Rabadilla vs CA

7/18/2019 Rabadilla vs CA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rabadilla-vs-ca-5697417d0d0d3 1/12

RABADILLA vs. CA

RABADILLA vs. CA

June 29, 2000

FACTS:

In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament o testat!i" Ale#a Belle$a, D!.

Jo!%e Ra&adilla, p!edecesso!'in'inte!est o the he!ein petitione!, Johnn( ). Ra&adilla, *as

instituted as a devisee o pa!cel o land. The Codicil p!ovides that Jo!%e Ra&adilla shall have

the o&li%ation until he dies, eve!( (ea! to %ive +a!ia +a!lina Coscolluela ( Belle$a, -/ sic/

piculs o "po!t su%a! and 2/ piculs o Domestic su%a!, until the said +a!ia +a!lina

Coscolluela ( Belle$a dies.

D!. Jo!%e Ra&adilla died. 1!ivate !espondent &!ou%ht a complaint, to eno!ce the

p!ovisions o su&#ect Codicil.

ISSUE:

W3 the o&li%ations o Jo!%e Ra&adilla unde! the Codicil a!e inhe!ited &( his hei!s.

HELD:

4nde! A!ticle --5 o the 3CC, inhe!itance includes all the p!ope!t(, !i%hts and

o&li%ations o a pe!son, not e"tin%uished &( his death. Cono!ma&l(, *hateve! !i%hts D!.

Jo!%e Ra&adilla had &( vi!tue o su&#ect Codicil *e!e t!ansmitted to his o!ced hei!s, at the

time o his death. And since obligations not extinguished b death also !o"# $a"t o!

the estate o! the de%edent6 co!olla!il(, the o&li%ations imposed &( the Codicil on the

deceased D!. Jo!%e Ra&adilla, *e!e li7e*ise t!ansmitted to his compulso!( hei!s upon his

death

==

A certain Aleja Belleza died but he instituted in his will Dr. Jorge Rabadilla as a devisee to a 511, 855

hectare land. A condition was however i!osed to the e""ect that#

1. the na$ed ownershi! shall trans"er to Dr. Rabadilla%

&. he shall deliver the "ruits o" said land to 'aria Belleza, sister o" Aleja, during the li"etie o" said

'aria Belleza%

(. that in case Dr. Rabadilla shall die be"ore 'aria Belleza, the near descendants, shall continue

delivering the "ruits to 'aria Belleza%



). that the said land a* onl* be encubered, ortgaged, or sold onl* to a relative o" Belleza.

+n 18(, Dr. Rabadilla died. -e was survived b* Johnn* Rabadilla.

+n 18, 'aria Belleza sued Johnn* Rabadilla in order to co!el Johnn* to reconve* the said land

to the estate o" Aleja Belleza because it is alleged that Johnn* "ailed to co!l* with the ters o" the

will% that since 185, Johnn* "ailed to deliver the "ruits% and that the the land was ortgaged to the

hili!!ine /ational Ban$, which is a violation o" the will.+n his de"ense, Johnn* avers that the ter 0near descendants in the will o" Aleja !ertains to the near

descendants o" Aleja and not to the near descendants o" Dr. Rabadilla, hence, since Aleja had no

near descendants at the tie o" his death, no can substitute Dr. Rabadilla on the obligation to deliver

the "ruits o" the devised land.

ISSUE: 2hether or not Johnn* Rabadilla is not obliged to co!l* with the ters o" the 2ill le"t b*

Aleja Belleza.

