Morete vs.

De La Santa
GR No. L-3891, 19DEC1907
Willard, J.:

Nature of the Case:

This is an ordinary appeal by certiorari, from the decision of the CFI, ruling in favor of the husband in a
petition filed by the sister of deceased, to annul the will in view of the second marraige by the husband.

Facts of the Case:

The will of Consuelo Morente provides that (1) All her real estate shall pass to her husband, Gumersindo de la
Santa. (2) He shall not marry anyone.

Four months after the death, husband contracted a subsequent marriage. The sister of the testatrix, filed a
petition to the propate of the will pending in the CFI, Tayabas, alleging the second marraige of the husband
and asked that the legacy be annulled. - CFI denied petition, the sister appealed.

Issue of the Case:

Whether the will should be annulled in view of the second marriage.

Ruling of the Court:

NO. It is nowhere expressly mentioned in the will that if the husband remarries, he shall lose the legacy given
to him.

There being no express condition attached with respect to the second marriage, we cannot imply any
condition from the context of the will. The phrase " shall not remarry anyone" was a mere declaration
without a statement as to the consequence.

Art. 797, in order to make a testamentary provision conditional, such condition must fairly appear from the
language used in the will.

Therefore, the husband' second marriage, did not give rise to an action for the annulment of the will.

Judgment of CFI, denying the petition, AFFIRMED.

 Baluyut vs. Pano, et al.
GR No. L-42088, 07MAY1976
Aquino, J.:

Nature of the Case:

This is a petition for certiorari, from the decision of the CFI, appointing Encarnacion(widow) as the regular
administratrix.

Facts of the Case:

Sotero Baluyut died on 06JAN1975, his nephew, Alfredo, filed in CFI a petition for letters of
administration. Alleging that the widow is mentally incapable as administratrix, praying he be appointed
as such, which was granted, with a bond of 100k. -

The widow allleged that she was unaware her husband executed a will, that the allegation of her being
mentally incapable was libelous and wanted to be appointed as administratrix.

The lower court cancelled alfredo's appointment. The court also found that the widow "is healthy and
mentally qualified".

Alfredo, filed MR, CFI appointed him and Espino (alleged acknowledged natural son of deceased) as
special administrators.

The widow filed an urgetn motion to be administratrix. Alfredo opposed, saying that the widow was
declared incompetent by the Juvenile and domestic Relations Court.

At the hearing of the widow's urgent motion, no oral and documentary evidence was presented. She was
merely asked questions and she answered. - The court appointed her regular administratrix. Alfredo filed
a certiorari case...

Issue of the case:

Whether the lower court erred in appointing the widow as administratrix.

Ruling of the Court:

YES. A hearing has to be held in order to ascertain fitness to act as executor, even if a person has been
designated as such in the will. Such designation does not automatically entitle him to the issuance of
letters testamentary.
The court did not give Alfredo a chance to contest the qualifications of the widow. He was the one who
had raised the issue as to her competency. The probate court had wrongly assumed that he had no
interest in the estate, as it has turned out, he is one of the legatees named in the will.

It is imperative that a hearing be held to determine the widow's fitness to act as executor or
administratrix. Persons questioning her capacity should be given an adequate opportunity to be heard
and to present evidence. (Other courts findings on persons' competence is also not binding on the
probate court)

Order appointing the widow, SET ASIDE.

Aranas vs. Aranas

GR No. L-56249, 29MAY1987
Paras, J.:

Nature of the Case:

This is a petition for certiorari which seeks to declare the orders of respondent Judge as an exercise of a gross
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, by ruling that the properties under Group C of the
testate estate of the late Fr.Teodoro Aranas are subject to remunerative legacies.

Facts of the Case:

Fr. Aranas left a will which was admitted to probate in 1956. The will provides that :

a.The remainder of the estate will be under the special administration of Vincente, his nephew, until his
death or until he resigns;

b. That the sons of his brother Carmelo can hold said office of special administrator, and none other than
them, if the nephew dies or resigns;

c. The special adminstration is PERPETUAL and;

d. That the nephew will receive 1/2 of the produce of said properties and the other 1/2 to be given to
the catholic church.
 The lower court ruled thath the perpetual inalienability and administration by the Nephew is
NULL and VOID after 20 years. The nephew moved o reconsider, alleging that said order was violative of
due process because only the issue for the removal of administrator was heard. Thus, the court set aside
its earlier order.

