6/13/2017 G.R.No.

113725

TodayisTuesday,June13,2017

Usonvsdelrosario

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.113725June29,2000

JOHNNYS.RABADILLA,1petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSANDMARIAMARLENA2COSCOLUELLAYBELLEZAVILLACARLOS,respondents.

DECISION

PURISIMA,J.:

ThisisapetitionforreviewofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,3datedDecember23,1993,inCAG.R.No.
CV35555,whichsetasidethedecisionofBranch52oftheRegionalTrialCourtinBacolodCity,andorderedthe
defendantsappellees(includinghereinpetitioner),asheirsofDr.JorgeRabadilla,toreconveytitleoverLotNo.
1392,togetherwithitsfruitsandinterests,totheestateofAlejaBelleza.

Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:

InaCodicilappendedtotheLastWillandTestamentoftestatrixAlejaBelleza,Dr.JorgeRabadilla,predecessor
ininterestofthehereinpetitioner,JohnnyS.Rabadilla,wasinstitutedasadeviseeof511,855squaremetersof
thatparceloflandsurveyedasLotNo.1392oftheBacolodCadastre.ThesaidCodicil,whichwasdulyprobated
and admitted in Special Proceedings No. 4046 before the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental,
containedthefollowingprovisions:

"FIRST

Igive,leaveandbequeaththefollowingpropertyownedbymetoDr.JorgeRabadillaresidentof141
P.Villanueva,PasayCity:

(a)LotNo.1392oftheBacolodCadastre,coveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.RT4002
(10942),whichisregisteredinmynameaccordingtotherecordsoftheRegisterofDeedsof
NegrosOccidental.

(b)ThatshouldJorgeRabadilladieaheadofme,theaforementionedpropertyandtherights
which I shall set forth hereinbelow, shall be inherited and acknowledged by the children and
spouseofJorgeRabadilla.

xxx

FOURTH

(a)....Itisalsomycommand,inthismyaddition(Codicil),thatshouldIdieandJorgeRabadillashall
havealreadyreceivedtheownershipofthesaidLotNo.1392oftheBacolodCadastre,coveredby
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.RT4002(10942),andalsoatthetimethattheleaseofBalbinitoG.
Guanzon of the said lot shall expire, Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies, every
year to give to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, Seventy (75) (sic) piculs of Export sugar and
TwentyFive(25)piculsofDomesticsugar,untilthesaidMariaMarlinaCoscolluelayBellezadies.

FIFTH

(a)ShouldJorgeRabadilladie,hisheirtowhomheshallgiveLotNo.1392oftheBacolodCadastre,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT4002 (10492), shall have the obligation to still give
yearly,thesugarasspecifiedintheFourthparagraphofhistestament,toMariaMarlinaCoscolluela
yBellezaonthemonthofDecemberofeachyear.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_113725_2000.html 1/7
6/13/2017 G.R.No.113725

SIXTH

Icommand,inthismyaddition(Codicil)thattheLotNo.1392,intheeventthattheonetowhomI
have left and bequeathed, and his heir shall later sell, lease, mortgage this said Lot, the buyer,
lessee,mortgagee,shallhavealsotheobligationtorespectanddeliveryearlyONEHUNDRED(100)
piculsofsugartoMariaMarlinaCoscolluelayBelleza,oneachmonthofDecember,SEVENTYFIVE
(75)piculsofExportandTWENTYFIVE(25)piculsofDomestic,untilMariaMarlinashalldie,lastly
should the buyer, lessee or the mortgagee of this lot, not have respected my command in this my
addition(Codicil),MariaMarlinaCoscolluelayBelleza,shallimmediatelyseizethisLotNo.1392from
myheirandthelatter'sheirs,andshallturnitovertomyneardesendants,(sic)andthelattershall
then have the obligation to give the ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar until Maria Marlina shall
die. I further command in this my addition (Codicil) that my heir and his heirs of this Lot No. 1392,
thattheywillobeyandfollowthatshouldtheydecidetosell,lease,mortgage,theycannotnegotiate
withothersthanmyneardescendantsandmysister."4

PursuanttothesameCodicil,LotNo.1392wastransferredtothedeceased,Dr.JorgeRabadilla,andTransfer
CertificateofTitleNo.44498theretoissuedinhisname.

Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his wife Rufina and children Johnny (petitioner), Aurora,
OfeliaandZenaida,allsurnamedRabadilla.

OnAugust21,1989,MariaMarlenaCoscolluelayBellezaVillacarlosbroughtacomplaint,docketedasCivilCase
No.5588,beforeBranch52oftheRegionalTrialCourtinBacolodCity,againsttheabovementionedheirsofDr.
Jorge Rabadilla, to enforce the provisions of subject Codicil. The Complaint alleged that the defendantheirs
violatedtheconditionsoftheCodicil,inthat:

1.LotNo.1392wasmortgagedtothePhilippineNationalBankandtheRepublicPlantersBankindisregard
ofthetestatrix'sspecificinstructiontosell,lease,ormortgageonlytotheneardescendantsandsisterof
thetestatrix.

2. Defendantheirs failed to comply with their obligation to deliver one hundred (100) piculs of sugar (75
piculs export sugar and 25 piculs domestic sugar) to plaintiff Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza from
sugar crop years 1985 up to the filing of the complaint as mandated by the Codicil, despite repeated
demandsforcompliance.

3.Thebanksfailedtocomplywiththe6thparagraphoftheCodicilwhichprovidedthatincaseofthesale,
lease, or mortgage of the property, the buyer, lessee, or mortgagee shall likewise have the obligation to
deliver100piculsofsugarpercropyeartohereinprivaterespondent.

Theplaintiffthenprayedthatjudgmentberenderedorderingdefendantheirstoreconvey/returnLotNo.1392to
thesurvivingheirsofthelateAlejaBelleza,thecancellationofTCTNo.44498inthenameofthedeceased,Dr.
JorgeRabadilla,andtheissuanceofanewcertificateoftitleinthenamesofthesurvivingheirsofthelateAleja
Belleza.

OnFebruary26,1990,thedefendantheirsweredeclaredindefaultbutonMarch28,1990theOrderofDefault
waslifted,withrespecttodefendantJohnnyS.Rabadilla,whofiledhisAnswer,accordingly.

Duringthepretrial,thepartiesadmittedthat:

On November 15, 1998, the plaintiff (private respondent) and a certain Alan Azurin, soninlaw of the herein
petitionerwhowaslesseeofthepropertyandactingasattorneyinfactofdefendantheirs,arrivedatanamicable
settlement and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on the obligation to deliver one hundred piculs of
sugar,tothefollowingeffect:

"That for crop year 198889, the annuity mentioned in Entry No. 49074 of TCT No. 44489 will be delivered not
laterthanJanuaryof1989,morespecifically,towit:

75 piculs of 'A' sugar, and 25 piculs of 'B' sugar, or then existing in any of our names, Mary Rose Rabadilla y
AzurinorAlanAzurin,duringDecemberofeachsugarcropyear,inAzucarSugarCentraland,thisisconsidered
compliance of the annuity as mentioned, and in the same manner will compliance of the annuity be in the next
succeedingcropyears.

Thattheannuityabovestatedforcropyear198586,198687,and198788,willbecompliedincashequivalent
ofthenumberofpiculsasmentionedthereinandwhichisashereinagreedupon,takingintoconsiderationthe
composite price of sugar during each sugar crop year, which is in the total amount of ONE HUNDRED FIVE
THOUSANDPESOS(P105,000.00).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_113725_2000.html 2/7
6/13/2017 G.R.No.113725

Thattheabovementionedamountwillbepaidordeliveredonastaggeredcashinstallment,payableonorbefore
theendofDecemberofeverysugarcropyear,towit:

For 198586, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on or before
Decemberofcropyear198889

For 198687, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on or before
Decemberofcropyear198990

For 198788, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on or before
Decemberofcropyear199091and

For 198889, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on or before
Decemberofcropyear199192."5

However,therewasnocompliancewiththeaforesaidMemorandumofAgreementexceptforapartialdeliveryof
50.80piculsofsugarcorrespondingtosugarcropyear19881989.

