JOHNNY S.

RABADILLA, petitioner
Vs.
Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 113725 June 29, 2000
PURISIMA, J:.

FACTS:
In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of the deceased
Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in-interest of the herein
petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of a big tract of
land. The Codicil, was duly probated and contained in substance, among
others; that as a condition of the devise, Dr. Rabadilla shall have the
obligation until he dies to deliver (one hundred) 100 piculs of sugar (75
export sugar and 25 domestic sugar) to Maria Marlinna Belleza, sister of the
deceased; should Dr. Rabadilla die, his heir who shall inherit the subject
land shall also oblige to the annual delivery; that should the wish of the
deceased be not respected, Maria Marlinna Belleza shall immediately seize
the subject lot and deliver the same to the nearest descendant of the deceased
who shall also have the same obligation to deliver the 100 sacks of sugar to
Belleza.
Dr. Rabadilla died in 1983.

On August 21, 1989, Belleza brought a complaint against the heirs of

Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, alleging violation of the conditions of the Codicil, more
specifically their failure to comply with their obligation to deliver 100 piculs
of sugar to plaintiff Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza from sugar crop
years 1985 up to the filing despite repeated demands for compliance. She
prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendant-heirs to reconvey /
return the lot to the surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza.
Belleza and Alan Azurin, son-in-law of the herein petitioner who was
lessee of the property and acting as attorney-in-fact of defendant-heirs,
arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement with respect to the annual delivery of the one hundred piculs of
sugar. However, there was no compliance with the aforesaid agreement
except for a partial delivery of 50.80 piculs of sugar corresponding to sugar
crop year 1988 -1989.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject property should revert back to the estate of
the testatrix Aleja Belleza as provided for in the codicil of her last will and
testament.
HELD:
Yes. 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 obligation of the lessee; that petitioner is deemed to have made a
substantial and constructive compliance of his 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 fulfilment of the obligation under the amicable
settlement and not the seizure of subject property.
Suffice it to state that a Will is a personal, solemn, revocable and free
act by which a person disposes of his property, to take effect after his
death. Since the Will expresses the manner in which a person intends how
his properties be disposed, the wishes and desires of the testator must be
strictly followed. Thus, a Will cannot be the subject of a compromise
agreement which would thereby defeat the very purpose of making a Will.