Issue of the Case:

Whether the testamentary dispositions (right of usufructuary and right to hold as special
administrator) is null and void for being perpetual, that is more than 20 years.

Ruling of the Court:

NO. The court ruled in its questioned order that this particular group of properties is subject to
the following:

1. Remunerative legacy by way of usufruct of the net proceeds of 1/2 of the estate after deducting
expenses for administration in favor of the nephew, during his lifetime and shall ocntinue as such, and
who, upon his death or refusal to continue such usufruct, may be suceeded by any of the brothers of the
administrator as selected by their father, Carmelo, if still alive or one selected by his son, if he, Carmelo, is
dead; pursuant to the will.

2. Legacy in favor of the Roman Catholic Church, and to last for a period of 50 years from the effective
date of legacy,

Assailing the aforementioned ruling, petitioners rely heavily on the doctrine laid down in Art.
870, NCC to wit: The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the esate inalienable for more
than 20 years are VOID.

A cursory reading of the English translation of the last will and testament shows that it was the
sincere intention and desire of the testator to reward his nephew Vincent, by allowing him to enjoy 1/2
of the fruits of the testator's third group of properties until the nephew's death and/or refusal in which
case he administration shall pass to anyone chosen by carmelo among his sins and upon Carmelo's
death, his sons will have the power to select one among themselves. The nephew therefore as a
usufructuary has the rigt to enjoy the property, with bligation to return, at the designated time.

This right of Vicente to enjoy the fruits of the properties is temporary and therefore not
perpetual as there is a limitation namely his death or his refusal. That the provisio must be respected
and be given effect until the death or until the refusal to act as such of the instituted
usufructuary/administrator, afterwhich period, the property can be disposed of, subjecy to the
limitations provided in Art. 863 Civil code, the artical says: A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of
which the fiduciary or first hear instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to
a second heir the whole or part of the inheritance, shall be valid and shall take effect, provided that such
substitution does not gp beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted and provided further, that
the fiduciary r firstheir and the second heord are lving at the time of the death of testator.

Edroso vs. Sablan

GR No. 6878, 13SEPT1913
Arrellano, C.J.:

Nature of the Case:

Facts of the Case :

Edroso was married to Sablan until his death, they had a son, Pedro who, at his father's death
inherited 2 parcels of land. Later on, Pedro died, unmarried and by this decease the 2 parcels passed
through inheritance to his Mother, Edroso. Hence the hereditary title whereupon is based the
application for registration of her ownership.

The 2 brothers of Sablan, appeared to oppose the registration, claiming either the registration be
denied or that if granted to her the right reserved by law to opponents be recorded in the registration of
each parcel. Court of Land Registration denied the registration, because the parcels of land in question
partake of the nature of property required by law to be reserved and that in such a case application
could only be presented jointly in the names of the monther and said two brothers/uncles of Pedro,
which was denied by the mother, Edroso.

Edroso's Contention
The admitted facts are: Edroso acquired said lands from her descendant, Pedro. Pedro acquired the same
from his ascendant, Sablan. Sablan acquired the same from his ascendants, Parents. -- The ascendant
who inherits from his descendant property which the latter acquired without valuable consideration
from another ascendant, or from a brother o sister, is under obligation to reserve what he has acquired
by operation of law for the relatives who are within the 3rd degree and belong to the line whence the
property proceeded (Civil code Art. 811)

However, it is not superflous to say, that the applicant inherited the lands from her son. The trial
court so held as a conclusion of fact, without any objection on Edroso's part. When the son died, his
mother became his heir by virtue of her right to her son's legal portion under Art. 935. - In the absence
of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased, his ascendants shall from him, to the exclusion
of collaterals.
 However, the case presents no testamentary provision. The legal presumption is that the
transder of the lands was abintestate or by operation of law, and not by a will. All the provision of art.
811 of the Civil Code have been therefre fully complied with.

Issue of the Case:

Ruling of the Court: