MARIA GERVACIO BLAS, MANUEL GERVACIO BLAS, ETC, plaintiffs- ISSUE: Whether or not the heirs can acquire
the heirs can acquire the properties that Maxima
appellants,
vs. ROSALINA SANTOS, in her capacity as Special Administratrix of
the Estate of the deceased MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS,
defendants-appellants.
This action was instituted by plaintiffs against the administration of the
estate of Maxima Santos, to secure a judicial declaration that one-half of the
properties left by Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas had been promised by her to
be delivered upon her death and in her will to the plaintiffs, and requesting
that the said properties so promised be adjudicated to the plaintiffs.
Simeon Blas contracted a first marriage with Marta Cruz sometime before
1898. They had three children, only one of whom, Eulalio, left children. One
year after Marta Cruz died, Blas married Maxima Santos but they don’t have
children and the properties that he and his former wife acquired during the
first marriage were not liquidated. Simeon Blas executed a will disposing half
of his properties in favor of Maxima the other half for payment of debts, Blas
also named a few devisees and legatees therein. In lieu of this, Maxima
executed a document whereby she intimated that she understands the will
of her husband; that she promises that she’ll be giving, upon her death, one-
half of the properties she’ll be acquiring to the heirs and legatees named in
the will of his husband; that she can select or choose any of them depending
upon the respect, service, and treatment accorded to her by said heirs. On
1937 Simeon Blas died while Maxima died on 1956 and Rosalina Santos
became administrator of her estate. In the same year, Maria Gervacio Blas,
child of Simeon Blas in his first marriage, together with three other
grandchildren of Simeon Blas (heirs of Simeon Blas), learned that Maxima
did not fulfill her promise as it was learned that Maxima only disposed not
even one-tenth of the properties she acquired from Simeon Blas. The heirs
are now contending that they did not partition Simeon Blas’ property
precisely because Maxima promised that they’ll be receiving properties upon
her death.
Defendants-appellees, claim that it is neither a trust agreement nor a
compromise a agreement. Considering that the properties of the first
marriage had not been liquidated when Simeon Blas executed his will and
that future inheritance cannot be the subject of a contract.
Plaintiffs-appellants argue before us that Exhibit "A" (MAUNAWA NG SINO
MANG MAKABABASA) is both a trust agreement and a contract in the nature
of a compromise to avoid litigation.
promised with them.
HELD: Yes, they can acquire the properties that Maxima promised with them
because it was stated in Art. 1347 that “No contract may be entered into
upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law.”. In this
case the contract was authorized by law because the promised made by
Maxima to their heirs before she died is a valid reason and it should be
enforceable upon her death and her heirs can now acquire the succession of
the properties in issue.
Counsel for the defendant-appellee claims Exhibit "A" is a worthless piece of
paper because it is not a will nor a donation mortis causa nor a contract. As
we have in indicated above, it is a compromise and at the same time a
contract with a sufficient cause or consideration. It is also contended that it
deals with future inheritance. We do not think that Exhibit "A" is a contract
on future inheritance. it is an obligation or promise made by the maker to
transmit one-half of her share in the conjugal properties acquired with her
husband, which properties are stated or declared to be conjugal properties
in the will of the husband. The conjugal properties were in existence at the
time of the execution of Exhibit "A" on December 26, 1936. As a matter of
fact, Maxima Santos included these properties in her inventory of her
husband's estate of June 2, 1937. The promise does not refer to any
properties that the maker would inherit upon the death of her husband,
because it is her share in the conjugal assets. That the kind of agreement or
promise contained in Exhibit "A" is not void under Article 1271 of the old Civil
Code.
It will be noted that what is prohibited to be the subject matter of a contract
under Article 1271 of the Civil Code is " future inheritance." To
us future inheritance is any property or right not in existence or capable of
determination at the time of the contract, that a person may in the future
acquire by succession. The properties subject of the contract Exhibit "A" are
well defined properties, existing at the time of the agreement, which Simeon
Blas declares in his statement as belonging to his wife as her share in the
conjugal partnership. Certainly his wife's actual share in the conjugal
properties may not be considered as future inheritance because they were
actually in existence at the time Exhibit "A" was executed.
The trial court held that the plaintiffs-appellants in the case at bar are
concluded by the judgement rendered in the proceedings for the settlement
of the estate of Simeon Blas for the reason that the properties left by him
belonged to himself and his wife Maxima Santos, Maxima Santos having
become absolute owner of the said properties adjudicated in her favor. As
already adverted to above, these contentions would be correct if applied to
the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants that said properties were acquired with
the first wife of Simeon Blas, Marta Cruz. But the main ground upon which
plaintiffs base their present action is the document Exhibit "A". As this
private document contains the express promise made by Maxima Santos to
convey in her testament, upon her death, one-half of the conjugal properties
she would receive as her share in the conjugal properties, the action to
enforce the said promise did not arise until and after her death when it was
found that she did not comply with her above-mentioned promise.

It may be added that plaintiffs-appellants did not question the validity of the
project of partition precisely because of the promise made by Maxima Santos
in the compromise Exhibit "A"; they acquised in the approval of said project
of partition because they were relying on the promise made by Maxima
Santos in Exhibit "A", that she would transmit one-half of the conjugal
properties that she was going to receive as her share in the conjugal
partnership upon her death and in her will, to the heirs and legatees of her
husband Simeon Blas.

It is evident from a consideration of the above figures and facts that Maxima
Santos did not comply with her obligation to devise one-half of her conjugal
properties to the heirs and legatees of her husband. She does not state that
she had complied with such obligation in her will. If she intended to comply
therewith by giving some of the heirs of Simeon Blas the properties
mentioned above, the most that can be considered in her favor is to deduct
the value of said properties from the total amount of properties which she
had undertaken to convey upon her death.