HELD: /o. 3he contention o" Johnn* Rabadilla is bere"t o" erit. 3he 0near descendants being

re"erred to in the will are the heirs o" Dr. Rabadilla. 4wnershi! over the devised !ro!ert* was

alread* trans"erred to Dr. Rabadilla when Aleja died. -ence, when Dr. Rabadilla hisel" died,

ownershi! over the sae !ro!ert* was transitted to Johnn* Rabadilla b* virtue o" succession.

nder Article 667 o" the ivil ode, inheritance includes all the !ro!ert*, rights and obligations o" a

!erson, not e9tinguished b* his death. on"orabl*, whatever rights Dr. Rabadilla had b* virtue o"

the 2ill were transitted to his "orced heirs, at the tie o" his death. And since obligations not

e9tinguished b* death also "or !art o" the estate o" the decedent% corollaril*, the obligations

i!osed b* the 2ill on the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were li$ewise transitted to his

co!ulsor* heirs u!on his death. +t is clear there"ore, that Johnn* should have continued co!l*ing

with the ters o" the 2ill. -is "ailure to do so shall give rise to an obligation "or hi to reconve* the

!ro!ert* to the estate o" Aleja

3-+RD D+:+;+4/

[G.R. No. 113725. June 2! 2"""#

J$HNN% S. R&'&DILL&![1# petitioner, vs. ($UR) $* &++E&LS &ND,&RI& ,&RLEN&[2# ($S($LUELL& % 'ELLE-&ILL&(&RL$S! respondents.

D E ( I S I $ N

+URISI,&! J .:

3his is a !etition "or review o" the decision o" the ourt o" A!!eals, <( datedDeceber &(, 1(, in A>?.R. /o. :>(5555, which set aside the decision o"Branch 5& o" the Regional 3rial ourt in Bacolod it*, and ordered thede"endants>a!!ellees (including herein petitioner), as heirs o" Dr. JorgeRabadilla, to reconve* title over @ot /o. 1(&, together with its "ruits andinterests, to the estate o" Aleja Belleza.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/june2000/113725.htm#_ftn1








3he antecedent "acts are as "ollows#

+n a odicil a!!ended to the @ast 2ill and 3estaent o" testatri9 Aleja Belleza,Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, !redecessor>in>interest o" the herein !etitioner, Johnn* ;.Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee o" 511, 855 suare eters o" that !arcel o"

land surve*ed as @ot /o. 1(& o" the Bacolod adastre. 3he said odicil, whichwas dul* !robated and aditted in ;!ecial roceedings /o. ))7 be"ore the thenourt o" Cirst +nstance o" /egros 4ccidental, contained the "ollowing !rovisions#

C+R;3

+ give, leave and beueath the "ollowing !ro!ert* owned b* e to Dr.Jorge Rabadilla resident o" 1)1 . :illanueva, asa* it*#

EaF @ot /o. 1(& o" the Bacolod adastre, covered b* 3rans"er erti"icateo" 3itle /o. R3>)& E1)&F, which is registered in * nae according to

the records o" the Register o" Deeds o" /egros 4ccidental.

EbF 3hat should Jorge Rabadilla die ahead o" e, the a"oreentioned!ro!ert* and the rights which + shall set "orth hereinbelow, shall beinherited and ac$nowledged b* the children and s!ouse o" JorgeRabadilla.

999

C4R3-

EaF....+t is also * coand, in this * addition EodicilF, that should + dieand Jorge Rabadilla shall have alread* received the ownershi! o" the said@ot /o. 1(& o" the Bacolod adastre, covered b* 3rans"er erti"icate o"3itle /o. R3>)& E1)&F, and also at the tie that the lease o" Balbinito?. ?uanzon o" the said lot shall e9!ire, Jorge Rabadilla shall have theobligation until he dies, ever* *ear to give to 'aria 'arlina oscolluela *Belleza, ;event* E65F EsicF !iculs o" G9!ort sugar and 3went* Cive E&5F!iculs o" Doestic sugar, until the said 'aria 'arlina oscolluela *Belleza dies.

C+C3-

EaF ;hould Jorge Rabadilla die, his heir to who he shall give @ot /o.1(& o" the Bacolod adastre, covered b* 3rans"er erti"icate o" 3itle /o.R3>)& E1)&F, shall have the obligation to still give *earl*, the sugar ass!eci"ied in the Courth !aragra!h o" his testaent, to 'aria 'arlinaoscolluela * Belleza on the onth o" Deceber o" each *ear.

;+H3-



+ coand, in this * addition EodicilF that the @ot /o. 1(&, in the eventthat the one to who + have le"t and beueathed, and his heir shall latersell, lease, ortgage this said @ot, the bu*er, lessee, ortgagee, shallhave also the obligation to res!ect and deliver *earl* 4/G -/DRGDE1F !iculs o" sugar to 'aria 'arlina oscolluela * Belleza, on each

onth o" Deceber, ;G:G/3I C+:G E65F !iculs o" G9!ort and 32G/3IC+:G E&5F !iculs o" Doestic, until 'aria 'arlina shall die, lastl* shouldthe bu*er, lessee or the ortgagee o" this lot, not have res!ected *coand in this * addition EodicilF, 'aria 'arlina oscolluela *Belleza, shall iediatel* seize this @ot /o. 1(& "ro * heir and thelatters heirs, and shall turn it over to * near desendants, EsicF and thelatter shall then have the obligation to give the 4/G -/DRGD E1F!iculs o" sugar until 'aria 'arlina shall die. + "urther coand in this *addition EodicilF that * heir and his heirs o" this @ot /o. 1(&, that the*will obe* and "ollow that should the* decide to sell, lease, ortgage, the*cannot negotiate with others than * near descendants and * sister. <)

ursuant to the sae odicil, @ot /o. 1(& was trans"erred to the deceased, Dr.Jorge Rabadilla, and 3rans"er erti"icate o" 3itle /o. )))8 thereto issued in hisnae.

Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died in 18( and was survived b* his wi"e Ru"ina andchildren Johnn* E!etitionerF, Aurora, 4"elia and Kenaida, all surnaed Rabadilla.

4n August &1, 18, 'aria 'arlena oscolluela * Belleza :illacarlos brought aco!laint, doc$eted as ivil ase /o. 5588, be"ore Branch 5& o" the Regional3rial ourt in Bacolod it*, against the above>entioned heirs o" Dr. Jorge

Rabadilla, to en"orce the !rovisions o" subject odicil. 3he o!laint alleged thatthe de"endant>heirs violated the conditions o" the odicil, in that#

1. @ot /o. 1(& was ortgaged to the hili!!ine /ational Ban$ and theRe!ublic lanters Ban$ in disregard o" the testatri9s s!eci"ic instruction tosell, lease, or ortgage onl* to the near descendants and sister o" thetestatri9.

&. De"endant>heirs "ailed to co!l* with their obligation to deliver onehundred E1F !iculs o" sugar E65 !iculs e9!ort sugar and &5 !iculsdoestic sugarF to !lainti"" 'aria 'arlena oscolluela * Belleza "ro

sugar cro! *ears 185 u! to the "iling o" the co!laint as andated b* theodicil, des!ite re!eated deands "or co!liance.

(. 3he ban$s "ailed to co!l* with the 7th !aragra!h o" the odicil which!rovided that in case o" the sale, lease, or ortgage o" the !ro!ert*, thebu*er, lessee, or ortgagee shall li$ewise have the obligation to deliver1 !iculs o" sugar !er cro! *ear to herein !rivate res!ondent.





3he !lainti"" then !ra*ed that judgent be rendered ordering de"endant>heirs toreconve*Lreturn>@ot /o. 1(& to the surviving heirs o" the late Aleja Belleza, thecancellation o" 33 /o. )))8 in the nae o" the deceased, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,and the issuance o" a new certi"icate o" title in the naes o" the surviving heirs o"the late Aleja Belleza.

4n Cebruar* &7, 1, the de"endant>heirs were declared in de"ault but on 'arch&8, 1 the 4rder o" De"ault was li"ted, with res!ect to de"endant Johnn* ;.Rabadilla, who "iled his Answer, accordingl*.