OnJuly22,1991,theRegionalTrialCourtcameoutwithadecision,dismissingthecomplaintanddisposingas
follows:

"WHEREFORE, in the light of the aforegoing findings, the Court finds that the action is prematurely filed as no
cause of action against the defendants has as yet arose in favor of plaintiff. While there maybe the non
performance of the command as mandated exaction from them simply because they are the children of Jorge
Rabadilla, the title holder/owner of the lot in question, does not warrant the filing of the present complaint. The
remedyatbarmustfall.Incidentally,beinginthecategoryascreditoroftheleftestate,itisopinedthatplaintiff
may initiate the intestate proceedings, if only to establish the heirs of Jorge Rabadilla and in order to give full
meaningandsemblancetoherclaimundertheCodicil.

Inthelightoftheaforegoingfindings,theComplaintbeingprematurelyfiledisDISMISSEDwithoutprejudice.

SOORDERED."6

On appeal by plaintiff, the First Division of the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court
ratiocinatingandorderingthus:

"Therefore, the evidence on record having established plaintiffappellant's right to receive 100 piculs of sugar
annually out of the produce of Lot No. 1392 defendantsappellee's obligation under Aleja Belleza's codicil, as
heirs of the modal heir, Jorge Rabadilla, to deliver such amount of sugar to plaintiffappellant defendants
appellee'sadmittednoncompliancewithsaidobligationsince1985and,thepunitiveconsequencesenjoinedby
boththecodicilandtheCivilCode,ofseizureofLotNo.1392anditsreversiontotheestateofAlejaBellezain
case of such noncompliance, this Court deems it proper to order the reconveyance of title over Lot No. 1392
from the estates of Jorge Rabadilla to the estate of Aleja Belleza. However, plaintiffappellant must institute
separate proceedings to reopen Aleja Belleza's estate, secure the appointment of an administrator, and
distributeLotNo.1392toAlejaBelleza'slegalheirsinordertoenforceherright,reservedtoherbythecodicil,to
receiveherlegacyof100piculsofsugarperyearoutoftheproduceofLotNo.1392untilshedies.

Accordingly,thedecisionappealedfromisSETASIDEandanotheroneenteredorderingdefendantsappellees,
asheirsofJorgeRabadilla,toreconveytitleoverLotNo.1392,togetherwithitsfruitsandinterests,totheestate
ofAlejaBelleza.

SOORDERED."7

DissatisfiedwiththeaforesaiddispositionbytheCourtofAppeals,petitionerfoundhiswaytothisCourtvia the
presentpetition,contendingthattheCourtofAppealserredinorderingthereversionofLot1392totheestateof
thetestatrixAlejaBellezaonthebasisofparagraph6oftheCodicil,andinrulingthatthetestamentaryinstitution
ofDr.JorgeRabadillaisamodalinstitutionwithinthepurviewofArticle882oftheNewCivilCode.

Thepetitionisnotimpressedwithmerit.

PetitionercontendsthattheCourtofAppealserredinresolvingtheappealinaccordancewithArticle882ofthe
New Civil Code on modal institutions and in deviating from the sole issue raised which is the absence or
prematurityofthecauseofaction.PetitionermaintainsthatArticle882doesnotfindapplicationastherewasno
modalinstitutionandthetestatrixintendedameresimplesubstitutioni.e.theinstitutedheir,Dr.JorgeRabadilla,
was to be substituted by the testatrix's "near descendants" should the obligation to deliver the fruits to herein
private respondent be not complied with. And since the testatrix died single and without issue, there can be no
validsubstitutionandsuchtestamentaryprovisioncannotbegivenanyeffect.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_113725_2000.html 3/7
6/13/2017 G.R.No.113725

Thepetitionertheorizesfurtherthattherecanbenovalidsubstitutionforthereasonthatthesubstitutedheirsare
not definite, as the substituted heirs are merely referred to as "near descendants" without a definite identity or
reference as to who are the "near descendants" and therefore, under Articles 8438 and 8459 of the New Civil
Code,thesubstitutionshouldbedeemedasnotwritten.

Thecontentionsofpetitionerareuntenable.ContrarytohissuppositionthattheCourtofAppealsdeviatedfrom
theissueposedbeforeit,whichwastheproprietyofthedismissalofthecomplaintonthegroundofprematurity
of cause of action, there was no such deviation. The Court of Appeals found that the private respondent had a
causeofactionagainstthepetitioner.Thedisquisitionmadeonmodalinstitutionwas,precisely,tostressthatthe
private respondent had a legally demandable right against the petitioner pursuant to subject Codicil on which
issuetheCourtofAppealsruledinaccordancewithlaw.

