Allowance and Disallowance of Wills–(Arts.

838-839,in relation to Rule75- 90 of the Revised

Rules of Court)
Rosario Vda De Signson vs. De Lim
19 February 1943 G.R. No. L-48627 OZAETA, J.:
DOCTRINE/APPLICATION IN THE CASE
ARTICLE 959. A disposition made in general terms in favor of the testator’s relatives shall be understood
to be in favor of those nearest in degree. (751)
FACTS
Don Vicente Singson Pablo, a lawyer from Vigan, Ilocos Sur, died in 1938, leaving a will that was duly
probated. Clause 8 of the will stated that all the testator's properties not disposed of otherwise in the
testament should be distributed equally among those entitled to it. The widow, acting as administratrix,
submitted a project of partition, allocating the properties to the four brothers and four nieces of the
deceased. The brothers objected, asserting that, based on clause 8 and Article 751 of the Civil Code, the
nieces were not entitled to a share. The nieces also objected to the project of partition, alleging that
certain other specified properties had been omitted therefrom, which formed part of the properties
not disposed of and which under clause 8 of the will "should be distributed in equal parts to all who are
entitled thereto."
ISSUE/S (relevant to the topic)
Whether or not the phrase "all who are entitled thereto" under clause 8 operates as a form of
disinheritance.
RULING
NO. The Court ruled that the phrase "all who are entitled thereto" under clause 8 does not serve as a
means of disinheritance. The court relied on the interpretation of the testator's intent, emphasizing
that the use of the broader language was a deliberate choice to avoid the uncertainty of Article 751 of
the Civil Code. The court noted that the testator, being a lawyer, did not employ the term "relatives" in
the clause. Instead, the reference to "all who are entitled thereto" was understood as a clear
expression of the testator's intention for the residue of his estate to be distributed equally among
those who would have been entitled to inherit had he died intestate. The ruling is grounded in the
principle of testamentary freedom and the importance of discerning the testator's true intentions
beyond the literal interpretation of legal provisions like Article 751.
DISPOSITIVE
Wherefore, that part of the decision of the Court of Appeals which declares in effect that
notwithstanding exhibit 2 and the issuance of original certificate of title No. 51691 in the name of
Ernesto M. Guevara, one half of the land described in said certificate of title belongs to the estate of
Victorino L. Guevara and the other half to Ernesto M. Guevara in consideration of the latter's assumption
of the obligation to pay all the debts of the deceased, is hereby affirmed; but the judgment of said court
insofar as it awards any relief to the respondent Rosario Guevara in this action is hereby reversed and
set aside, and the parties herein are hereby ordered to present the document exhibit A to the proper
court for probate in accordance with law, without prejudice to such action as the provincial fiscal of
Pangasinan may take against the responsible party or parties under section 4 of Rule 76. After the said
document is approved and allowed by the court as the last will and testament of the deceased Victorino
L. Guevara, the heirs and legatees therein named may take such action, judicial or extrajudicial, as may
be necessary to partition the estate of the testator, taking into consideration the pronouncements made
in part II of this opinion. No finding as to costs in any of the three instances.
ADDITIONAL NOTES