During the !re>trial, the !arties aditted that#

4n /oveber 15, 18, the !lainti"" (private respondent) and a certain Alan Azurin, son>in>law o" the herein !etitioner who was lessee o" the !ro!ert* andacting as attorne*>in>"act o" de"endant>heirs, arrived at an aicable settleentand entered into a 'eorandu o" Agreeent on the obligation to deliver one

hundred !iculs o" sugar, to the "ollowing e""ect#

3hat "or cro! *ear 188>8, the annuit* entioned in Gntr* /o. )6) o"33 /o. )))8 will be delivered not later than Januar* o" 18, ores!eci"icall*, to wit#

65 !iculs o" A sugar, and &5 !iculs o" B sugar, or thene9isting in an* o" our naes, 'ar* Rose Rabadilla * Azurinor Alan Azurin, during Deceber o" each sugar cro! *ear, in

Azucar ;ugar entral% and, this is considered co!liance o"the annuit* as entioned, and in the sae anner will

co!liance o" the annuit* be in the ne9t succeeding cro!*ears.

3hat the annuit* above stated "or cro! *ear 185>87, 187>86, and 186>88, will be co!lied in cash euivalent o" the nuber o" !iculs asentioned therein and which is as herein agreed u!on, ta$ing intoconsideration the co!osite !rice o" sugar during each sugar cro! *ear,which is in the total aount o" 4/G -/DRGD C+:G 3-4;A/D G;4;E15,.F.

3hat the above>entioned aount will be !aid or delivered on a staggered cash

installent, !a*able on or be"ore the end o" Deceber o" ever* sugar cro! *ear,to wit#

Cor 185>87, 32G/3I ;+H 3-4;A/D 324 -/DRGD C+C3I E&7,&5.Fesos, !a*able on or be"ore Deceber o" cro! *ear 188>8%

Cor 187>86, 32G/3I ;+H 3-4;A/D 324 -/DRGD C+C3I E&7,&5.Fesos, !a*able on or be"ore Deceber o" cro! *ear 18>%



Cor 186>88, 32G/3I ;+H 3-4;A/D 324 -/DRGD C+C3I E&7,&5.Fesos, !a*able on or be"ore Deceber o" cro! *ear 1>1% and

Cor 188>8, 32G/3I ;+H 3-4;A/D 324 -/DRGD C+C3I E&7,&5.Fesos, !a*able on or be"ore Deceber o" cro! *ear 11>&. <5

-owever, there was no co!liance with the a"oresaid 'eorandu o" Agreeent e9ce!t "or a !artial deliver* o" 5.8 !iculs o" sugar corres!onding tosugar cro! *ear 188 >18.

4n Jul* &&, 11, the Regional 3rial ourt cae out with a decision, disissingthe co!laint and dis!osing as "ollows#

2-GRGC4RG, in the light o" the a"oregoing "indings, the ourt "inds thatthe action is !reaturel* "iled as no cause o" action against thede"endants has as *et arose in "avor o" !lainti"". 2hile there a*be the

non>!er"orance o" the coand as andated e9action "ro thesi!l* because the* are the children o" Jorge Rabadilla, the titleholderLowner o" the lot in uestion, does not warrant the "iling o" the!resent co!laint. 3he reed* at bar ust "all. +ncidentall*, being in thecategor* as creditor o" the le"t estate, it is o!ined that !lainti"" a* initiatethe intestate !roceedings, i" onl* to establish the heirs o" Jorge Rabadillaand in order to give "ull eaning and seblance to her clai under theodicil.

+n the light o" the a"oregoing "indings, the o!laint being !reaturel*"iled is D+;'+;;GD without !rejudice.

;4 4RDGRGD.<7

4n a!!eal b* !lainti"", the Cirst Division o" the ourt o" A!!eals reversed thedecision o" the trial court% ratiocinating and ordering thus#

3here"ore, the evidence on record having established !lainti"">a!!ellantsright to receive 1 !iculs o" sugar annuall* out o" the !roduce o" @ot /o.1(&% de"endants>a!!ellees obligation under Aleja Bellezas codicil, asheirs o" the odal heir, Jorge Rabadilla, to deliver such aount o" sugar to!lainti"">a!!ellant% de"endants>a!!ellees aditted non>co!liance with

said obligation since 185% and, the !unitive conseuences enjoined b*both the codicil and the ivil ode, o" seizure o" @ot /o. 1(& and itsreversion to the estate o" Aleja Belleza in case o" such non>co!liance,this ourt dees it !ro!er to order the reconve*ance o" title over @ot /o.1(& "ro the estates o" Jorge Rabadilla to the estate o" Aleja Belleza.-owever, !lainti"">a!!ellant ust institute se!arate !roceedings to re>o!en

Aleja Bellezas estate, secure the a!!ointent o" an adinistrator, anddistribute @ot /o. 1(& to Aleja Bellezas legal heirs in order to en"orce her







right, reserved to her b* the codicil, to receive her legac* o" 1 !iculs o"sugar !er *ear out o" the !roduce o" @ot /o. 1(& until she dies.