Itisageneralruleunderthelawonsuccessionthatsuccessionalrightsaretransmittedfromthemomentofdeath
ofthedecedent10 and compulsory heirs are called to succeed by operation of law. The legitimate children and
descendants,inrelationtotheirlegitimateparents,andthewidoworwidower,arecompulsoryheirs.11Thus,the
petitioner,hismotherandsisters,ascompulsoryheirsoftheinstitutedheir,Dr.JorgeRabadilla,succeededthe
latter by operation of law, without need of further proceedings, and the successional rights were transmitted to
themfromthemomentofdeathofthedecedent,Dr.JorgeRabadilla.

UnderArticle776oftheNewCivilCode,inheritanceincludesalltheproperty,rightsandobligationsofaperson,
notextinguishedbyhisdeath.Conformably,whateverrightsDr.JorgeRabadillahadbyvirtueofsubjectCodicil
weretransmittedtohisforcedheirs,atthetimeofhisdeath.Andsinceobligationsnotextinguishedbydeathalso
form part of the estate of the decedent corollarily, the obligations imposed by the Codicil on the deceased Dr.
JorgeRabadilla,werelikewisetransmittedtohiscompulsoryheirsuponhisdeath.

InthesaidCodicil,testatrixAlejaBellezadevisedLotNo.1392toDr.JorgeRabadilla,subjecttotheconditionthat
theusufructthereofwouldbedeliveredtothehereinprivaterespondenteveryyear.UponthedeathofDr.Jorge
Rabadilla,hiscompulsoryheirssucceededtohisrightsandtitleoverthesaidproperty,andtheyalsoassumedhis
(decedent's)obligationtodeliverthefruitsofthelotinvolvedtohereinprivaterespondent.Suchobligationofthe
instituted heir reciprocally corresponds to the right of private respondent over the usufruct, the fulfillment or
performanceofwhichisnowbeingdemandedbythelatterthroughtheinstitutionofthecaseatbar.Therefore,
private respondent has a cause of action against petitioner and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint
below.

Petitioner also theorizes that Article 882 of the New Civil Code on modal institutions is not applicable because
whatthetestatrixintendedwasasubstitutionDr.JorgeRabadillawastobesubstitutedbythetestatrix'snear
descendants should there be noncompliance with the obligation to deliver the piculs of sugar to private
respondent.

Again,thecontentioniswithoutmerit.

Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person or persons to take the place of the heir or heirs first
instituted.Undersubstitutionsingeneral,thetestatormayeither(1)provideforthedesignationofanotherheirto
whomthepropertyshallpassincasetheoriginalheirshoulddiebeforehim/her,renouncetheinheritanceorbe
incapacitatedtoinherit,asinasimplesubstitution,12or(2)leavehis/herpropertytoonepersonwiththeexpress
charge that it be transmitted subsequently to another or others, as in a fideicommissary substitution.13 The
Codicilsueduponcontemplatesneitherofthetwo.

In simple substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir by reason of incapacity,
predeceaseorrenunciation.14 In the case under consideration, the provisions of subject Codicil do not provide
that should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla default due to predecease, incapacity or renunciation, the testatrix's near
descendantswouldsubstitutehim.WhattheCodicilprovidesisthat,shouldDr.JorgeRabadillaorhisheirsnot
fulfill the conditions imposed in the Codicil, the property referred to shall be seized and turned over to the
testatrix'sneardescendants.

