate descendants (ALSO
AMONG FILOMENA’S OTHER LEGITIMATE DESCENDANTS)
The issue is with regard also to the last sentence of clause 10: does "sus
descendientes legitimos" (their legitimate descendants) refer (1) conjointly to
all living descendant (both children and grandchildren) of the legatee, as a
class; or they refer to the (2) descendants nearest in degree?

Onesima: Only the relatives nearest in degree to Filomena Diaz. The legacy
should be divided equally between her and her sister Milagros, to the exclusion
of the latter's sons and daughters, invoking Art. 959: A distribution made in
general terms in favor of the testator's relatives shall be understood as made
in favor of those nearest in degree.

SC: Art. 959 applies only in cases where the beneficiaries are relatives of the
testator, not of the legatee. The law assumes the testator intended to refer to
the rules of intestacy to benefit the relatives closest to him, because, as
according to Manresa, among a testator's relative the closest are dearest.

This, however, does not come into play where the beneficiaries are relatives
of another person (the legatee) and not of the testator. There is no reason to
presume that the testator intended to refer to the rules of intestacy, for he
precisely made a testament and provided substitutes for each legatee; nor can
it be said that his affections would prefer the nearest relatives of the legatee to
those more distant, since he envisages all of them in a group, and only as
mere substitutes for a preferred beneficiary.

Should Article 959 be applied by analogy? There are various reasons against
this:
1. The most important one is that, as recognized by the principal commentators
on the Code of 1889, the nearest relatives exclude all the farther relatives
and right of representation does not operate.
2. Second, the history of provision shows that the right of representation
was deliberately suppressed.

By applying to the descendants of Filomena Diaz the "nearest relatives" rule of

Art. 959, the inheritance would be limited to her children, excluding the
grandchildren. This could hardly be the intention of the testator who referred to
the substitutes of those persons listed in clause 10 as the descendants of the
substitutes.

In order to support the claim of Olaguera, the latter must have proven that the
testator intended to impose an order of succession that:
(a) Rejected the right of accretion among co-heirs and co-legatees, as
established by Arts. 1016 and 1019, and he intended to replace it with
representation; (to get a larger share as compared to Milagros’ children)
(b) Refused the rule of Art. 846 which would have ordained that co-heirs inherit
in equal parts, unless otherwise provided; (also to get a larger share) and
(c) Rejected the rule of Art. 1022 which provides that vacancies in the free part
should be filed according to the rules of accretion or substitution, and in
default of these two, by the rules of intestacy.

The testator could have rendered inoperative all the articles mentioned, if he
had so desired but without any other supporting circumstances, SC held that
the testator did not intend to circumvent all the legal provisions with the one
phrase "sus descendientes legitimes." Appellant failed to prove such intention
on the part of the testator.

In the absence of other indications of contrary intent, the proper rule to apply
here is that the testator, by designating a class or group of legatees,
 intended all members thereof to succeed per capita, in consonance with
Art. 846. The legacy to Filomena Diaz should be equally divided among her
surviving children and grandchidren.

Holding Order appealed from AFFIRMED.

4. Racca vs. Echague, G.R. No. 237133, January 20, 2021

NOTES FOR EMERGENCY RECITATION:
Notice to the designated and known heirs, devisees and legatees
under Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court is mandatory.
Publication of notice of hearing is not sufficient when the places of
residence of the heirs, legatees and devisees are known.

It should be stressed the rule on personal notice was instituted in

Sec. 4 to safeguard the right to due process of unsuspecting heirs,
legatees or devisees who, without their knowledge, were being
excluded from participating in a proceeding which may affect their
right to succeed in the estate.

- MIGDONIO RACCA and MIAM GRACE DIANNE RACCA v.

MARIA LOLITA A. ECHAGUE, G.R. No. 237133, 20 January 2021