PARISH PRIEST OF VICTORIA V.

RIGOR [89 SCRA 493]

DOCTRINE:
- In order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens, except in case of
representation, when it is proper.
FACTS:
Father Rigor, the parish priest of Pulilan, Bulacan, died on August 9, 1935, leaving a will executed on October 29, 1933 which was probated by
the Court of First Instance of Tarlac in its order of December 5, 1935. In addition to the devices contained therein, the will had a provision to the
effect that the testator intended to devise the ricelands to his nearest male relative who would become a priest. It was stated therein that the
parish priest of Victoria would administer the ricelands only in two situations: one, during the interval of time that no nearest male relative of
the testator was studying for the priesthood and two, in case the testator's nephew became a priest and he was excommunicated. In other
words, Father Pascual Rigor devised forty-four hectares of ricelands to his nearest male relatives who would study priesthood and provided that
the administration of the ricelands would be under the responsibility of the parish priest of Victoria during the time that there is no qualified
devisee as contemplated in the will. The parish priest of Victoria petitioned for the delivery of the Riceland to the church since no nearest male
relative is available. The lower court, after declaring the bequest inoperative, later reconsidered its findings on the ground that the testator had
a grandnephew (born after the testators death), who was a seminarian, and directed the administrator of the estate to deliver the ricelands to
the parish priest of Victoria as trustee.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a device in favour of a person whose identity at the time of the testator’s death cannot be ascertained, may be efficacious.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court held that the said bequest or will refers to the testator's nearest male relative living at the time of his death and not to
any indefinite time thereafter. "In order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession
opens, except in case of representation, when it is proper" (Art. 1025, Civil Code). , because in order to be capacitated to inherit, the devisee
must be living at the moment the succession opens, except in case of representation, when it is proper.

The said testamentary provisions should be sensibly or reasonably construed. To construe them as referring to the testator's nearest male
relative at anytime after his death would render the provisions difficult to apply and create uncertainty as to the disposition of his estate. That
could not have been his intention.

The reasonable view is that he was referring to a situation whereby his nephew living at the time of his death, who would like to become a
priest, was still in grade school or in high school or was not yet in the seminary. In that case, the parish priest of Victoria would administer the
ricelands before the nephew entered the seminary. But the moment the testator's nephew entered the seminary, then he would be entitled to
enjoy and administer the ricelands and receive the fruits thereof. In that event, the trusteeship would be terminated.

Following that interpretation of the will the inquiry would be whether at the time Father Rigor died in 1935 he had a nephew who was studying
for the priesthood or who had manifested his desire to follow the ecclesiastical career. That query is categorically answered in paragraph 4 of
appellant priest's petitions of February 19, 1954 and January 31, 1957. He unequivocally alleged therein that "not male relative of the late
(Father) Pascual Rigor has ever studied for the priesthood."

Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest, the unavoidable conclusion is that the bequest in question was
ineffectual or inoperative. Therefore, the administration of the ricelands by the parish priest of Victoria, as envisaged in the wilt was likewise
inoperative.

It should be understood that the parish priest of Victoria could become a trustee only when the testator's nephew living at the time of his
death, who desired to become a priest, had not yet entered the seminary or, having been ordained a priest, he was excommunicated. Those
two contingencies did not arise, and could not have arisen in this case because no nephew of the testator manifested any intention to enter the
seminary or ever became a priest.

The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that this case is covered by article 888 of the old Civil Code, now article 956, which provides that if "the
bequest for any reason should be inoperative, it shall be merged into the estate, except in cases of substitution and those in which the right of
accretion exists."

This case is also covered by article 912(2) of the old Civil Code, now article 960 (2), which provides that legal succession takes place when the
will "does not dispose of all that belongs to the testator." There being no substitution nor accretion as to the said ricelands the same should be
distributed among the testator's legal heirs. The effect is as if the testator had made no disposition as to the said ricelands.

Facts: Father Rigor, the parish priest of Pullilan, Bulacan, died on August 9, 1933 which was probated by the CFI of Tarlac. In his will, he named as devisees, his nearest relatives, his three
sisters and his cousin. In addition the will contained the following controversial request to his nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood.

The heirs of Father Rigor, prayed that the bequest declared inoperative and that they be adjudged as the persons entitled to said rice lands since no nearest male relatives of the testator
has ever studied for the priesthood.

Issue: whether the bequest to a nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood could be operative despite no male relative ever studied for the priesthood.

Held: The Court held that the bequest refers to the testator’s nearest male relative living at the time of his death and not to any indefinite time thereafter. “In order to be capacitated to
inherit, the heir or legatees must be living at the moment the succession opens, except in case of representation when it is proper (Article 1025,CC). To construe them as referring to the
nearest male relative at anytime after his death would “render the provisions difficult to apply and create uncertainty as to the disposition of his estate.”