Neitheristhereafideicommissarysubstitutionhereandonthispoint,petitioneriscorrect.Inafideicommissary
substitution, the first heir is strictly mandated to preserve the property and to transmit the same later to the
secondheir.15Inthecaseunderconsideration,theinstitutedheirisinfactallowedundertheCodiciltoalienate
the property provided the negotiation is with the near descendants or the sister of the testatrix. Thus, a very
importantelementofafideicommissarysubstitutionislackingtheobligationclearlyimposinguponthefirstheir
the preservation of the property and its transmission to the second heir. "Without this obligation to preserve
clearlyimposedbythetestatorinhiswill,thereisnofideicommissarysubstitution."16Also,theneardescendants'
righttoinheritfromthetestatrixisnotdefinite.ThepropertywillonlypasstothemshouldDr.JorgeRabadillaor
hisheirsnotfulfilltheobligationtodeliverpartoftheusufructtoprivaterespondent.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_113725_2000.html 4/7
6/13/2017 G.R.No.113725

Anotherimportantelementofafideicommissarysubstitutionisalsomissinghere.UnderArticle863,thesecond
heirorthefideicommissarytowhomthepropertyistransmittedmustnotbebeyondonedegreefromthefirstheir
orthefiduciary.Afideicommissarysubstitutionistherefore,voidifthefirstheirisnotrelatedbyfirstdegreetothe
secondheir.17 In the case under scrutiny, the near descendants are not at all related to the instituted heir, Dr.
JorgeRabadilla.

TheCourtofAppealserrednotinrulingthattheinstitutionofDr.JorgeRabadillaundersubjectCodicilisinthe
nature of a modal institution and therefore, Article 882 of the New Civil Code is the provision of law in point.
Articles882and883oftheNewCivilCodeprovide:

Art.882.Thestatementoftheobjectoftheinstitutionortheapplicationofthepropertyleftbythetestator,orthe
chargeimposedonhim,shallnotbeconsideredasaconditionunlessitappearsthatsuchwashisintention.

Thatwhichhasbeenleftinthismannermaybeclaimedatonceprovidedthattheinstitutedheirorhisheirsgive
security for compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of anything he or they may receive,
togetherwithitsfruitsandinterests,ifheortheyshoulddisregardthisobligation.

Art.883.Whenwithoutthefaultoftheheir,aninstitutionreferredtointheprecedingarticlecannottakeeffectin
the exact manner stated by the testator, it shall be complied with in a manner most analogous to and in
conformitywithhiswishes.

TheinstitutionofanheirinthemannerprescribedinArticle882iswhatisknowninthelawofsuccessionasan
institucion sub modo or a modal institution. In a modal institution, the testator states (1) the object of the
institution, (2) the purpose or application of the property left by the testator, or (3) the charge imposed by the
testator upon the heir.18 A "mode" imposes an obligation upon the heir or legatee but it does not affect the
efficacy of his rights to the succession.19 On the other hand, in a conditional testamentary disposition, the
condition must happen or be fulfilled in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the testator. The condition
suspendsbutdoesnotobligateandthemodeobligatesbutdoesnotsuspend.20Tosomeextent,itissimilartoa
resolutorycondition.21

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
obligationonthesaidinstitutedheirandhissuccessorsininteresttodeliveronehundredpiculsofsugartothe
hereinprivaterespondent,MarlenaCoscolluelaBelleza,duringthelifetimeofthelatter.However,thetestatrixdid
not make Dr. Jorge Rabadilla's inheritance and the effectivity of his institution as a devisee, dependent on the
performanceofthesaidobligation.Itisclear,though,thatshouldtheobligationbenotcompliedwith,theproperty
shall be turned over to the testatrix's near descendants. The manner of institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla under
subjectCodicilisevidentlymodalinnaturebecauseitimposesachargeupontheinstitutedheirwithout,however,
affectingtheefficacyofsuchinstitution.

Then too, since testamentary dispositions are generally acts of liberality, an obligation imposed upon the heir
shouldnotbeconsideredaconditionunlessitclearlyappearsfromtheWillitselfthatsuchwastheintentionofthe
testator.Incaseofdoubt,theinstitutionshouldbeconsideredasmodalandnotconditional.22

Neither is there tenability in the other contention of petitioner that the private respondent has only a right of
usufruct but not the right to seize the property itself from the instituted heir because the right to seize was
expresslylimitedtoviolationsbythebuyer,lesseeormortgagee.