Accordingl*, the decision a!!ealed "ro is ;G3 A;+DG and another oneentered ordering de"endants>a!!ellees, as heirs o" Jorge Rabadilla, to

reconve* title over @ot /o. 1(&, together with its "ruits and interests, tothe estate o" Aleja Belleza.

;4 4RDGRGD.<6

Dissatis"ied with the a"oresaid dis!osition b* the ourt o" A!!eals, !etitioner"ound his wa* to this ourt via the !resent !etition, contending that the ourt o"

A!!eals erred in ordering the reversion o" @ot 1(& to the estate o" the testatri9 Aleja Belleza on the basis o" !aragra!h 7 o" the odicil, and in ruling that thetestaentar* institution o" Dr. Jorge Rabadilla is a odal institution within the!urview o" Article 88& o" the /ew ivil ode.

3he !etition is not i!ressed with erit.

etitioner contends that the ourt o" A!!eals erred in resolving the a!!eal inaccordance with Article 88& o" the /ew ivil ode on odal institutions and indeviating "ro the sole issue raised which is the absence or !reaturit* o" thecause o" action. etitioner aintains that Article 88& does not "ind a!!lication asthere was no odal institution and the testatri9 intended a ere si!lesubstitution > i.e. the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, was to be substituted b*the testatri9s near descendants should the obligation to deliver the "ruits toherein !rivate res!ondent be not co!lied with. And since the testatri9 died

single and without issue, there can be no valid substitution and suchtestaentar* !rovision cannot be given an* e""ect.

3he !etitioner theorizes "urther that there can be no valid substitution "or thereason that the substituted heirs are not de"inite, as the substituted heirs areerel* re"erred to as near descendants without a de"inite identit* or re"erenceas to who are the near descendants and there"ore, under Articles 8)( <8 and8)5< o" the /ew ivil ode, the substitution should be deeed as not written.

3he contentions o" !etitioner are untenable. ontrar* to his su!!osition that theourt o" A!!eals deviated "ro the issue !osed be"ore it, which was the !ro!riet*

o" the disissal o" the co!laint on the ground o" !reaturit* o" cause o" action,there was no such deviation. 3he ourt o" A!!eals "ound that the !rivateres!ondent had a cause o" action against the !etitioner. 3he disuisition ade onodal institution was, !recisel*, to stress that the !rivate res!ondent had alegall* deandable right against the !etitioner !ursuant to subject odicil% onwhich issue the ourt o" A!!eals ruled in accordance with law.










+t is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights aretransitted "ro the oent o" death o" the decedent <1 and co!ulsor* heirsare called to succeed b* o!eration o" law. 3he legitiate children anddescendants, in relation to their legitiate !arents, and the widow or widower,are co!ulsor* heirs.<11 3hus, the !etitioner, his other and sisters, as

co!ulsor* heirs o" the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latterb* o!eration o" law, without need o" "urther !roceedings, and the successionalrights were transitted to the "ro the oent o" death o" the decedent, Dr.Jorge Rabadilla.

nder Article 667 o" the /ew ivil ode, inheritance includes all the !ro!ert*,rights and obligations o" a !erson, not e9tinguished b* his death. on"orabl*,whatever rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla had b* virtue o" subject odicil weretransitted to his "orced heirs, at the tie o" his death. And since obligations note9tinguished b* death also "or !art o" the estate o" the decedent% corollaril*, theobligations i!osed b* the odicil on the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were

li$ewise transitted to his co!ulsor* heirs u!on his death.

+n the said odicil, testatri9 Aleja Belleza devised @ot /o. 1(& to Dr. JorgeRabadilla, subject to the condition that the usu"ruct thereo" would be delivered tothe herein !rivate res!ondent ever* *ear. !on the death o" Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,his co!ulsor* heirs succeeded to his rights and title over the said !ro!ert*, andthe* also assued his EdecedentsF obligation to deliver the "ruits o" the lotinvolved to herein !rivate res!ondent. ;uch obligation o" the instituted heirreci!rocall* corres!onds to the right o" !rivate res!ondent over the usu"ruct, the"ul"illent or !er"orance o" which is now being deanded b* the latter throughthe institution o" the case at bar. 3here"ore, !rivate res!ondent has a cause o"

action against !etitioner and the trial court erred in disissing the co!laintbelow.

etitioner also theorizes that Article 88& o" the /ew ivil ode on odalinstitutions is not a!!licable because what the testatri9 intended was asubstitution > Dr. Jorge Rabadilla was to be substituted b* the testatri9s neardescendants should there be nonco!liance with the obligation to deliver the!iculs o" sugar to !rivate res!ondent.

Again, the contention is without erit.

;ubstitution is the designation b* the testator o" a !erson or !ersons to ta$e the!lace o" the heir or heirs "irst instituted. nder substitutions in general, thetestator a* either E1F !rovide "or the designation o" another heir to who the!ro!ert* shall !ass in case the original heir should die be"ore hiLher, renouncethe inheritance or be inca!acitated to inherit, as in a si!le substitution, <1& or E&Fleave hisLher !ro!ert* to one !erson with the e9!ress charge that it betransitted subseuentl* to another or others, as in a "ideicoissar*substitution. <1( 3he odicil sued u!on conte!lates neither o" the two.











+n si!le substitutions, the second heir ta$es the inheritance in de"ault o" the "irstheir b* reason o" inca!acit*, !redecease or renunciation. <1) +n the case underconsideration, the !rovisions o" subject odicil do not !rovide that should Dr.Jorge Rabadilla de"ault due to !redecease, inca!acit* or renunciation, thetestatri9s near descendants would substitute hi. 2hat the odicil !rovides is

that, should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not "ul"ill the conditions i!osed inthe odicil, the !ro!ert* re"erred to shall be seized and turned over to thetestatri9s near descendants.

/either is there a "ideicoissar* substitution here and on this !oint, !etitioner iscorrect. +n a "ideicoissar* substitution, the "irst heir is strictl* andated to!reserve the /ro/ert0 and to transt the sae later to the second heir.<15 +n thecase under consideration, the instituted heir is in "act allowed under the odicil toalienate the !ro!ert* !rovided the negotiation is with the near descendants or thesister o" the testatri9. 3hus, a ver* i!ortant eleent o" a "ideicoissar*substitution is lac$ing% the obligation clearl* i!osing u!on the "irst heir the

!reservation o" the !ro!ert* and its transission to the second heir. 2ithout thisobligation to !reserve clearl* i!osed b* the testator in his will, there is no"ideicoissar* substitution.<17 Also, the near descendants right to inherit "rothe testatri9 is not de"inite. 3he !ro!ert* will onl* !ass to the should Dr. JorgeRabadilla or his heirs not "ul"ill the obligation to deliver !art o" the usu"ruct to!rivate res!ondent.

Another i!ortant eleent o" a "ideicoissar* substitution is also issing here.nder Article 87(, the second heir or the "ideicoissar* to who the !ro!ert*is transitted ust not be be*ond one degree "ro the "irst heir or the "iduciar*.

A "ideicoissar* substitution is there"ore, void i" the "irst heir is not related b*

"irst degree to the second heir.<16

+n the case under scrutin*, the near descendantsare not at all related to the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.

3he ourt o" A!!eals erred not in ruling that the institution o" Dr. Jorge Rabadillaunder subject odicil is in the nature o" a odal institution and there"ore, Article88& o" the /ew ivil ode is the !rovision o" law in !oint. Articles 88& and 88( o"the /ew ivil ode !rovide#

Art. 88&. 3he stateent o" the object o" the institution or the a!!lication o"the !ro!ert* le"t b* the testator, or the charge i!osed on hi, shall not beconsidered as a condition unless it a!!ears that such was his intention.

3hat which has been le"t in this anner a* be claied at once !rovidedthat the instituted heir or his heirs give securit* "or co!liance with thewishes o" the testator and "or the return o" an*thing he or the* a*receive, together with its "ruits and interests, i" he or the* should disregardthis obligation.












Art. 88(. 2hen without the "ault o" the heir, an institution re"erred to in the!receding article cannot ta$e e""ect in the e9act anner stated b* thetestator, it shall be co!lied with in a anner ost analogous to and incon"orit* with his wishes.

3he institution o" an heir in the anner !rescribed in Article 88& is what is $nownin the law o" succession as an institucion sub modo or a odal institution. +n aodal institution, the testator states E1F the object o" the institution, E&F the!ur!ose or a!!lication o" the !ro!ert* le"t b* the testator, or E(F the chargei!osed b* the testator u!on the heir. <18 A ode i!oses an obligation u!on theheir or legatee but it does not a""ect the e""icac* o" his rights to the succession.<1 4n the other hand, in a conditional testaentar* dis!osition, the condition ustha!!en or be "ul"illed in order "or the heir to be entitled to succeed the testator.3he condition sus!ends but does not obligate% and the ode obligates but doesnot sus!end.<& 3o soe e9tent, it is siilar to a resolutor* condition. <&1

Cro the !rovisions o" the odicil litigated u!on, it can be gleaned unerringl* thatthe testatri9 intended that subject !ro!ert* be inherited b* Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. +tis li$ewise clearl* worded that the testatri9 i!osed an obligation on the saidinstituted heir and his successors>in>interest to deliver one hundred !iculs o"sugar to the herein !rivate res!ondent, 'arlena oscolluela Belleza, during theli"etie o" the latter. -owever, the testatri9 did not a$e Dr. Jorge Rabadillasinheritance and the e""ectivit* o" his institution as a devisee, de!endent on the!er"orance o" the said obligation. +t is clear, though, that should the obligationbe not co!lied with, the !ro!ert* shall be turned over to the testatri9s neardescendants. 3he anner o" institution o" Dr. Jorge Rabadilla under subjectodicil is evidentl* odal in nature because it i!oses a charge u!on the

instituted heir without, however, a""ecting the e""icac* o" such institution.

3hen too, since testaentar* dis!ositions are generall* acts o" liberalit*, anobligation i!osed u!on the heir should not be considered a condition unless itclearl* a!!ears "ro the 2ill itsel" that such was the intention o" the testator. +ncase o" doubt, the institution should be considered as odal and not conditional.<&&

/either is there tenabilit* in the other contention o" !etitioner that the !rivateres!ondent has onl* a right o" usu"ruct but not the right to seize the !ro!ert* itsel" "ro the instituted heir because the right to seize was e9!ressl* liited toviolations b* the bu*er, lessee or ortgagee.

+n the inter!retation o" 2ills, when an uncertaint* arises on the "ace o" the 2ill,as to the a!!lication o" an* o" its !rovisions, the testators intention is to beascertained "ro the words o" the 2ill, ta$ing into consideration thecircustances under which it was ade.<&( ;uch construction as will sustain andu!hold the 2ill in all its !arts ust be ado!ted. <&)

















;ubject odicil !rovides that the instituted heir is under obligation to deliver 4ne-undred E1F !iculs o" sugar *earl* to 'arlena Belleza oscuella. ;uchobligation is i!osed on the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, his heirs, andtheir bu*er, lessee, or ortgagee should the* sell, lease, ortgage or otherwisenegotiate the !ro!ert* involved. 3he odicil "urther !rovides that in the event that

the obligation to deliver the sugar is not res!ected, 'arlena Belleza oscuellashall seize the !ro!ert* and turn it over to the testatri9s near descendants. 3henon>!er"orance o" the said obligation is thus with the sanction o" seizure o" the!ro!ert* and reversion thereo" to the testatri9s near descendants. ;ince the saidobligation is clearl* i!osed b* the testatri9, not onl* on the instituted heir butalso on his successors>in>interest, the sanction i!osed b* the testatri9 in caseo" non>"ul"illent o" said obligation should euall* a!!l* to the instituted heir andhis successors>in>interest.

