CONSOLACION FLORENTINO DE CRISOLOGO, ET

AL., plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
DR. MANUEL SINGSON, defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. L-13876 February 28, 1962

DIZON, J.:

Facts of the Case:

The spouses Consolacion Florentino and Francisco Crisologo
commenced an action for partition against Manuel Singson in
connection with a residential lot located at Plaridel St., Vigan, Ilocos
Sur, with an area of approximately 193 square meters, and the
improvements existing thereon, covered by Tax No. 10765-C. Their
complaint alleged that Singson owned one-half pro-indiviso of said
property and that Consolacion Florentino owned the other half by
virtue of the provisions of the duly probated last will of Da. Leona
Singson, the original owner, and the project of partition submitted to,
and approved by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur in special
Proceeding No. 453; that plaintiffs had made demands for the
partition of said property, but defendant refused to accede thereto,
thus compelling them to bring action. It is admitted that Da. Leona
Singson, who died single on January 13, 1948, was the owner of the
property in question at the time of her death. On July 31, 1951 she
executed her last will which was admitted to probate in Special
Proceeding No. 453 of the lower court whose decision was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals in G.R. No. 3605-R. At the time of the execution
of the will, her nearest living relatives were her brothers Evaristo,
Manuel and Dionisio Singson, her nieces Rosario, Emilia and
Trinidad, and her grandniece Consolation, all surnamed Florentino.
The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs.Defendant appealed.

Issue of the Case:

 Whether or not the testamentary disposition provided for what
is called substitucion vulgar or for a sustitucion fideicomisaria.

Ruling of the Case:

The last will of the deceased Da. Leona Singson, established a mere
sustitucion vulgar, the substitution Consolacion Florentino by the
brothers of the testatrix to be effective or to take place upon the death
of the former, whether it happens before or after that of the
testatrix.The substitution of heirs provided for in the will is not
expressly made of the fideicommissary kind, nor does it contain a
clear statement to the effect that appellee, during her lifetime, shall
only enjoy usufructuary rights over the property bequeathed to her,
naked ownership thereof being vested in the brothers of the testatrix.
As already stated, it merely provides that upon appellee's death
whether this happens before or after that of the testatrix her share
shall belong to the brothers of the testatrix.The appealed judgment is
affirmed, with costs.