IntheinterpretationofWills,whenanuncertaintyarisesonthefaceoftheWill,astotheapplicationofanyofits
provisions, the testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words of the Will, taking into consideration the
circumstances under which it was made.23 Such construction as will sustain and uphold the Will in all its parts
mustbeadopted.24

Subject Codicil provides that the instituted heir is under obligation to deliver One Hundred (100) piculs of sugar
yearly to Marlena Belleza Coscuella. Such obligation is imposed on the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, his
heirs,andtheirbuyer,lessee,ormortgageeshouldtheysell,lease,mortgageorotherwisenegotiatetheproperty
involved. The Codicil further provides that in the event that the obligation to deliver the sugar is not respected,
MarlenaBellezaCoscuellashallseizethepropertyandturnitovertothetestatrix'sneardescendants.Thenon
performanceofthesaidobligationisthuswiththesanctionofseizureofthepropertyandreversionthereoftothe
testatrix'sneardescendants.Sincethesaidobligationisclearlyimposedbythetestatrix,notonlyontheinstituted
heirbutalsoonhissuccessorsininterest,thesanctionimposedbythetestatrixincaseofnonfulfillmentofsaid
obligationshouldequallyapplytotheinstitutedheirandhissuccessorsininterest.

Similarly unsustainable is petitioner's submission that by virtue of the amicable settlement, the said obligation
imposed by the Codicil has been assumed by the lessee, and whatever obligation petitioner had become the
obligationofthelesseethatpetitionerisdeemedtohavemadeasubstantialandconstructivecomplianceofhis
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_113725_2000.html 5/7
6/13/2017 G.R.No.113725

obligation through the consummated settlement between the lessee and the private respondent, and having
consummated a settlement with the petitioner, the recourse of the private respondent is the fulfillment of the
obligationundertheamicablesettlementandnottheseizureofsubjectproperty.

Suffice it to state that a Will is a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which a person disposes of his
property,totakeeffectafterhisdeath.25SincetheWillexpressesthemannerinwhichapersonintendshowhis
propertiesbedisposed,thewishesanddesiresofthetestatormustbestrictlyfollowed.Thus,aWillcannotbethe
subjectofacompromiseagreementwhichwouldtherebydefeattheverypurposeofmakingaWill.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDISMISSEDandthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,datedDecember23,
1993,inCAG.R.No.CV35555AFFIRMED.Nopronouncementastocosts

SOORDERED.

Melo,J.,(Chairman),concurintheseparateopinionofJusticeVitug.
Vitug,J.,seeseparateopinion.
Panganiban,J.,jointheseparateopinionofJusticeVitug.
GonzagaReyes,J.,nopart.

Footnotes

1WasspelledinterchangeablyinRolloasRavadilla.

2WasspelledinterchangeablyinRolloasMarlina.

3PennedbyJusticeSantiagoM.Kapunan(Chairman)andconcurredinbyJusticesMinervaP.Gonzaga
ReyesandEduardoG.Montenegro,(Members)
4Annex"C",Rollo,pp.3435.

5Rollo,pp.6566.

6RTCDecision,pp.89.

7CADecision,p.14.

8Art.843.Thetestatorshalldesignatetheheirbyhisnameandsurname,andwhentherearetwopersons
havingthesamenames,heshallindicatesomecircumstancebywhichtheinstitutedheirmaybeknown.

Even though the testator may have omitted the name of the heir, should he designate him in such
mannerthattherecanbenodoubtastowhohasbeeninstituted,theinstitutionshallbevalid.

9 Art. 845. Every disposition in favor of an unknown person shall be void, unless by some event or
circumstance his identity becomes certain. However, a disposition in favor of a definite class or group of
personsshallbevalid.
10Article777,NewCivilCode.

11Ibid.,Article887.

12Ibid.,Article859.

13Ibid.,Article863.

14Ibid.,Article859.

15ArturoTolentino,CommentariesandJurisprudenceontheCivilCode,VolumeIII,p.212.

16Ibid.,p.212.

17Ramirezvs.Vda.DeRamos,111SCRA704.

18Tolentino,supra,pp.241242.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_113725_2000.html 6/7
6/13/2017 G.R.No.113725
19Ibid.,p.242.

20Ibid.

21JottingsandJurisprudenceinCivilLaw,RubenBalane,p.249.

22Tolentino,supra,p.242.

23Article789,NCC.

24Tolentino,supra,p.34.

25Art.783,NCCandTolentino,p.2829.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_113725_2000.html 7/7