;iilarl* unsustainable is !etitioners subission that b* virtue o" the aicablesettleent, the said obligation i!osed b* the odicil has been assued b* the

lessee, and whatever obligation !etitioner had becoe the obligation o" thelessee% that !etitioner is deeed to have ade a substantial and constructiveco!liance o" his obligation through the consuated settleent between thelessee and the !rivate res!ondent, and having consuated a settleent withthe !etitioner, the recourse o" the !rivate res!ondent is the "ul"illent o" theobligation under the aicable settleent and not the seizure o" subject !ro!ert*.

;u""ice it to state that a 2ill is a !ersonal, solen, revocable and "ree act b*which a !erson dis!oses o" his !ro!ert*, to ta$e e""ect a"ter his death. <&5 ;ince the2ill e9!resses the anner in which a !erson intends how his !ro!erties bedis!osed, the wishes and desires o" the testator ust be strictl* "ollowed. 3hus, a

2ill cannot be the subject o" a co!roise agreeent which would thereb*de"eat the ver* !ur!ose o" a$ing a 2ill.

HERE*$RE! the !etition is hereb* D+;'+;;GD and the decision o" the ourto" A!!eals, dated Deceber &(, 1(, in A>?.R. /o. :>(5555 ACC+R'GD. /o!ronounceent as to costs

S$ $RDERED.

Melo, J., (Chairman), concur in the se!arate o!inion o" Justice :itug.

Vitug, J., see se!arate o!inion.

Panganiban, J., join the se!arate o!inion o" Justice :itug.

Gonzaga-e!es, J., no !art.


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/june2000/113725_JVitug.htm#top


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/june2000/113725_JVitug.htm#top



[1] Was spelled interchangeably in Rollo as Ravadilla.[2] Was spelled interchangeably in Rollo as Marlina.[3] Penned by Justice Santiago M. apunan !"hair#an$ and concurred in by Justices Minerva P. %on&aga'Reyes and

(duardo %. Montenegro) !Me#bers$[*] +nne, -"-) Rollo) pp. 3*'3.[]

Rollo) pp. /'//.[/] R0" ecision) pp. '.[4] "+ ecision) p. 1*.[] +rt. *3. 0he testator shall designate the heir by his na#e and surna#e) and 5hen there are t5o persons having thesa#e na#es) he shall indicate so#e circu#stance by 5hich the instituted heir #ay be 6no5n.

(ven though the testator #ay have o#itted the na#e o7 the heir) should he designate hi# in such #anner that there

can be no doubt as to 5ho has been instituted) the institution shall be valid.[] +rt. *. (very disposition in 7avor o7 an un6no5n person shall be void) unless by so#e event or circu#stance hisidentity beco#es certain. 8o5ever) a disposition in 7avor o7 a de7inite class or group o7 persons shall be valid.[19] +rticle 444) :e5 "ivil "ode.[11] Ibid .) +rticle 4.[12] Ibid .) +rticle .[13] Ibid .) +rticle /3.[1*]

Ibid .) +rticle .[1] +rturo 0olentino) "o##entaries and Jurisprudence on the "ivil "ode) ;olu#e <<<) p. 212.[1/] Ibid .) p. 212.[14] Ra#ire& vs. ;da. e Ra#os) 111 S"R+ 49*.[1] 0olentino) supra) pp. 2*1'2*2.[1] Ibid .) p. 2*2.[29] Ibid .[21] Jottings and Jurisprudence in "ivil =a5) Ruben >alane) p. 2*.[22] 0olentino) supra) p. 2*2.[23] +rticle 4) :"".[2*] 0olentino) supra) p. 3*.[2] +rt. 43) :"" and 0olentino) p. 2'2.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/june2000/113725.htm#_ftnref1




























































Documents

Rabadilla vs CA